Income tax is a user fee for Federal Reserve Notes! >> Here's how to opt-out!

Good luck with that.

An idiot clapping for an idiot citing a case that had an idiot demanding a 50 $ FRN be redeemed (which the court agreed he had the right to redeem) for gold or silver coin.

Not a case even about income tax, nor about the Constitution, never did I claim the US treasury could not print US NOTES (which is the older case the court cited) nor that US notes were not or are not lawful money.

Yet the fool keeps claiming the "courts" have ruled on the question of redeemed money being "taxable income" which the courts have NEVER RULED ON.

He AC who posted they have is a flat out LIAR. No person demanding redemption for lawful money per 12 USC 411 has EVER been to court for any tax related issue, the question has NEVER been answered by the courts. EVER.

He is a lair and the cases he presents are not the correct subject matter nor question nor argument.

Read the cases cited yourself before you agree with him.

Good luck with your voluntary servitude, it becomes you.

I've been curious about this for some time now. If I enter into an agreement, to perform a service in exchange for cash, & I am taxed, are they not taxing my physical & mental abilities? If I use said money for living expenses & have not made(earned) any money from investments in the stock market or rental property, then what are they taxing, if not physical & mental abilities? I guess it all must come down to what THEY decided that the legal definition of "earned" is.

An interesting and valid observation.

Rethink money; split the functions; reinvent money; retake your freedom:

Thread: Get rid of the money system, then get rid of goverrments

Appellant is entitled to redeem his note, but not in precious metal. Simply stated, we find his contentions frivolous."Milam v. United States, 524 F. 2d 629 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1974

Read it again, liar. "Appellant is ENTITLED TO REDEEM HIS NOTE BUT NOT IN PRECIOUS METALS..."

You keep posting the same LIE and stating it is me who is in la la land when you clearly are a liar.

Entitled to redeem for what? LAWFUL MONEY but NOT gold or silver.

Your attempts to turn this into a gold and silver coin issue and hide the FACT that there are US notes still "in circulation" and that FRNs are not lawful money as issued is obvious.

You have failed, again to show any law that defines FRNs as lawful money as issued, they are a LEGAL TENDER.

The contract is the signature card and or the endorsement on every check or deposit. Keep it up fool, and get some glasses, or better yet, open your eyes.

Without a demand for lawful money redemption, the CASH you receive is not yours, nor did it belong to the person who tendered it to you.

Ownership is important to understand, read title 12 411 again, FRNs are not supposed to be used by you for ANY AUTHORIZED REASON.

In fact, the unauthorized use of another's private property is unlawful. Demand your redemption, use the NOTE on the right side of the dead president, you know, the one with the GOLD AND SILVER ink in the lower right corner. And stop using federal reserve private property.

The demand for lawful money restricted endorsement is the key.

Title 12 USC 411 has not been repealed, nor has the redemption part of been deleted. FRNs as issued are ONLY for making advances (debt) to federal reserve banks BY authorized agents.

Yes, FRNS are a part of the US debt currency fiat system, yes in a maritime commercial jurisdiction court they can be "lawful money" depending on the subject matter and controversy between parties who endorse Federal reserve debt.

But they are, as issued "A LEGAL TENDER" legal tender is not always lawful money but all lawful money is legal tender. Color of law vs. law of the land. Maritime/admiralty/commercial law and the right you have to CONTRACT and restrict your endorsements all come into play.

The AC who keeps posting verdicts from maritime commercial courts of admiralty jurisdiction then claiming those court OPINIONS somehow transcend into the all jurisdictions is a flat out LIAR.

The subject matter and jurisdiction of any case are subjects he either knows nothing about or he is purposely lying to support his standing.

Jurisprudence and jurisdiction learn about them before you listen to the lair and FED shill who is only here to deceive.

Yet instead of taking this matter to court to get a ruling on it, you continue to post this nonsense all over the web where you can never back your claims and your theories and opinion continually get destroyed. If you were so sure of yourself you would take it to court and prove us all wrong, but you never do, instead you post this on GLP ever few weeks trying to lead the gullible sheep that pollute this site into your fantasy land. That fact that the courts have never ruled on it, means you are basically admitting that you are citing yourself as a legal opinion.

1 Post the law/court case that states that the income tax is a user fee for FRN's

If FRN's were redeemable for anything else it would state so on the note, just like it did before 1933.

1913 FRN image
[link to www.businesscreditcards.com]

quote from the bottom of the note:
"It is redeemable in Gold on demand at the treasury department of the United States in the city of Washington, District of Columbia or in gold or Lawful Money At any Federal Reserve Bank."

Present FRN's don't describe anything on the note saying it can be redeemed for anything, so you can't cite yourself in order to prove your useless claim.

If it's not a useless claim, take it to court and prove us wrong and I can't wait for your response telling us how corrupt the courts are.

rken here, good on ya bro. Few will believe what your posting but can't say you didn't try.

There were literally thousands of different legal tender demand notes from private banks, stores and businesses, the method of redemption was not always posted directly on the notes.

Even the southern states issued notes during the civil war, the fact that one series of notes where redeemable directly into gold coin or silver coin like the one you linked means nothing. In fact, 12 USC 411 once spelled out the exact same thing, but the redemption in gold or silver was removed and the current verbiage "in lawful money" stands.

You are an idiot, FRNs are redeemable UPON Demand for lawful money. Just because you are too ignorant to know what lawful money hey are redeemed in does not mean I don't.

Now, dumb ass, since I demand lawful money and use US notes, how exactly can I file a case? Who would I file it against? My NOTES Are redeemed upon demand, there is no injured party, I have no standing to file a case against anyone or anything.

The ignorance is repulsive. You have zero understanding of how the court system works, argue from ignorance, it does not work.

rken, hope all is well, we are here for the few, the masses will never get it because they have no eyes to see nor ears to hear. Narrow is the gate and the path. The herd animals do not like the truth and that is their role, to be feed for their overlords.

I am not discouraged, one person might read this and be redeemed, the dead will continue to bury themselves, nothing new.

Keep up the Good Work !



PS (Karl Marx wears women's underwear)

Ah, now I see your confusion. You're indicating that the US obligation to pay the holder of the FRN somehow creates an obligation on the part of the holder.

You're obviously wrong. The holder has no obligations. The holder of the FRN, like the holder of any debt instrument, is the one who gets paid.

Further, you've indicated that *all* law requires contract.

You're obviously wrong.

Contract is not the basis of taxation. Nor does asking for 'lawful money' magically make you immune from taxation. No law states affirms your claim. No court has ever recognized it as valid.

You're not citing the law or the courts. You're citing you.

And you are not enough.

Care to read this part of Milan?



The court affirmed the US 'redeeming' Milan's Federal Reserve Notes with more Federal Reserve Notes.

Instantly killing your entire argument.

But it gets so much worse. You've said that FRNs are unconstitutional. The courts obliterated that argument in Milan as well, recognizing that the Federal Reserve had been delegated with the authority of congress by congress.




And as for Rickmann.....the courts have stated, in plain english, that they reject the premise that FRN's aren't lawful money.



You say that legal tender is different from lawful money. The courts contradict you. And in a contest between you and the courts on legal definitions....you lose.

There isn't anything you got right.

FRN are lawful money, per the courts. FRNs can be redeemed for other FRNs, per the courts. And FRNs are constitutional, per the courts.

Strike 1, 2 and 3 for your argument.

And of course, there's *nothing* in any ruling or federal law that indicates that by demanding 'lawful money', you suddenly have to pay taxes.

You imagined that. And have only you citing yourself to back it up.

Why do you worhship men in dresses ?

Ah, the decent into ad hominem...the surest sign of a failing argument. The courts have found the FRN's are lawful money. That there is no distinction between 'legal tender' and 'lawful money'.

In Milan v. US, Milan was offered an equivalent value of FRNs for his FRNs. The court upheld this exchange and rejected Milan's claim that he was entitled to anything else.




You have no right to 'US Notes'. When FRNs were first issued in 1913, they had only one role: as a short term lending tool to other banks. In 1933, that role was *vastly* expanded, with FRNs becoming currency for any debt or obligation. And at the same time ended the redemption of US notes for gold and silver. Eliminating any fuctional difference between the two.

The US government doesn't even issue US Notes anymore and hasn't for an entire generation. They're not even obligated to hold US Notes since the mid-90s, having long since destroyed their entire stockpile.

As the courts have upheld, FRNs are lawful money. If you demand that they be 'redeemed', you'll get more FRNs.

Exactly as Milan did.Which the courts upheld as valid.



Refusing to accept whatever nonsense you make up isn't 'ignorance'. As you aren't a legal authority. Legally, you're nobody. And your opinion on what the law 'oughta' mean is legally meaningless.

If you believe that demanding lawful money makes you exempt from taxation....show us the law or a court ruling saying this.

You can't...as you're only quoting yourself. And you citing you isn't enough.

Lol .. this cat is funny ...

No right to US Notes ...

ROTF !

I can go spend a $5 US Note right now .... for face value ...

or get $12 FRN's for it ... if its in mint condition ...


But no there isn't two currency systems cause my judge wears a dress ... and they tip me in federal reserve notes ...

^^ this person knows what they are talking about

Opt out go to jail = not smart just ask Wesley Snipes!

Nope. No right to US notes. There's not a single mention of the right to redeem FRNs for US Notes in any law or court ruling.

The US doesn't even have any US Notes to exchange. Nor had it issued any since about 1970. It destroyed its last remaining stockpile in 96.

If you demand your FRN's be 'redeemed' for lawful money, you'll get more FRNs. As FRNs have been 'lawful money' since they went into common circulation in the mid 30s. The courts recognize no distinction between 'legal tender' and 'lawful money'. And have accepted the exchange of FRNs for more FRNs under Title 12 as a valid.

And of course, there's the elephant in the living room.

The claim that demanding 'lawful money' somehow makes you immune from taxation. Its nonsense. There is no such immunity. There is no such connection. No law states as much. And no court has ever ruled that such immunity exists.

Its a completely imaginary claim, pulled whole from nothing, backed by nothing.

But hey, if you believe otherwise, show me the law or court ruling that indicates that demanding 'lawful money' makes you exempt from taxation.

I'm all ears.

Pretty much. There's always gonna be a huckster telling you that they've found some 'secret loophole' that makes them immune from taxation.

I've never seen one that worked. As virtually *every* such argument is based on the assumption that whatever the huckster imagines is legally binding.

It isn't.

how can there be a court ruling if there is no standing for someone to file a claim? I notice that you haven't pulled any court rulings for the exact method stated. Is that because there has never been anyone taken to court for using the exact method mentioned?

Title 12 need not be repealed. More uses were authorized later, in 1933 in Title 31:



There's your authorization. And its been that way since 1933. You're argument hasn't worked since before color television.



All your 'maritime commercial jurisdiction' claims are nonsense. The courts have never recognized it as the basis for jurisdiction over cases, nor does the law.

Jurisdiction is established by geography. If you're in Maryland, the laws of Maryland apply to you. Its as simple as that. All your 'maritime' nonsense is meaningless twaddle that isn't recognized in any court of law as the basis of jurisdiction.

FRNs are recognized by the courts as lawful money. By the federal judiary. Not some imagined 'maritime commerical court'. If you believe that the ruling was made under 'maritime' law, quote the ruling indicating as much.

You can't. You imagined it. And your imagination is legally irrelevant.



That's what you say. THis is what the courts say:




The court finds no distinction between 'legal tender' and 'lawful money'. Recognizing that FRNs are lawful money. And upholding an exchange of FRNs for FRNs under Title 12.

You say one thing. The courts say another.

The courts wins every time




Says you citing you. Which is meaningless. Quote the law or the rulings indicating that the jursidiction of the courts is established by maritine commerical law.

You can't...because neither the law nor the courts recognize your imagination as valid. That *you* believe that something falls under maritime law doesn't mean at thing.

Show us, don't tell us.



I keep posting rulings from the federal judiciary. You simply ignore them because you *say* that they are maritime law.

Citing yourself. And you're nobody. You don't define jurisdiction, legal definitions, anything.

The federal judiciary on the other hand is authoriative. And they contradict you explicitly and repeatedly.

Where the only thing backing your claims is you typing them. Which is meaningless.


More accurately, I reject the idea that you define either jurisprudence or jurisdiction. Your argument requires that we accept you as doing both. You don't for either. Making your argument invalid.

If you believe that all of the rulings that contradict you are under 'maritime' law, show us the law and the courts recognizing this.

But you citing yourself? Worthless. As you are not a legal authority. Even if you imagine that you are one.

Two fold. First, there's no law that indicates you have a right to US Notes. Nor have the courts ever recognized such a right.

Title 12 allows for the exchange of FRNs for 'lawful money'. Which, since 1933, the FRN has been. The courts recognize that the FRN is lawful money.

Second, the courts have accepted an exchange of FRN for FRNs under title 12 as valid.

So to summarize: nothing indicates you have a right to US Notes. And the courts have affirmed that FRNs redeemed for FRNs is valid under Title 12.

And of course, *nothing* even *hints* that demanding 'lawful money' exempts you from federal taxation. No law says this. No court ruling recognizes this.

Its completely imaginary, backed by nothing. And thus legally irrelevant.

Whatever dog. The US Note is in my hand right now.

Your statutes don't really mean anything now do they ?


Power weakens those who do not have it.

Two fold nothing ...

The US Note is in my hand ... It is not subject to your fantasies of man worship.

Go ahead and go call your man in the dress and find another statute... go on

Please don't tell me you make a living doing this ... More likely you make a killing ...