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

In Ron Paul's world, the US is on the gold sdaatnrd, which means that to him, there is little difference between the US and Greece. Note that thanks to Milton Friedman, from a political accounting perspective, the US is on a sort of gold sdaatnrd, and so there is something to what Ron Paul is saying. Perhaps they would have liked to share a room in the same asylum.I find Bernanke to be a curious sort. On the on hand, there is hardly a question that he can be asked where he cannot roll out some pertenant facts. On the other, he seems to be unable to combine this wealth of facts in ways he is not familiar with, hence his deer in the headlights over MMT, for which he almost certainly has all the facts he needs.I did however love his not printing money answer to Duffy. He's clearly blowing smoke up Duffy's posterior by deliberately giving an answer over Duffy's head. Much like a cat playing with a doomed mouse before tossing it aside from boredom. As for Ron Paul having kittens , that should be reported to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. After all, he was having son once, and look at how badly that turned out.

Bump for the sheer greatness!

Thanks. more and more people are getting on board. Bummp

12 USC 411 says redemption is to occur at the US treasury in washington DC OR a federal reserve bank. I think this refers to one of the 12 federal reserve branches, not your local shit-mart branch.

the fed is THE central bank, not chase or BoA.

And that it does....redemption that is.

However, your demand is made at the local banks....all extensions of the FedRes system

All most all banks are backed by the the fed. memebers of FDIC. So in essence if they were not fed banks according to the statute they could not handle FRN's therefore you local band can be used to redeem lawful money. sk

I think there are assumptions being made here which the evidence does not support.

My understanding is that the commercial banks (chase, BoA, citibank) are COMMERCIAL banks...ie banks operated for profit. The fed reserve banks (12 regional banks and DC) are NOT. They are created by congressional law, a law which gave the fed exclusive monopoly power to create and regulate the paper currency in the US.

so the fed banks operate under congressional law to create and regulate the money supply and commercial banks operate to lend money at interest and provide various financial services.

These are separate and distinct functions! One cannot go to a federal reserve bank and do what the commercial banks do...similarly, I would expect one could not go to a commercial bank and do what the federal reserve banks do. It is illogical...not to mention that 12usc411 is EXTREMELY clear what one must do to redeem frns into lawful currency.

I believe commercial banks operate under a charter or license agreement...much like a franchise. Imagine a mcdonalds. Their corporate headquarters will grant a license to operate a mcdonalds franchise, for a fee, but the franchisee MUST operate exactly how mcdonalds dictates....right down to what supplies the location uses.

What you propose sounds like someone going into their local store and negotiating with the store manager to buy their own franchise. The store owner would probably say he couldnt do that, or he might not know what you were talking about, or might say he wasnt allowed to do that....the same range of answers posters on here have been reporting.

I think this thread is honest but misguided. The system functions not on good intent, but actually following the exact strictures of the law. Obviously it would be set up to make redemption as inconvenient as possible since frn's are intended to be the dominant operating system.

I believe redemption is possible, but I believe there is a very specific process which is not being followed here...as is CLEARLY STATED in 12 usc411.

Finally, redemption cannot occur, by statute, in gold or silver. That would leave only us mint coins which are also legal tender. Since the largest denomination is $1, one would receive exchange in coins, which are not lawful under constitutional law since there is no gold or silver content.
I believe THIS is where the legal challenge would lay.

So, if one were to follow the correct procedure to the letter, and overcome the various obstacles, one would be rewarded with $1 us mint coins...which could also be accomplished without the middleman. Therefore, remedy (or redemption) is already at hand through the commercial bank franchises as one could cash a check, for example, and demand that check be paid in lawful money (ie, us mint coins). Immediate redemption/remedy available, but NOT through CODE, endorsements or other things proposed on here.

Go ahead and transact all of your business using us mint coins and have your receipts marked PAID via $1 us coin. I believe this method would actually EXTINGUISH the debt, as opposed to merely discharging the debt, as frns do.

I believe this is why the $1 coin exists. A strong argument could be made that if the mint only issued fractional coinage that an undue burden existed. The minimum unit of financial measure in this country is the dollar, thus a dollar coin needs to exist. There used to be large denomination currency in the us...up to 100,000 bill which have been removed because such large denomination bearer bills allowed large value transactions to occur outside of the banking system. Now the largest bill is $100 for the same reasons.

Another non-code remedy is using postal money orders. Paying for transactions by money order is an option. Redeem frn's for us mint coins and change the coins to $1000 postal money orders. That provides a traceable path of redemption through the commercial banking system.

1) Check or FRNS are exchanged (or redeemed) at a commercial bank for us coinage ($1)
2) US coins are taken to the post office and exchanged for postal money orders ($1000 max)
3) Purchase of large assets are made with money orders.

Might be why the post office (the ORIGINAL banks) are being taken down. The post office is the only REAL alternative out there and is a us federal agency which operates outside of the federal reserve banking system.

Good points, most already covered in the thread.

1. The only FRN currently issued that do not have a US Bank note on them are the $1 and $2 bills. Both would be easy to cover with $1 coins or even Quarters.

2. The recorded demand for redemption at any Bank is all anyone needs for deposits over 1,000 to prove ones attempted redemption to the IRS, since that over 1,000 is all the IRS needs to check your Bank records for Tax reasons.

3. If you do not have a demand recorded somewhere the IRS can find it, or proof you have $1 coins not paid for with non-redeemed (read demanded per 12-usc-411) buying things with Postal money orders will do nothing, since the presumption of the Government/IRS will be that any amount of money orders totaling over $1000 would be assumed (and presumed) to have been purchased with elastic FRNS.

Again, demand for redemption, on a recognized record, per 12-USC 411 is needed.

One cannot just carry out all business affairs in $1 Coins or Postal money orders, or even Gold or silver coins at face value, without a recored demand per 12.

The cited Las Vegas gold case and more recent conviction of the guy issuing "Liberty dollars" is more than enough proof to me that the demand, properly recorded (I am sure the Fed would not have an issue with you sending a witnessed demand per 12 USC to all the 12 Federal reserve branches and the Treasury, Certified mail, if that makes you fell better), but you better not try to do it person, since the 12 main Fed banks have no "public window" and you will be directed to go to a franchise bank or worse.

Postal money orders, purchased with a recorded demand for redemption and a receipt from the postal clerk witnessing that fact is the most secure way of showing use of lawful money.

Remember, lawfully, even current $1 US coins are still fiat and can be refused as payment, since they are still only a "legal tender" and not Gold or silver US money as defined and historical in Federal Law of the united States.

I would agree with you in regards the fed and banks. But the law is clear also that FRN's can only be used by the fed and its agents and for no other purpose. So that would mean that banks handling FRN's are either part of the FED or agents of the fed.

As far as redeeming lawful money at the local band. Hundreds are doing so and receiving refunds on their federal taxes, so while there would appear to be some controdiction, it is clear that because it is working for all who redeem lawful money at local banks that the local banks are being treated as a source for redeeming lawful money.

The other thing I like to point out is that you are also handling FRN's which makes you an agent and subject to the corporate laws, ie statutes and code of the US corp. sk

OK, show me in 12USC411 where a verbal or written demand for redemption would act in the way that you state.

In other words, you are claiming that one blanket demand of redemption can be made, in writing, to a franchisee of the federal reserve financial system, and that all financial transactions taken place thereafter are covered.

Here is the exact relevant language appearing in 12USC411:

They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.

Pay attention to the words used:

1)...on demand AT the treasury...

AT implies PHYSICAL LOCATION

The only logical way your argument could hold water is if the word TO had been used instead.

2)...on demand TO the treasury...

The use of the word TO would suggest that any AGENT of the federal reserve banking system could process such a demand. CLEARLY not the case if one is to follow the exact requirements for redemption.

The statute is very specific that the demand for redemption takes place at the PHYSICAL location..and even provides the ADDRESS to the treasury...Washington District of Columbia (notice no use of the word United States in the address)...or at ANY federal reserve bank. Where we differ on this is also crystal clear. Look at the one dollar bill...the seal on the left side says FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF CHICAGO ILLINOIS.

THAT is the Federal Reserve Bank referred to in 12USC411 (or the other 12 federal reserve banks). NOT your local chase, BoA or citibank FRANCHISEE of the federal reserve system.

HOW MUCH CLEARER COULD THIS BE? REDEMPTION IN THE LANGUAGE OF 12USC411 REQUIRES PHYSICALLY PRESENTING THE FRN AT THE TREASURY OR ONE OF THE 12 REGIONAL FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM BRANCHES.

You are correct that this has been raised before, because I have, in fact raised it many times on the thread. My concern is that the incorrect information continues unabated as IF the above were not correct. Being central to the THEORY that redemption allows one to NOT file taxes legally, it is VERY DANGEROUS to fuck up the most critical part of the redemption process. To continue promoting this flawed aspect of otherwise very important information is very irresponsible!

Your first paragraph is correct in part. However, there are degrees of agency...full or partial. For example, a power of attorney can represent anothers full range of legal duties, or a limited aspect. An attorney can handle one specific civil matter or someones entire financial dealings.

It is the DEGREE of authority which is clearly and unambiguously defined in the agency agreement. If you have not read the agency agreement which exists between the FED and the bank you are dealing with, you would have no way of knowing if the bank has the authority to act as YOUR agent in redeeming the frns. May be possible, but to my view it is almost certainly NOT the case. If the bank IS your agent to redemption, it would HAVE to be included in YOUR contract with the bank...either clearly or alluded to. Good luck asking the teller about that one.

The fact that hundreds are doing something doesn't mean anything. The IRS proceeds on the basis that the return filed is accurate, as the filer has signed under penalty of perjury that the information is true. The fact a return is processed is ABSOLUTELY not PROOF that the IRS agrees with whatever assertions are being made. There are also HUNDREDS of theories/books/systems that have made faulty arguments which have also demonstrated their proof by way of publishing refund checks. Take a look and see how many were subsequently audited and fined or incarcerated. ANYONE can get a refund from the IRS, but it is all computer generated and later kicked out for human audit if the ratios don't match up. The IRS looks at a taxpayers figures as REPORTED by OTHERS, not from the return. SO if someone is employed and their EMPLOYER reports earnings to the IRS, the software EXPECTS a certain return profile...and if it doesnt match up, at some point someone will be looking it over. Of course, being a governmental agency this might take years...and might not happen for whatever reason.

The point being, the proof you offer does not hold water.

Here's a test. Go find a competent lawyer (may be impossible) or maybe a retired judge. Show him 12USC411 and then show him your records and proof of records you are maintaining. ASK him to evaluate, not by IRS standards, but by JUDICIAL standards of evidentiary PROOF if what the statute demands and what you have done meet the duty imposed. I believe there will be no dispute that an exact interpretation of the statute will be found wanting. And remember STATUTE imposes a DUTY to meet ALL of the actions required BY the statute.

I do not know if a check imposes the federal reserve agency status you have stated exists. I do not see on the check where the endorsement line says authorized agent, as the check signature line on the front clearly does.

So if one takes a check to a federal reserve bank, endorses the check, and receives payment in $1 us mint coins, where is there any affirmative proof that the person cashing the check has acted in an agency capacity.

Taking those coins to the post office and transmitting coins for a postal money provides a record that the subsequent transaction was completed from redeemed currency. There would be no proof to the contrary that frns were ever used, which would be required if a claim was made against you to the contrary.

Consider the difference if you deposited that check into your bank account. THEN there would exist the presumption that you were using frns since there would be a RECORD that you withdrew frns on a given day. The cashing a check for $1 coins removes this presumption.

Probably a reason why there is a minimum account balance required...

Just as the law says that FRN's can only be handled by Fed banks and their agents. Where does that leave you in the scheme of things in relation to the law you are so strongly clinging to. All banks that are Federally insured fit the bill for redeeming lawful money, just as you are not authorized to handle FRN's in the strict reading of the law, you are either a federal bank, an agent or breaking the law. So which are you according to law. Most likely one of their volunteer agents, or perhaps you are a bank. lol


And believe me in regards to the IRS taking your word for the redeeming lawful money, not a chance, you better have copies of the cashed checks, showing the redemption verbage or I guarantee you will not be getting your refund. Funny thing is the copied checks also show the bank where the demand was made. You would think that if things are as you suggest, they would be denied. But nope, a nice fat refund check soon arrives in the mail.
sk

Last Edited by seeker2 on 03/12/2012 11:56 AM

There are your answers, again. The Federal Reserve IS PRIVATE and the TREASURY is under the control of the District of Columbia, both of which are foreign to the Republic. YOU or me, or anyone on this thread does not have the RIGHT to go into their Jurisdiction (or any foreign jurisdiction) and actually REDEEM FRNS! That duty resides with one or both of those parties or their agents EXPRESSLY authorized to do so!

You need to get that through your head and stop over thinking this.

I understand your point about using frn's outside of that authorized by congress. However, two wrongs do not make a right, and the point would be irrelevant in any sort of defense arising from the question of redemption as it relates to the IRS issues.

Personally, I don't think there is a defense if one were "charged" with using frn's in private transactions, but it seems highly unlikely that such charges would be brought.

In addition, under contract law, full disclosure is one of the four requirements to be enforceable.

I maintain that receiving a refund from the IRS means nothing. You can file a revised 1040 return at anytime, and they will be processed (refunede) as a matter of course. However, you are stating under oath and at risk of perjury if what you say is not true. That is a very risky course of action.

All banks that are Federally insured fit the bill for redeeming lawful money

again, put my finger on the law or statute that says this. Being FDIC insured or a member of the federal reserve system does not make the member bank a FEDERAL RESERVE BANK.

Judges and attorneys are both members of the BAR, but they have limits to what they can or can't do. Commercial banks and FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS may both be part of the federal reserve system, but that does not mean they are equal under the law.

One final point, commercial banks REPORT to the federal reserve banks. There is a time delay element. Redemptions, I would assume, must be monitored on a real time basis since there are a limited number of us notes backing the frn notes. It makes sense that the place of redemption would thus be limited in nature, if the action involves retiring debt. You can't pay off a mortgage at a different bank than the one you took the mortgage out in the first place, even though both are members of the federal reserve system.

I'm not over thinking this...I am looking for strict proof that the claims made on this thread meet the rules of evidence which would be required in any court action.

I need to reflect further on what you have written, but you are referring to two classes of citizens here...the corporate federal citizen/creature and, for lack of a better word, a free man upon the land or sovereign.

12USC411 is but one of countless codes. You are invoking operation of redemption UNDER CODE "LAW". A true sovereign would be free to accept or not accept frns in private transaction, but I fail to see how that sovereign would then duck INTO code law for remedy. The "remedy" had passed by virtue of the sovereign ACCEPTING the frn's in exchange for his goods or services/labor. One cannot have it both ways wherein he is a sovereign when it suits him and not when it suits him.

Regarding your comments as to the duties and operations of the agent, it would be incumbent upon YOU, as making the claims as to what the various agents in these transactions can or cannot do. I make no such claims because I do not know. And because I do not know, I would follow the duties imposed by the statute to the letter until someone could put my finger on the law. Assumptions and assertions don't cut it here.

If I understand what you are saying, the mere fact one is attempting a redemption would be prima facie evidence that one were, in fact, and agent.

As to your question, the redeeming parties are the TREASURY and the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK(s). Do you require names?

As for your last paragraph, it shows a very deep misunderstanding of the entire system.

There are no "NOTES" backing the FRN, all goods and services back the FRN or Bonds issued by Congress.

What backs the note (at face value) of the Treasury Note on the FRN is the 300 million in Gold Coins, as already pointed out in this thread.

The redemption and payment of any redeemed note (time has nothing to do with it) remains with the issuer of the notes once demand has been made and recorded, WHEREVER THAT DEMAND WAS MADE and CAN BE PROVEN.

Well I guess we will have to agree to disagree. As I have pointed out the IRS is well aware of where the demands are being made, and they are honoring the demands. As I stated, your refund check will not be forth coming should you neglect to supply ample proof of your demand and as stated they are well aware of where the demands are being made. Unrebutted by the IRS the demand stands as made.

In regards to contracts, it would seem there are quite a few so called contracts that the courts hold as valid, that no disclosure has ever been forth coming. The courts has affirmed that if you are/have received a benefit the contracts are binding. Disclosure not with standing. So while I agree with you statement in part, it would appear in reality to be another way also, unless or until you press the issue before the courts and even then if it can be shown that a benefit was received that contract will be enforced. I believe they call them adhesion contracts. But I could be wrong about them being called that. sk

Last Edited by seeker2 on 03/12/2012 12:38 PM

I also think that the idea frn's can't be used for private transactions is misrepresented here.

It appears the creation of frn's must be made ONLY through member banks. This precludes the FRN from issuing currency DIRECTLY to any entity outside the banking system. For example, the fed does not give the government frn's...the treasury issues bonds which are purchased by the commercial banks at auction. The fed then BUYS these bills and bonds back from the commercial banks or aCCEPTS THEM FOR COLLATERAL on loans made to the banks.

I dont think the language of 12usc411 precludes the use of frn's for private transactions...it merely limits their issuance into the financial economy THROUGH the banking industry. Legal tender laws allow this. 411 simply states that the frns will be accepted for payment of federal and state taxes and duties, but is inclusive, rather than exclusive.

one interesting feature of contracts of adhesion is that the superior party (the party which made all the rules) has no legal recourse for redress through the courts. There only "remedy" is to terminate the services or goods offered, but cannot sue for damages or recovery.

Redeeming lawful money is not new on the scene. It has been around for at least 5 years with those demanding it having no problems with the IRS or law enforcement of any kind, as long as they keep accurate records of their demands. I would say, " the proof is in the pudding". lol

Income tax is voluntary. You volunteer to use private money ie. federal reserve notes, you receive a benefit as a result and this in turn makes you contractually obligated to pay a tax on the use of their money. All Voluntarily.

Another way of looking at it which may or not be true is that the law states that only banks and agents my use FRN's. If you using them makes you a bank or agent, you then are subject to the laws of the corporation of which you are a member. Either way you pay taxes by voluntarily using FRN's. sk

For the last line, I know exactly who the parties are, but my duty, as one of the people is DONE the second I make my demand for lawful money known. If the bank or IRS employees fail in their duty to actually redeem 'said notes' by any and all law, that is their crime, not mine.

That is how law and redemption work, Brother.

"one interesting feature of contracts of adhesion is that the superior party (the party which made all the rules) has no legal recourse for redress through the courts. There only "remedy" is to terminate the services or goods offered, but cannot sue for damages or recovery."

While this may be true. They are not forthcoming with the information that it is because of contracts that we fall under their jurisdiction, commercial law. Unless you know this and rebutt their assumption, they will proceed as normal and find you guilty as charged.sk

Last paragraph is okay, since we all know the IRS/Government will accept Gold and Silver coin at face value for payment. They will even accept credit cards, which have nothing to do with FRNs or the Federal Reserve.

"one interesting feature of contracts of adhesion is that the superior party (the party which made all the rules) has no legal recourse for redress through the courts. There only "remedy" is to terminate the services or goods offered, but cannot sue for damages or recovery."


One interesting aspect of demanding using lawful money and restricted endorsement is I remain the superior party in all my agreements, even those with Banks or Government agencies.

Just original intent when the Republic was founded, by the people, for the people and subject to the people.

You cannot be one of the people and use private, elastic currency, it is neither logical nor lawful.

Got to love that digital money. It cheap to make. A few entries on the key board and wel la "Money for nothing and chicks for free."

It's VOILA, seeker

Thanks for the correction. voila

Last Edited by seeker2 on 03/12/2012 11:23 PM

When this thread hits the 2 year mark are we gonna have a party?

And, I still find nothing on the IRS tax scam page about 12-USC 411.

Maybe they did not get the memo people are doing this and not a part of their little scam any more?

I seriously doubt that is the case...