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

You are welcome. I have been told, but have not verified, at the regional bank level is where the accounting for "lawful money" deposits take place.

I do not know anyone at that level of banking so I cannot confirm this. On the suitors forum, one suitor tells the manager at his local bank was given a new assignment after it was learned the suitors deposits with demand were placed in as normal deposits. The teller was curious and asked the suitor about what lawful money was because it was the reason the manager was reassigned. Again, this is hearsay to me, I do not know if it's true or not.

I can only report on what I have done myself and the results to date.

It doesn't work, and its already been tested.

Nearly 40 years ago.

Demanding redemption of FRNs under Title 12 USC 411 and you get more FRNs.



Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money. What the 'redeemed in lawful money' crowd knows, but really hope you don't....is that the role of Federal Reserve Notes was vastly expanded in 1933.



Elevating the FRN from intrabank lending instrument it had been when Title 12 USC 411 was passed in 1913 to full fledged national currency. And with that upgrade, FRNs became lawful money.

And the court recognizes FRNs as lawful money. Explicitly.



And again, just in case there was any ambiguity.



Even practically, the 'Redeem in lawful money' argument is pointless. The US government doesn't even have US Notes any longer, having long since destroyed its entire stockpile.

And of course, 31 USC § 5103 makes *all* US currency legal tender for all taxes. And US currency notes are US currency.

Beating to a pulp this already dead horse.

" We find no validity in the distinction which defendant draws between "lawful money" and "legal tender." Money is a medium of exchange. Legal tender is money which the law requires a creditor to receive in payment of an obligation."

WE FIND NO VALIDITY IN THE DISTINCTION THE DEFENDANT draws between "lawful money" and "legal tender".

Wordsmithing legalese at its finest. Clearly there is a distinction, or there would have beenNO REDEMPTION FOR LAWFUL MONEY ever!!
The court did not agree with the defendants claim that "lawful money" means direct redeem ability into gold or silver.

You are a liar a da shill and have no right to tell us what the courts ruling did or did not mean.

Keep bumping the thread with your ignorance because people are still stopping the IRS dead in its tracks with lawful money demand per 12 USC 411.

Me included.

Shill on asshole cause the facts are the facts.
[link to savingtosuitorsclub.net]

There are many people doing this, backed up with responses directly from the IRS. No matter what the GLP IRS/FED shill wants to lie about, the evidence is mounting daily against his lies.

Contract makes law!! It is a maximum of law!

You can make ANY "legal tender" "lawful money" as a medium of exchange for that contract.

That does not mean any legal tender is "lawful money" on its own.

It really is simple but some try to expand and twist the wording if the Rickman case to mean FRNs are no longer redeemable in lawful money because FRNs are included in federal definitions of "legal tender".

Do not be sucked into that outright LIE. The other case agreed the defendant "had the right to redeem his note"...

But not on gold or silver!!

It's all about offer and acceptance, there is no definition of standing US law that recognizes FRNs as "lawful money" as issued. Only AFTER the assumed or presumed endorsement of the living man or woman via contractual agreement do FRNs become a form of lawful.

Keep your eyes open, there is a viper on the loose.

[link to onswipe.investopedia.com]

Look up the definitions and explanations yourself.

Next he shill is going to claim "the courts" decide what definitions are, tha is bullshit.

The courts look at the facts of each case to determine the ruling. There is no one case that defines law for all other cases, if that were true, there would be no need for courts at all, there would be no question what the "law" is or is not.

The courts and judges are not the final word for anything but the case and the facts before them in that case!

Rickman endorsed and used FRNs when he "cashed his checks", then he tried to claim those notes were not "lawful money" BECAUSE they are not redeemable in "gold or silver" per the Constitution.

The IRS saw he never demanded redemption for his paychecks, therefore the fact that FRNs are redeemable "for lawful money" was irrelevant to the case. He did receive and use FRNs as lawful money and had to pay the fee for doing so.

The case ruling was legal and just, he received the benefit and them tried to refuse to pay the price for doing so.

Dude.....you say one thing. The courts say another. They're legally authoritative. You're not.

Once again, your argument is that we ignore the courts, ignore the law....and just accept whatever you imagine.

Um, no.

As for 'no redemption of lawful money ever'.....Milam v. the US clearly demonstrates you're wrong.



Demand redemption of FRNs under Title 12 USC 411....and you get FRNs. Exactly as Milam did almost 40 years ago.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.


The court did not agree with the defendants claim that "lawful money" means direct redeem ability into gold or silver.


That's what you say. This is what the court says:



Not just once. But twice:



You disagree with the courts. So what? The courts are authoritative. You aren't.

Get used to the idea. Its not changing.

You say that contract establishes jurisdiction. The Courts recognize geography;



And I'm pretty sure the USSC knows more about the 'basis of all law' than you do, citing yourself.



More accurately, some quote what the Rickman decision actually says. Instead of ignoring Rickman as you do:



You say one thing. The courts say another. The courts win.




You say its about the offer and acceptance. The Rickman court never says this. You say contract defines lawful money. The Rickman courts never even mentioned contract. You imagined it all.

Your imagination isn't the law. You can't get around that.



Indeed. Start with Title 12. Tell us, shill.....where does Title 12, USC 411 say anything about US Notes?

And of course, why do you continue to ignore Title 31;



Which clearly defines a greater role for the FRN in 1933 than Title 12 USC 411 did in 1913. How do you reconcile these enormous contradictions between what you *say* and what the law does?

You ignore 31 USC § 5103 and pretend it doesn't exist. If only reality worked that way.

Worse......31 USC § 5103 clearly states that *all* US currencies can be used to pay all taxes. Obliterating your claim that US Notes can't be used to pay taxes. US currency notes are US currency.

There's simply no part of this you got right.

Legal tender. Legal tender. Legal tender.

What part of those words do YOU not get?

Legal tender is NOT LAWFUL MONEY OR IT WOULD NOT BE TITLED LEGAL TENDER.

Lawful money is ONLY issued directly by the US TREASURY. Unless legal tender is lawful via contract endorcement.

"THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE" it can be refused for payment of any debt.

Lawful money cannot be refused as payment of debt.

"The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."

This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy."

Right from the treasury official site. If it can be refused as a payment of debt, it is NOT LAWFUL MONEY.

Shut up already.

12 USC 411 stands: FRNs "shall be redeemed on demand"

The shill states the FRNs will be redeemed for new FRNs, so be it. The record of demand proves that no endorsement of federal reserve debt took place.

Lawful money stands in contrast to "lawful money". If there was no redemption, the fellow that sent his 50 dollar FRN to the treasury for "redemption in lawful money" would have gotten the same 50 $ bill back, he did not, he received a different note that was redeemed.

The FRN he sent in was taken out of circulation because it had been redeemed for lawful money per 12 USC 411.

I do not care if the shill agrees, he is frankly, ignorant and I do not need the agreement of the ignorant to be correct on this issue.

And this is pertinent in not paying taxes just how?

Says you, citing your imagination. The law doesn't say this. Not about lawful money being issued by the US treasury. Not about 'contract endorsement'.

You imagined it all. And your imagination isn't law.

The limitations you've imagined don't exist. The caveats you've invented don't exist. And all your babble about 'contracts' creating lawful money is just you citing yourself.

Which is meaningless.



Says who? Where in US law does it say that 'lawful money' can't be refused for payment of a debt? Your imagination is just running wild.

And still isn't law. Get used to it.



Exactly. US currency notes are most definitely US currency. Meaning that your entire 'US Notes can't be used to pay taxes' argument is dead. US currency is legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes and dues.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.


Um, dude....did you even read what you just posted?

The term 'lawful money' is never mentioned once. Not in your entire citation. Not in entire page you linked to. The Treasury cite never says that 'if it can be refused as payment for debt, its not lawful money'

You just made that up, imagining entire sentences that simply don't exist.

And your imagination is irrelevant. As you define nothing.

Legal tender was the subject of the treasury quote you twat.

Legal tender can be refused, lawful money cannot.

LEGAL TENDER CASES, 110 U.S. 421 (1884)
110 U.S. 421

'THE LEGAL-TENDER CASES.'
JUILLIARD
v.
GREENMAN.

March 3, 1884

Lawful money cannot be refused for payment, dumbass. That case was about US Notes.

It's not my imagination, it's the LAW, you flipping twat.

12 USC 411 SHALL BE REDEEMED ON DEMAND...

Too bad you cannot read legalese. Too bad for you do not speak or ack for me. To bad the IRS continues to give full refunds to those demanding lawful money redemption.

Too bad you are a debtor to the Federal Reserve and a Peon. Too bad you are a sub par shill who cannot twist the truth worth a damn and must plagiarize all your responses directly from the Federal Reaerve website.

FRNs are not lawful money as issued and are redeemable for lawful money on demand.

Says you. The courts didn't agree. When Mobley Milam was given FRNs for FRNs, they dismissed Milam's objections and his case as 'frivilous' and 'meritless'. The redemption of FRNs will get your more FRNs.

Again, you're under the misconception that *you* get to define what lawful money is. You don't.



Um, what? Dude, you're just making this nonsense up as you go along now.


Milam received FRNs of equivalent value. Which the courts upheld when they dismissed Milam's case.

Call your local Federal Reserve Bank. Here's the number for one that's still open on the West Coast

(800) 227-4133

Ask them directly. They'll tell you what they told Milam. And they just told me. You get FRNs in redemption for FRNs under Title 12 Section 411.

They'll also tell you what I've been telling you for days: they don't have any US Notes.

Lastly, there's no distinction between lawful money and "lawful money" in the law.

You've imagined it.




You're almost right. He redeemed his FRN for lawful money under Title 12, USC 411. And received FRNs of equivalent value. Exactly as I said would happen. And you indicated never could.

Utterly obliterating your argument.

As for the FRNs being 'taken out of ciruclation', reissue of the bills after redemption is common. It depends entirely on the condition of the individual bill.


The Milam courts, history, and the call I just made to the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco say otherwise. Both affirmed FRNs for FRNs when redeeming FRNs under Title 12 USC 411.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Don't tell me. SHOW me. Quote the passage in Julliard V. Greenman that says that lawful money cannot be refused for payment.

There's a reason you cited the case name but not the passage you believe backs up your claims.

Excuse me

Who has gotten "full refunds" when demanding "lawful money"?

Dude, your imagination isn't 'legalese' nor does it have anything to do with the law. The courts recognize FRNs as lawful money. The courts upheld the redemption of FRNs for FRNs under Title 12 USC 411.

Two things you insist could never happen.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.



Says you. Yet Milam V. US shows you're clueless:




Demand FRNs be redeemed under Title 12 USC 411...and you get more FRNs. Exactly as Milam did.

The US government doesn't even have US Notes any longer. Making your theory not only wrong, but pointless.

And of course, the courts explicitly recognize FRNs as lawful money:



And again in the same ruling:



The courts say one thing. You say another.

The courts win.

No one. They simply claim they have no tax obligations.....and fraudulently fill out a zero tax obligation on their tax forms.

No court has *ever* held that 'demanding lawful money' makes you immune to taxation. No law says this. Its just another tax avoidance con being shucked by shills trying to drive up web traffic on their sites.

Any minute now they'll start posting their urls. Shills are nothing if not predictable.

Saving to the suitors club has many members who have received full refunds, state and federal plus interest after demanding lawful money per 12 USC 411.

So again, you are a proven LIAR.

12 USC 411 has not been repealed, redemption on demand for lawful money.

Your opinion of the courts opinion means no more than mine.

Idiot.

I called a West Coast Federal Reserve Bank (SF I think) to find out. They indicated that they don't offer direct services to the public. If you wanted to 'redeem' bills, you would so through a Federal Reserve member bank. And they would put the request in for you.

And you'll get FRNs for FRNs in redemption. As FRNs are lawful money. And because the US government no longer has US Notes...save for literal handful in the museums at each bank. One of each denomination according to the Banking Regulation expert I was able to get a hold of.





There's no such exemption. Income tax was paid when US notes was the default national currency. Income tax is paid when we went to FRNs in 1933.

All currencies are legal tender for all taxes. Anyone who tells you differently is trying to sell you something.



No court has recognized this imaginary 'lawful money' exemption from taxation. No law makes any mention of it. Its completely made up.

So you have no such assurances. Generally speaking, if a 'tax avoidance' con sounds too good to be true, it probably is.



No they haven't. This con is pretty new. There's nothing that indicates that US Bank Notes make immune to income tax. No law states this. No court ruling states this. The object of taxation in income tax is income. Not the currency.



You could. But if you're caught, there's no legal protections. No court has *ever* recognized that 'demanding lawful money' makes you immune from income tax.

And some random guy on the internet saying it must be so doesn't have a great track record. Ask Bill Benson (federal prison time), Wayne C. Bentson (federal prison time) Peter Hendrickson (federal prison time), Irwin Schiff (convicted 4 times, and will likely die in federal prison), or Ed and Elaine Brown (still in federal prison)...

....they were all certain that *their' tax avoidance con made them immune from income tax. It didn't. And that's just the leaders of each flavor of tax avoidance conspiracy. There are countless poor schmucks who bought into their con game....and were convicted too. And did prison time too.

Shrugs....Good luck.

And exactly as predicted....the shilling begins. Exactly as predicted, they're encouraging you to follow their URL and drive up their web traffic.

Last year the in vogue tax con was 'Lost Horizons'. Till Peter Hendrickson went to prison. With many of the poor bastards that swallowed his con under indictment. Including his own wife.

This year, the shills switch to the 'savings to suitors' con.

Next year, who knows? The tax avoidance schemes change from year to year, the shills trying to get poor schucks to buy into their latest con remains the same.



And FRNs are lawful money. Says the courts:



And again in the same ruling:



The courts say one thing. You say another.

They win.


And by your own admission, no court has *ever* recognized your argument as valid. Not once. Not ever.

Its just you, citing you, insisting you must be right because you say you are.

Shrugs...bye dumb ass. Your argument from ignorance was brilliant. Your prophetic warning of doom will not be heeded. That's what being an adult is all about, making choices and living with the consequences.

Don't like what I do with my affairs, too bad. The law stands and you are not my attorney nor my tax advisor.

To shill somewhere else, nothing on this thread is legal advice and until people do their own research they should not try anything. I am not afraid of the IRS, nor am I going to stop demanding lawful money per 12 USC 411.

Bye.

And what I posted is no court has ever heard a case after someone has demanded lawful money via restricted endorsement as on this and other threads.

Keep your lies out of my posts. You are again, a proven liar. Also, why don't you refute the tax returns, stoppages of accounts seized and return checks that are on the saving to the suitors club forum?

You claimed there have been no returns baised on lawful money demand from the IRS, more lies from the SHILL.

No contract, no obligation. And your claim there has never been a case proclaiming lawful money non-taxable is also a lie, one search on the web I found 2 of them.

Liar.

Dude, why do you fucking care so much? It's like you work for the IRS. If it's legal, it's legal. If it's not legal, well you aren't breaking the law, so why do you seem to give a huge shit whether that other dude does or not?

Power weakens those that do not have it

This thread was over due for the shill.

12 USC has NOT been repealed, the redemption clause for FRNs to be redeemed in lawful money upon demand stands as US law.

If the shill does not like that fact, he should contact his overlords and petition to have the law changed.

Congress had the right to repeal the redemption clause and they still have it, they have not done so. FRNs "shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand".

Twisting post endorsement cases, US note cases and "gold and silver only" cases does nothing but obscure the fact redemption of FRNs for lawful money IS THE LAW.

He can poke, twist, obscure and flat out lie, but it does not change the FACTS.

I plead guilty to the fact: FRNs shall be redeemed on demand and I on and for the record demand it.

To repeat, there has NEVER been any action taken against anyone demanding lawful money restricted endorsement as outline here.

NEVER. However that does not mean it will not happen, unlike the shill liar who claims it will happen, the fact is, the IRS HAS NEVER TAKEN ANY ACTION ON THIS!!

the shill keeps posting and misrepresenting the facts of other cases to get them to apply and they do NOT.

The redemption in lawful money is right there in black and white. Doing it for ALL bank transactions is not the same as sending in a 50 FRN and demanding redemption I gold and silver, not even close, shill.

Endorsing a naked contract (the back of your paycheck) and cashing it out for FRNs then using those notes as "money" makes them lawful per commercial maritime jurisdiction, FRNs are not lawful money as issued, they are "legal tender".

Nothing is going to be solved on Internet forums, the IRS is the party who will have to make the move to get this question before a Federal court and if they do they are not going to have the dumbass posting here work the case.

I might however, be one who a case is brought against since I do not pay federal or state taxes and have not for 5 years of demanding redemption per 12 USC 411. I have accepted that possibility as an adult, that is life.

Nothing that fool posts here or anywhere else is going to change what I am doing. None of this is going to save anyone from over 100 years of fiat, international banking and the TRILLIONS in debt it has created.

So, in the end why does he care? That is the question!

Te last report from the IRS is they paid out 5 million FRNs of their bosses precious "legal tender" to people for reporting tax cheats.

I have told many people who disagree with me to make the call to the IRS and report this thread and my "self" and see what happens to the complaint.

This Shill and others have no problem calling this a scam, tax evasion, lunacy, idiotic, opinion, already tried and failed...

He spends hours and days arguing how and why he is right and that someday, I will lose everything and go to prison. Yet he does not call the IRS hotline and report me?

Does that make him and others an accessory to tax crimes? He stands to make "money" from his call AND prove me wrong with just ONE phone call to get it done, yet day after day here he is, on multiple threads yak yak yak.

Make the call and prove you are right and I am wrong, it will consume less of your time than your repeating he same crap day after day, thread after thread.

See something, say some thing, right?

[link to www.statisticbrain.com]

And you, by your own admission, are shilling yet another tax avoidance scheme that the courts have never recognized as valid. Not just a single 'I imagined it, so it has to be true' piece of self justified pseudo-legal babble.

But a string of such nonsense.

You *assume* that Title 12 USC 411 means that you must receive US notes. The law doesn't say this. And the courts have not upheld this.

You *assume* that if you receive US notes, you're immune from taxation. No law nor court has ever said this. Taxes were paid with US Notes when they were the national currency. Taxes were paid when FRNs were the national currency. There's nothing in history, case law or statutory law that backs your claims.

You *assume* that putting a red stamp on the back of your check magically redeems it into US Notes. No law says this. No court has ever recognized this. The US Government doesn't even carry US Notes any longer, having destroyed their stockpile nearly 20 years ago.

Its just you saying it 'must be so'. Which is legally meaningless.



But the law doesn't say what you're trying to shill.

Show us *anywhere* in the law it says that US Notes have to be offered in redemption for FRNs

You can't. Title 12, USC 411 never even mentions US Notes. Its just you citing yourself.

Show us *anywhere* in the law that says that demanding 'lawful money' makes you exempt from income tax.

You can't. You made the entire thing up, pulled whole from your imagination......citing only yourself.

And you're not the law, buddy. Nor do you have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Dude, you're admitting that your entire premise has never been recognized by the courts. Show us any court ruling every affirming that FRNs *must* be redeemed in US Notes. You can't. Show us any court ruling that demanding lawful money makes you immune from taxation.

You can't.

The courts have instead contradicted you, upholding the redemptions of FRNs with FRNs under Title 12 USC 411. And found that FRNs are lawful money.

Something you insist could never happen. Once again, your argument is the bug. And reality is the windshield.



Says you, pretending that *you* are a legal authority. You're not. You're just a shill trying to drive up webtraffic to your website by offering us the latest in a series of imagine 'tax avoidance' cons.

Taxation jurisdiction is established geographically. As the USSC makes ridiculously clear:



YOU say that jurisdiction is established only through contract. Citing your imagination. Neither the law nor the courts recognize this.

The USSC says that jurisdiction is established geographically. Within the United States. Which is the States and territories.

The USSC wins. Your imagination remains legally worthless.

So I ask again, what's the value of a legal argument that isn't recognized by the courts?