Real Men of Genius

[Harvester]

I have no taxable income beyond the exemption amount. David is correct. Voluntary use of the private credit of FED creates a federal nexus, it would appear, transforming activity of right (making $) into activity of privilege, and thus making one liable for the Income Duty, an indirect excise. Pete Hendrickson is also correct, as he concludes the tax must involve federal property/activity. As for proof, here's my 2008 refund http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/5615/refund.jpg

As an aside, and further indication of the incestuous relationship between banking and taxation, I can relate this. I inquired of my bank, which has direct evidence of my approx. $100k in annual deposits, about a mortgage. They initially said I was approved to borrow a substantial amount, but when I told them my federal Form 1040 did not reflect the deposits, they said the approved amount would necessarily be greatly reduced. They essentially said, if it ain't on a tax return it ain't income. Which is true in the statutory sense, but not for borrowing purposes. A loan should be based on ability to repay, not the extent of the borrowers federal property/activity. Anyway, that house of cards is about to collapse.

[Nikki]

Thank you very much for posting the refund check.

On Monday morning, the auditors will have received both the city and state (Woodstock, IL) and the check number (2309 700553) which will provide them with sufficient information to identify the taxpayer and to initiate a thorough review of the return.

Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.

[Harvester]

Thank you very much for posting the refund check.

On Monday morning, the auditors will have received both the city and state (Madashell, IL) and the check number (2309 700553) which will provide them with sufficient information to identify the taxpayer and to initiate a thorough review of the return.

Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.

bwahaahaa... stop it ... hohohaa .... I can't hold it in...
It's been posted on the 'net for a year. I can only imagine how many man-hours they've spent trying to decode it. BTW, I moved away from MadAsHell last year and now live in Jubilee. HA! Hallelujah we's gittin' our country back!

[David Merrill]

In fact, in Milam v. U.S., 524 F.2d 629 (1974), the case that you did not adequately cite, Milam wanted to redeem a Federal Reserve Bank Note. Federal Reserve Bank Notes are different from Federal Reserve Notes. Milam contended that the note could only be redeemed in gold and silver coin. The court simply states that he is not entitled to redeem the note in precious metal. However, he can redeem the bank note for the equivalent face value in FRNs or whatever form of currency the Federal Reserve Bank decides is equivalent.

Notes.

Identical to National Banks Notes in form and function but issued by Federal Reserve Banks, these notes were retired in 1945.

Milam apparently had a federal reserve bank note left over from before 1945 and was entitled to redeem it alright. He just was not entitled to do so in gold and silver coin, you dolt! Learn to read will you?



That is a federal reserve note stipulated to a specific reserve bank. Milan was not moving as a federal reserve bank. He, as an individual was entitled to redeem the note. The notes were retired in 1945 so since then federal reserve bank notes are general; redeemed at any fed bank, like the law says. Federal Reserve notes.

The individual can contract with the Fed by endorsement and become effectively a Fed bank. If that is how you want to look at it. I beat you with this argument on Sui, remember? I guess not because you just walked right into it again here.

Prove it? Well the people who share their tax returns with me would not really want that. I would have to show you a tax return with a refund check in the same amount and all sanitized out. You Quatlosers always whine when I do that! You just gripe that I sanitized it too much and it proves nothing. You are right. It does not prove that the IRS did not come around later like with Pete HENDRICKSON's stuff. But his arguments are all based in patriot interpretations of "taxpayer" or "shall" or "define Income" or something like that.

This is the remedy written into the Fed Act in 1913 and it is right there in full force and effect today.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

Thank you very much for posting the refund check.

On Monday morning, the auditors will have received both the city and state (Madashell, IL) and the check number (2309 700553) which will provide them with sufficient information to identify the taxpayer and to initiate a thorough review of the return.

Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.

Good example of why you will have to just believe me. People do not appreciate sharing information with me and then being audited by Quatlosers.

[The Operative]

I have no taxable income beyond the exemption amount. David is correct. Voluntary use of the private credit of FED creates a federal nexus, it would appear, transforming activity of right (making $) into activity of privilege, and thus making one liable for the Income Duty, an indirect excise. Pete Hendrickson is also correct, as he concludes the tax must involve federal property/activity. As for proof, here's my 2008 refund http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/5615/refund.jpg

Once again, receiving a refund is not proof. The IRS processes over a 100 million returns every year. It does not catch every fraudulent claim. Sometimes, it may be several years before the criminal's fraudulent filings are detected. Many of Hendrickson's followers have received refunds only to find out later that the IRS will do what is legally necessary to retrieve the money that was erroneously refunded.

All individuals must pay a federal income tax on their wages, regardless of whether they have requested, obtained, or exercised any privilege from the federal government.

As an aside, and further indication of the incestuous relationship between banking and taxation, I can relate this. I inquired of my bank, which has direct evidence of my approx. $100k in annual deposits, about a mortgage. They initially said I was approved to borrow a substantial amount, but when I told them my federal Form 1040 did not reflect the deposits, they said the approved amount would necessarily be greatly reduced. They essentially said, if it ain't on a tax return it ain't income. Which is true in the statutory sense, but not for borrowing purposes. A loan should be based on ability to repay, not the extent of the borrowers federal property/activity. Anyway, that house of cards is about to collapse.

Deposits, by themselves, are not conclusive proof of ability to pay. A person may have borrowed significant amounts from others in order to make it appear they have a significant source of funds. By showing a properly filled out form 1040, the bank has further evidence the person has the ability to repay the loan. Without the further evidence, the bank would be accepting a higher risk that the person is lying about their funding and therefore reduces the allowable amount of the loan to account for that risk.

[David Merrill]

I have no taxable income beyond the exemption amount. David is correct. Voluntary use of the private credit of FED creates a federal nexus, it would appear, transforming activity of right (making $) into activity of privilege, and thus making one liable for the Income Duty, an indirect excise. Pete Hendrickson is also correct, as he concludes the tax must involve federal property/activity. As for proof, here's my 2008 refund http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/5615/refund.jpg

Once again, receiving a refund is not proof. The IRS processes over a 100 million returns every year. It does not catch every fraudulent claim. Sometimes, it may be several years before the criminal's fraudulent filings are detected. Many of Hendrickson's followers have received refunds only to find out later that the IRS will do what is legally necessary to retrieve the money that was erroneously refunded.

All individuals must pay a federal income tax on their wages, regardless of whether they have requested, obtained, or exercised any privilege from the federal government.

As an aside, and further indication of the incestuous relationship between banking and taxation, I can relate this. I inquired of my bank, which has direct evidence of my approx. $100k in annual deposits, about a mortgage. They initially said I was approved to borrow a substantial amount, but when I told them my federal Form 1040 did not reflect the deposits, they said the approved amount would necessarily be greatly reduced. They essentially said, if it ain't on a tax return it ain't income. Which is true in the statutory sense, but not for borrowing purposes. A loan should be based on ability to repay, not the extent of the borrowers federal property/activity. Anyway, that house of cards is about to collapse.

Deposits, by themselves, are not conclusive proof of ability to pay. A person may have borrowed significant amounts from others in order to make it appear they have a significant source of funds. By showing a properly filled out form 1040, the bank has further evidence the person has the ability to repay the loan. Without the further evidence, the bank would be accepting a higher risk that the person is lying about their funding and therefore reduces the allowable amount of the loan to account for that risk.

You just negated your demand for proof!

You will not accept anything over cyberspace out of convenience. Your protectionism is actually dissociation from reality.

Oh well; it saves me the trouble of finding it and loading it up to my image bucket then. Thanks for your cooperation or whatever, Nikki - for being you.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[The Operative]

In fact, in Milam v. U.S., 524 F.2d 629 (1974), the case that you did not adequately cite, Milam wanted to redeem a Federal Reserve Bank Note. Federal Reserve Bank Notes are different from Federal Reserve Notes. Milam contended that the note could only be redeemed in gold and silver coin. The court simply states that he is not entitled to redeem the note in precious metal. However, he can redeem the bank note for the equivalent face value in FRNs or whatever form of currency the Federal Reserve Bank decides is equivalent.

Notes.

Identical to National Banks Notes in form and function but issued by Federal Reserve Banks, these notes were retired in 1945.

Milam apparently had a federal reserve bank note left over from before 1945 and was entitled to redeem it alright. He just was not entitled to do so in gold and silver coin, you dolt! Learn to read will you?

David,

You friggin' moron, that is exactly what I said. I did not say that he could not redeem it. I only said that redeeming the note is not the method that you think it is. Why don't you learn to read?

The difference between Federal Reserve Bank Notes and Federal Reserve Notes, other than their size and some other visual designs, is that a Federal Reserve Bank Note may only be redeemed at the Federal Reserve Bank that issued it. Federal Reserve Notes can be redeemed at any Federal Reserve Bank. Regardless, that still does not support your contention that redeeming Federal Reserve Notes shields a person from having to pay income taxes.

That is a federal reserve note stipulated to a specific reserve bank. Milan was not moving as a federal reserve bank. He, as an individual was entitled to redeem the note. The notes were retired in 1945 so since then federal reserve bank notes are general; redeemed at any fed bank, like the law says. Federal Reserve notes.

As I stated, he could redeem the Federal Reserve Bank note at the Federal Reserve Bank that issued it. However, the bank was not required to redeem it in gold or silver or any other precious metal. The Federal Reserve Bank Note could be redeemed for standard coins or Federal Reserve Notes.

The individual can contract with the Fed by endorsement and become effectively a Fed bank. If that is how you want to look at it. I beat you with this argument on Sui, remember? I guess not because you just walked right into it again here.

Nonsense. BTW, you never 'beat' me with this or any argument. Especially not at Sui, because I have never posted there, dumbass.

Prove it? Well the people who share their tax returns with me would not really want that. I would have to show you a tax return with a refund check in the same amount and all sanitized out. You Quatlosers always whine when I do that! You just gripe that I sanitized it too much and it proves nothing. You are right. It does not prove that the IRS did not come around later like with Pete HENDRICKSON's stuff. But his arguments are all based in patriot interpretations of "taxpayer" or "shall" or "define Income" or something like that.

This is the remedy written into the Fed Act in 1913 and it is right there in full force and effect today.

Regards,

David Merrill.

Once again, provide some verifiable proof. No one here would whine if you actually posted something that was verifiable. So far, you have not.

[The Operative]

You just negated your demand for proof!

No, I did not. A court case where the court has specifically told the IRS that a person's money cannot be taxed because it was 'redeemed'.

You will not accept anything over cyberspace out of convenience. Your protectionism is actually dissociation from reality.

Oh well; it saves me the trouble of finding it and loading it up to my image bucket then. Thanks for your cooperation or whatever, Nikki - for being you.

Regards,

David Merrill.

Do you even pay attention to whom you are replying? I guess not. BTW, I accept things over cyberspace all the time because it is verifiable from reliable sources of information, such as court documents. What you usually post is not verifiable from any other source. That means that is has no weight as proof.

[Nikki]

Thank you very much for posting the refund check.

On Monday morning, the auditors will have received both the city and state (Madashell, IL) and the check number (2309 700553) which will provide them with sufficient information to identify the taxpayer and to initiate a thorough review of the return.

Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.

bwahaahaa... stop it ... hohohaa .... I can't hold it in...
It's been posted on the 'net for a year. I can only imagine how many man-hours they've spent trying to decode it. BTW, I moved away from MadAsHell last year and now live in Jubilee. HA! Hallelujah we's gittin' our country back!

Ip address, check information ... unless you're playing Photoshop games to pump up your liberty tool

[David Merrill]

In fact, in Milam v. U.S., 524 F.2d 629 (1974), the case that you did not adequately cite, Milam wanted to redeem a Federal Reserve Bank Note. Federal Reserve Bank Notes are different from Federal Reserve Notes. Milam contended that the note could only be redeemed in gold and silver coin. The court simply states that he is not entitled to redeem the note in precious metal. However, he can redeem the bank note for the equivalent face value in FRNs or whatever form of currency the Federal Reserve Bank decides is equivalent.

Notes.

Identical to National Banks Notes in form and function but issued by Federal Reserve Banks, these notes were retired in 1945.

Milam apparently had a federal reserve bank note left over from before 1945 and was entitled to redeem it alright. He just was not entitled to do so in gold and silver coin, you dolt! Learn to read will you?

David,

You friggin' moron, that is exactly what I said. I did not say that he could not redeem it. I only said that redeeming the note is not the method that you think it is. Why don't you learn to read?

The difference between Federal Reserve Bank Notes and Federal Reserve Notes, other than their size and some other visual designs, is that a Federal Reserve Bank Note may only be redeemed at the Federal Reserve Bank that issued it. Federal Reserve Notes can be redeemed at any Federal Reserve Bank. Regardless, that still does not support your contention that redeeming Federal Reserve Notes shields a person from having to pay income taxes.

That is a federal reserve note stipulated to a specific reserve bank. Milan was not moving as a federal reserve bank. He, as an individual was entitled to redeem the note. The notes were retired in 1945 so since then federal reserve bank notes are general; redeemed at any fed bank, like the law says. Federal Reserve notes.

As I stated, he could redeem the Federal Reserve Bank note at the Federal Reserve Bank that issued it. However, the bank was not required to redeem it in gold or silver or any other precious metal. The Federal Reserve Bank Note could be redeemed for standard coins or Federal Reserve Notes.

The individual can contract with the Fed by endorsement and become effectively a Fed bank. If that is how you want to look at it. I beat you with this argument on Sui, remember? I guess not because you just walked right into it again here.

Nonsense. BTW, you never 'beat' me with this or any argument. Especially not at Sui, because I have never posted there, dumbass.

Prove it? Well the people who share their tax returns with me would not really want that. I would have to show you a tax return with a refund check in the same amount and all sanitized out. You Quatlosers always whine when I do that! You just gripe that I sanitized it too much and it proves nothing. You are right. It does not prove that the IRS did not come around later like with Pete HENDRICKSON's stuff. But his arguments are all based in patriot interpretations of "taxpayer" or "shall" or "define Income" or something like that.

This is the remedy written into the Fed Act in 1913 and it is right there in full force and effect today.

Regards,

David Merrill.

Once again, provide some verifiable proof. No one here would whine if you actually posted something that was verifiable. So far, you have not.

The only difference between Federal Reserve Bank Notes and Federal Reserve Notes was (when there were FRBNs) that the note was redeemable at that specific bank. Now Federal Reserve notes are generally redeemable at any fed bank. That is just the way it is. Anybody has the choice with their paychecks - to redeem lawful money or endorse private credit from the Fed.


That's where we end up with all this. Thanks for making my point. Maybe you just need to look at the definition for a fed bank. Notorial Dissent ducked out when he realized I was baiting you.

Once again, provide some verifiable proof. No one here would whine if you actually posted something that was verifiable. So far, you have not.

If these people never get prosecuted, how do you suppose they can generate a court case? Do you want somebody redeeming lawful money to sue the IRS because they got a full refund of their withholdings? Anyway, you saw how Nikki is - she is like a little snarly victim of her own depression; like that Wizard of Id guy hanging from the wall of the dungeon. She will only be happy when everybody around her is as miserable as she is. She threatened to turn in somebody for showing some verifiable evidence. She is a very unhappy camper.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[The Operative]

The individual can contract with the Fed by endorsement and become effectively a Fed bank.

I am repeating the above quote here because it was nonsense when you first said it and it is still nonsense.

The only difference between Federal Reserve Bank Notes and Federal Reserve Notes was (when there were FRBNs) that the note was redeemable at that specific bank. Now Federal Reserve notes are generally redeemable at any fed bank. That is just the way it is.

That is right.

Anybody has the choice with their paychecks - to redeem lawful money or endorse private credit from the Fed.

Then you jump into nonsensical la-la land.

That's where we end up with all this. Thanks for making my point. Maybe you just need to look at the definition for a fed bank. Notorial Dissent ducked out when he realized I was baiting you.

I know exactly what a Federal Reserve Bank is. You, on the other hand, try to impose your nonsense on things you do not understand.

If these people never get prosecuted, how do you suppose they can generate a court case? Do you want somebody redeeming lawful money to sue the IRS because they got a full refund of their withholdings?

Whatever David, the courts have specifically stated that a person using lawful money is liable for income taxes. You have nothing but your word that your idiotic theory works.

[Judge Roy Bean]

... David is correct. Voluntary use of the private credit of FED creates a federal nexus, ...

Van Pelt is mentally challenged.

Whether you are or not is questionable based on your reliance on something a mentally challenged individual posits.

[.]

Planet Van Pelt has been spinning much faster than normal recently.

Word-salad is being ejected into orbit. This is hazardous to motor-scooters.

[Tax Man]

... David is correct. Voluntary use of the private credit of FED creates a federal nexus, ...

Van Pelt is mentally challenged.

Whether you are or not is questionable based on your reliance on something a mentally challenged individual posits.

who's the more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him?

[Gregg]

Planet Van Pelt has been spinning much faster than normal recently.

Word-salad is being ejected into orbit. This is hazardous to motor-scooters.

He's found someone as nuts as he is to play with.

[David Merrill]

... David is correct. Voluntary use of the private credit of FED creates a federal nexus, ...

Van Pelt is mentally challenged.

Whether you are or not is questionable based on your reliance on something a mentally challenged individual posits.

It is too easy to call you off by your cyber-evaluation. You disqualify yourself. As an alleged judge, you know that you would have to call in a state sock-puppet to get that posted. - And that all I would have to do is call in a competent psychologist to defeat you and your sock-puppet.

The individual can contract with the Fed by endorsement and become effectively a Fed bank.

I am repeating the above quote here because it was nonsense when you first said it and it is still nonsense.

You do not consider signature endorsement evidence of a contract?

The only difference between Federal Reserve Bank Notes and Federal Reserve Notes was (when there were FRBNs) that the note was redeemable at that specific bank. Now Federal Reserve notes are generally redeemable at any fed bank. That is just the way it is.

That is right.

Issuance of federal reserve notes is exclusively for federal reserve banks. The law does not say what you say it says. It does not say that goes for federal reserve bank notes only. The law says what it says. The applications were between banks, I admit, from 1913 to 1933! Then HJR-192 opened up the contracting to private individuals.

Anybody has the choice with their paychecks - to redeem lawful money or endorse private credit from the Fed.

Then you jump into nonsensical la-la land.

What I say is simply open an evidence repository in the cognizance of the US government and let a federal judge say that on the record, instead of Quatlosers who will not even post their identity. It will never happen because I am right. Elastic currency cannot be imposed upon a free people by mandate - only voluntarily.

That's where we end up with all this. Thanks for making my point. Maybe you just need to look at the definition for a fed bank. Notorial Dissent ducked out when he realized I was baiting you.

I know exactly what a Federal Reserve Bank is. You, on the other hand, try to impose your nonsense on things you do not understand.

No you don't. If you have federal reserve notes in your wallet that you acquired by signature endorsement, then you are by definition a federal reserve bank.

If these people never get prosecuted, how do you suppose they can generate a court case? Do you want somebody redeeming lawful money to sue the IRS because they got a full refund of their withholdings?

Whatever David, the courts have specifically stated that a person using lawful money is liable for income taxes. You have nothing but your word that your idiotic theory works.

I got you there! You are expecting people to produce proof more than a Refund Check for the full amount of the tax year's Withholdings? And you expect that even if I show you the Return and Check, that you would not whine that I removed all tracking to protect whoever sent that to me from Nikki-snitch?

Of course you are all entitled to your opinions. That is why I am so patient with you. I really put a damper on this though, when I say we will allow a federal judge to tell America there is no remedy anymore - it is just written right there in the Code. And that is the other thing, if what you say is true, then some time shortly after 1945, when FRBNs were retired, Congress would have repealed the Code. Too bad for you - you lose this one.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[bmielke]

Planet Van Pelt has been spinning much faster than normal recently.

Word-salad is being ejected into orbit. This is hazardous to motor-scooters.

He's found someone as nuts as he is to play with.

Is anyone else terrified by that fact?

[The Operative]

The individual can contract with the Fed by endorsement and become effectively a Fed bank.

I am repeating the above quote here because it was nonsense when you first said it and it is still nonsense.

You do not consider signature endorsement evidence of a contract?

I did not say that. When a person, as a payee, drawee, accommodation party, or holder, signs an instrument, the person undertakes certain obligations. An indorsement consisting of merely a signature might be the shortest contract known to the law. However, simply because a person undertakes certain obligations when signing a negotiable instrument, that does not mean they become a Fed bank. That is simply nonsense.

That is your problem, David. You read some explanation of how certain things work legally, but then you make some illogical leap to a conclusion that is not correct.

The only difference between Federal Reserve Bank Notes and Federal Reserve Notes was (when there were FRBNs) that the note was redeemable at that specific bank. Now Federal Reserve notes are generally redeemable at any fed bank. That is just the way it is.

That is right.

Issuance of federal reserve notes is exclusively for federal reserve banks. The law does not say what you say it says. It does not say that goes for federal reserve bank notes only. The law says what it says. The applications were between banks, I admit, from 1913 to 1933! Then HJR-192 opened up the contracting to private individuals.

That is nonsense David. HJR-192 in 1933 did not open up contracting to private individuals. It also did not make individuals a place where another person could redeem a FRN, bank note, or national bank note for lawful money.

Anybody has the choice with their paychecks - to redeem lawful money or endorse private credit from the Fed.

Then you jump into nonsensical la-la land.

What I say is simply open an evidence repository in the cognizance of the US government and let a federal judge say that on the record, instead of Quatlosers who will not even post their identity. It will never happen because I am right. Elastic currency cannot be imposed upon a free people by mandate - only voluntarily.

More nonsense. There are plenty of people here who post their identities. I do not. However, that is not because I am hiding, but because I have been a victim of identity theft.

The Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate the currency. The courts have consistently upheld this power of Congress.

That's where we end up with all this. Thanks for making my point. Maybe you just need to look at the definition for a fed bank. Notorial Dissent ducked out when he realized I was baiting you.

I know exactly what a Federal Reserve Bank is. You, on the other hand, try to impose your nonsense on things you do not understand.

No you don't. If you have federal reserve notes in your wallet that you acquired by signature endorsement, then you are by definition a federal reserve bank.

Nonsense.

If these people never get prosecuted, how do you suppose they can generate a court case? Do you want somebody redeeming lawful money to sue the IRS because they got a full refund of their withholdings?

Whatever David, the courts have specifically stated that a person using lawful money is liable for income taxes. You have nothing but your word that your idiotic theory works.

I got you there! You are expecting people to produce proof more than a Refund Check for the full amount of the tax year's Withholdings? And you expect that even if I show you the Return and Check, that you would not whine that I removed all tracking to protect whoever sent that to me from Nikki-snitch?

Once again for the obviously dim-witted: a refund check is not proof. If and when the IRS discovers the error, that money will have to be paid back to the IRS with penalties and interest.

Of course you are all entitled to your opinions. That is why I am so patient with you. I really put a damper on this though, when I say we will allow a federal judge to tell America there is no remedy anymore - it is just written right there in the Code. And that is the other thing, if what you say is true, then some time shortly after 1945, when FRBNs were retired, Congress would have repealed the Code. Too bad for you - you lose this one.

As I have stated several times in this thread already, the law does not say what you think it says. And no, once FRBNs were retired, Congress would not have repealed the code, because the ability to exchange FRNs for coins still exists. Even if your ridiculous theory about redeeming FRNs was correct (it is not), it still would have no effect on the income tax laws. A person who receives anything of value from another as compensation for their labors, is receiving gross income which is subject to the income tax laws.

BTW, I have lost nothing. Your delusions do not constitute a valid point in a debate.

[notorial dissent]

Earth to planet Merrill, earth to planet Merrill.

Other than the over riding fact that you are dead wrong along with all your other nonsense, your biggest error is your endorsement nonsense. Federal Reserve Notes CANNOT be endorsed, since they are NON ENDORSABLE, BEARER INSTRUMENTS. You can scribble all you want to and put your magic symbols all over them, and it like your life means NOTHING.

You cannot endorse, what cannot be endorsed. That is why they are called, and are legally bank notes, which means they are bearer instruments.

Your magic incantations mean nothing and cannot change a things. They were Federal Reserve Notes when they were printed, they were Federal Reserve Notes when they were sent to the bank, they were Federal Reserve Notes when they were paid out at the bank, and they remain Federal Reserve Notes when you get around to spending them.

Tax liability happens at the point of income earned, and not when of if you cash your check, and from that point you are liable for the tax regardless off what you do with your pittance. It doesn’t matter if you get paid in guinea pigs, you are liable for the value of the pigs.