NOTICE: This is an archived forum maintained only for search purposes.

Member services are being moved and revamped at www.iwarrior.net.

Thank you for your interest and participation.

Reserved for insight into matters pertaining to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, i.e., 12 U.S.C. § 411, et al.

Unread post November 21st, 2012, 3:31 pm
David Merrill Lead Researcher

Lead Researcher
User avatar

Hello Folks!

As I recall some time back Jesse James started a thread called; David Merrill and Redeeming Lawful Money - Wrong! It looks as though I posted a couple times and then forgot about this forum until Johnny began PMs about the thread being closed and a related thread was opened for Jesse to discuss an IRS Form - something like that.

I believe that this is remedy from the elastic currency of the Federal Reserve written into the Federal Reserve Act itself at §16 and codified at Title 12 USC §411;

They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...

Assuring success involves a little training in trust law. But I have noted many new suitors do well if they have been involved in contracting for a living. I look forward to explaining American Remedy in more detail. Here are a couple videos about it:

Public Money v Private Credit

Federal Reserve Act - Remedy

Unread post November 21st, 2012, 7:22 pm
jessejames44 Apprentice

Apprentice

Just last night I was thinking to myself johnny is probably going to run crying to Merrill asking for help and BINGO wouldnt you know it. Johnn goes and pm's you because I shut down his ability to troll my thread discussing why your theory, and it is a theory, doesnt coexist with the imposition laws found in Title 26.
For your information Merrill, johnn said he was going to continue to argue like we did over at FREEDOMWATCH which I finally had to ask Mr. Weston to give me admin status to the thread to keep his baseless and senseless arguement from interupting why your theory is baseless.
Also johnn beleives I'm this jay fellow from quatloos which I'm not. Weston knows my real name and email address which he can confirm who I am.

Heres the problem with your private credit fiat thesis causing the federal income imposition Mr. Merrill.
The IRC imposes the chapter 24 deduction for the Section 1 federal income tax because earning of a particular defined "wage", not because of fiat reserve notes.
Nowhere do you ever read in chapter 24, or anywhere in the IRC, the imposition being based on the use of fiat money.

Heres one for ya Merrill. One that johnn couldnt answer.
Where do you get the idea that "reserve notes" are private credit?

I read 411 with an unbiased mind set and noticed the statute says the notes are obligations of the united states government, not the reserve bank/s.
Logically if it were private credit 411 would read to say the notes are an obligation to the federal reserve bank/s, which logically and realistically would be considered private. Much the same as coupons from a sponsoring manufacturer saying .15 off Irish Spring soap. But thats not 411 reads now does it.....no it doesnt!

411 reads to say they are an obligation to the united states which doesnt sound like reserve notes could be private OR credit when they are obligations to a government, a "body politic", as in the "public" and for public use for paying taxes, customs and other PUBLIC DUES just as the statute says.

My personal opinion of you Merrill is that you are a peddler conspirator seeking attention from failing to figure out the tax code so you came up with this far fetched idea of paper money causing the federal income tax imposition.
How you can think paper money is the cause is beyond me when the law says the excise TAXABLE activity is earning 3101(a) "wages" (see 26usc 3111) which are in respect to "employment" as defined by 3121(b) from the Social Security Act.
You nor johnn have yet to bring forth any creditable substantial evidence suggesting fiat. All you do is post pictures of "stuff" that most of the time is not even remotely related to the imposition. You leave people thinking to themselves what is he posting and what does he have posted have to do with the price of tea in china.

Unread post November 22nd, 2012, 6:42 pm
David Merrill Lead Researcher

Lead Researcher
User avatar

Maybe to you; that is all you can understand.

This article explained it quite well.



The process works like this. Suppose $1000 in Federal Reserve notes are presented for redemption in public money. To raise $1000 in public money the Fed must surrender U.S. Bonds in that amount to the Treasury in exchange for the public money demanded (assuming that the Fed had no public money on hand). In so doing $1000 of the National Debt would be paid off by the Fed and thus canceled.


I don't think that is too complicated. At least a lot of other people get it easily.





Regards,


David Merrill.

Unread post November 22nd, 2012, 6:45 pm
David Merrill Lead Researcher

Lead Researcher
User avatar

Here is a good example:



Image

Image

Unread post November 22nd, 2012, 9:19 pm
jessejames44 Apprentice

Apprentice

David Merrill wrote:
Maybe to you; that is all you can understand.

This article explained it quite well.








The process works like this. Suppose $1000 in Federal Reserve notes are presented for redemption in public money. To raise $1000 in public money the Fed must surrender U.S. Bonds in that amount to the Treasury in exchange for the public money demanded (assuming that the Fed had no public money on hand). In so doing $1000 of the National Debt would be paid off by the Fed and thus canceled.



I don't think that is too complicated. At least a lot of other people get it easily.





Regards,


David Merrill.


So you think, going by your link you provided, because someone "said" bonds Congress creates from thin air that are deposited in a reserve bank somehow is deemed "private" and "credit" of the reserve bank?
Well you can think that assumingly but:
1. The bond is an asset of the depositing government, not the private reserve bank to assume the deposit somehow magically turns into an asset of the bank. The deposits are a liability of the reserve bank, not their credit!

Have you ever sat back and thought about what you are saying?
Have you ever put yourself in the shoes of the people you are telling these story's of yours to see how bizare and backwards they really are?

2. Lets assume your theory is true. You still havent tied this theory to Title 26, particulary the issue regarding "wages".

As far as what you wrote above I think you need to read the link you provided. That link says Congress issues bonds from thin air and deposits that into the rederal reserve.
How are you getting the idea the deposits that are a liability to the bank are somehow surrendered?

1. Why are you injecting this "redemption" thingy in the process of a government depositing bonds to pay its debts to other governments?
Why I dont know or understand except maybe you are trying to keep those willing to beleive you from uncovering the truth.
Like I say, I beleive you couldnt figure out the tax code and came up with conspiracy story to try and explain it.

What do you mean the federal reserve surrenders?
Surrenders what?
Are you suggesting the reserve banks surrenders the deposits belonging to the depositing government back to the depositing governments?
And the reserve bank redeems what?
411 does not say federal reserve banks redeem as you are now suggesting. (Do you make this up as you go?)
411 says fiat notes can be redeemed by a person walking into a reserve bank for lawful money, assumingly lawful is meant to be treasury notes. And treasury notes are to be backed by silver and gold.
We are no longer on the gold standard since the 1930's and no longer issue silver certificates since 1971.

Also, why do you keep posting pictures of documents that supposedly explains everything?
I'm going to explain something to you Merrill that I explained to your side kick johnn.
Pictures mean absolutely nothing!
For what its worth, and that isnt much, that picture of a supposed NY tax return can be bogus. Any nut case, including yourself, can print that off and fill in the blanks with what ever they want and pass it off as proof.
Those pictures are nothing but hearsay...........they are not proof!
Especially when you refuse to connect the dots between 12usc 411 and the imposing statutes of title 26.

How do you, Merrill, know this person who sent these pictures of a state tax return didnt already have an existing tax credit to off set the next years tax liability and get a full return?
And how do you know the two picture are of the same NY tax document?
They can be from two different tax years and from two different individuals.
To an astute researcher all you are doing is discrediting yourself with these photos absolutely prove nothing.

Seriously Merrill. Do you think I'm that stupid to think for one minute those pictures couldnt be faked? Without positive verification the pictures cant be used as creditable.

Unread post November 23rd, 2012, 1:46 am
David Merrill Lead Researcher

Lead Researcher
User avatar

You make it too complicated.

The primary purpose of the Fed Act is to provide an elastic currency. Elastic currency is illegal. Therefore Congress was allowing a criminal syndicalism to grow in America - and that can only be voluntary participation. Ergo the clause found at §16 and Title 12 USC §411.

You simply make your demand for lawful money and get results of full refunds of withholdings. If you want, that is all there is to it. The only methods you have to rebut the examples I can provide is resort to sophistry and an underlying insulting streak. I remember your methods Jesse. You just seem to enjoy spending a long time writing long-winded posts in order to attempt wasting my time. It does not work like that any more.



Regards,

David Merrill.

Unread post November 23rd, 2012, 7:13 am
David Merrill Lead Researcher

Lead Researcher
User avatar

If you do not believe that your signature is a bond then I imagine you are a victim of your own ignorance. That likely explains why you write and behave the way that you do.

There is much, much more to the Lesson Plan. Making demand to redeem lawful money teaches the foundation. You might consider the 'diversity of citizenship' whether you are in contract with the Fed or not. If you are not in contract with the Fed then Title 26 does not apply to you because it is not positive law.

Interestingly you are arguing that showing people with pictures is somehow misleading? Nonsense! Above what I showed everybody was an example of how the NY Tax Authority carefully discerned that the suitor had missed his $125 School Tax Credit while also verifying that he had $7K of Withholdings on Zero (taxable) Income! I am not going to quit showing people stuff just because you are so easily slapped down by the method.

If you want to learn more - or see more examples just Click Here.


Image

Unread post November 23rd, 2012, 8:46 am
jessejames44 Apprentice

Apprentice

David Merrill wrote:
You make it too complicated.

The primary purpose of the Fed Act is to provide an elastic currency. Elastic currency is illegal. Therefore Congress was allowing a criminal syndicalism to grow in America - and that can only be voluntary participation. Ergo the clause found at §16 and Title 12 USC §411.

You simply make your demand for lawful money and get results of full refunds of withholdings. If you want, that is all there is to it. The only methods you have to rebut the examples I can provide is resort to sophistry and an underlying insulting streak. I remember your methods Jesse. You just seem to enjoy spending a long time writing long-winded posts in order to attempt wasting my time. It does not work like that any more.



Regards,

David Merrill.


Who told you elastic money was illegal Mr. Vanpelt?
The US Constitution doesnt make elastic currency illegal so where are you getting the idea that its illegal?

Your example of getting refunds from demanding lawful money is a joke Vanpelt.
For one, the first example that johnny was using on other websites to prove your theory works is so full of math errors that is was obvious the irs agent that processed that return didnt look close enough to see them. And now that I have pointed those errors out to johnny he doesnt spout that return anymore.........it's a complete embarressment for your cause.
The example you used in this thread cannot be used as proof for lack of creditability....pictures of state returns have no bearing on federal returns. Again we dont know if the two pictures are even of the same return or if they are bogus, but hey this is America so your free to pass your inequity off to the not so observant reader.

I rebut your results because:

1. The law surrounding withholding from "wages" and salaries is hinged solely on participating in Social Security. The law doesnt lie.
When participate in Social Security you earn 3121(a) "wages". When you earn 3121(a) "wages" you earn 3401(a) "wages" at the same time.
Dont beleive me then look at box (1) (3401(a) wages) and box (2) (Social Security Wages) on a W2. They both list the same amounts because they are the same.
How you can think Mr. Vanpelt you can get a full refund at the end of the year by redeeming is beyond me when all year you as a participant of SS have had immediate SS benefit coverage at your disposal through out the year.
Social Security is no different in operation as a car insurance policy.....you dont get a full refund of your monthly insurance premiums if you didnt make a claim do you?....no you do not!
So what makes you think you can get a full tax return refund by asking for lawful money when you've had all the immediate Social Security benefits at your disposal even if you didnt make a claim of unemployment or food stamps?
You CANT and thats why your theory of redeeming a full tax refund is doomed when it catches enough IRS attention.
To ask for a full refund is telling the government you didnt participate in Social Security when the truth is you DID participate even if you didnt claim any immediate SS benefits.

2. Besides the logic that (1) addressed above your refund examples lack the neccessary proof....again pictures of documents are not verifiable.
Anybody can grab a rock from off the ground, photograph it, and claim its from the moon.........photo's are not proof!
Last edited by jessejames44 on November 23rd, 2012, 2:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Unread post November 23rd, 2012, 10:52 am
johnny Novice

Novice

I can add that David Merrill is correct. I have redeemed lawful money myself, watched others do it, and can confirm success. The IRS respects the law and does not pursue those of us who make lawful money income. The IRS does not consider lawful money income to be income under the Revenue Acts.

The fact that Jesse James comes into this forum to misconstrue & twist our words, distract, insult & ridicule us says something important itself. We must be showing something important; something dangerous to those on the receiving end of that fiat taxation. Otherwise why bother?
Last edited by johnny on January 7th, 2013, 2:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Unread post November 23rd, 2012, 1:35 pm
jessejames44 Apprentice

Apprentice

johnny wrote:
I can add that David Merrill is correct. I have redeemed lawful money myself, watched others do it, and can confirm success. The IRS respects the law and does not pursue those of who make lawful money income. The IRS does not consider lawful money income to be income under the Revenue Acts.

The fact that Jesse James comes into this forum to misconstrue & twist our words, distract, insult & ridicule us says something important itself. We must be showing something imortant; something dangerous to those on the receiving end of that fiat taxation. Otherwise why bother?


Whos misconstrueing and twisting the law john?
It certainly is not me!
Its you thats already admitted you report under the "employment" income threshold and passing the lack of IRS intervention as success to redeeming.
You are DIRTY John!
Just because I bring forth the hard evidence that says you're selling snakeskin oil doesnt mean I'm mistconstrueing the law.
I'm very much against a person being taxed on their labor.
Watching someone write "redeemed" on the backside of a paycheck and receiving fiat reserve notes in return is not success to say the least.
When it comes to what the IRS considers income under the revenue acts the law states this:


3121
(a) Wages
For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration for employment, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include—

So if Vanpelt and John libre here claim lawful money is exempt from "all remuneration" for employment (participating in Social Security) they are the delusional nutcases lawyers and people like me have been saying about them for a long time.
Stay clear away from Vanpelt and john as they are two artists promoting a scam.

3121(a) "wages" are in reality 3401(a) "wages" and 3401(a) "wages" are what the government has defined for the purpose of "withholding".

Look at any W2 because what you'll find is that Box 1 (3401(a) "wages") and box 3 (3121(a) Social Security wages) always show the same amount because they are identical.....they are the same.
If you earned 50,245.38 wages (Box 1) you are going to also find 50,245.38 of Social Security wages in (box 3). And if you want to go further look at (box 5) it'll have the same 50,245.38. for medicare wages.
And what Vanpelt neglects telling his readers is that its the Social Security Administration that inputs the income amounts (box 1, box 3 and box5 of the W2) into the government retirement system. When you file a tax return you attach the W2 which the IRS uses compare with the information from the W3 that is already in the system.
You get a paycheck having all the deductions withholdings taken out and endorse the check in the way Vanpelt and John Libre would like you to think exempts you from the income tax will eventuall catch up with you. This by no means nullify the reporting info to the SSA via the transmittal W3 form already in the system.

Like federal taxes the benefits of particiapting in Social Security are measured in quarterly incriments and if you are particiapting in Social Security you are taxed for those immediate benefits to pay for them.
When you file your tax return you cannot file in any way (zero return, redeeming, ect.) telling the government you didnt earn 3401(a) "wages" and want all your withholdings returned when you were covered under Social Security for the year.
That W2 isnt lying to you. If your W2 says you earned Social Security wages, be rest assured, it'll say you earned the same exact amount of 3401(a) "wages" also.

Next

Return to Redeeming Lawful Money

cron