A serious discussion on the legal theories and merits of a FRN Redemption Rally...

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[sirgonzo420]

For the hell of it, tomorrow I am planning on sending a certified letter to the Treasury with a FRN enclosed, similar to the correspondence posted above.

I'll post whatever I find out here.
.

Also, when I was looking at the $1 FRN to send, I noticed that it was issued by the St Louis FED.

All the newer "big-head-off-center" bills do not have the specific branch that issued them. The new bills all say "federal reserve system".

Compare an old $50 (small head) to a new $50 and you'll see what I mean.

FWIW.

[brandon]

I have nothing to contribute, but I just wanted to say that I find this very interesting and will be following along. Thanks for the posts.

[Athan]

I also have nothing to contribute due to my unspeakable genius forbidding me from giving you all the answers you seek, but I will also be following the discussion closely.

Just like god I'm going to be peeping at you while you take a shit. I'm pervy like that.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[sratiug]

The court may pretend that wages can be taxed as income. But a company operating as an employment service will never pay tax on the "wages" paid to that company for services rendered, it will only pay tax on the remaining profit after expenses. Unless corporations and companies have more rights than individuals in this country any individual should have the same right to deduct any and all expenses related to employment (food, rent, gas, car payment, etc) before taxes are calculated.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[sratiug]

You make a point but you are not backing it up with anything.

I posted three court rulings on basis and gain. The courts have ruled that we have a zero basis in our labor. It's pretty shitty, but rulings I have already cited make your assertion frivilous without substantiating it (at least in the eyes of the court under the rule of law, and that is the system we live in). I did leave the door open to respond to tax assertions that were backed up. I am not really diving into a matter concerning an adjusted basis on labor but if you are going to do some research and make some assertions that are backed up I will respond in kind to advance the discussion.

These are simple facts. There are probably many thousands of employment services in the USA. If you can find one that does pay taxes on the money paid to it for providing labor without legally deducting ALL operating expenses of that company then I will eat my hat.

If the court rules that an individual has no basis in our labor as an individual, then all that individual must do is form his own employment service to reclaim his right to deduct all costs just like all other companies do. Or we could form that employment service. Either way, if the employment service pays all costs of living for the employee and only pays a small amount in wages the employee could have zero tax liability. No new court decisions required.

[David A. Gay, Sr.]

FOR ANYONE WITH A SAVINGS...

We could just go to the bank and switch our FRN's for sacks of dimes and quarters.

Done on a mass-scale, this could be a major hit!

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[sratiug]

If you incorporate or form any business entity you are no longer an individual. Corporations are created by government and fully regulated by government. As such they dictate what can or can not be deducted for tax purposes. So again it goes back to basis and gain. It has already been determined that if a business buys a house (which is deductable for the business) and provides an individual free housing that is considered income to the individual.

Again you do not back up your assertions. You perpetuate arguments that have been before the court. Yes things are simple. You can read through all of the court rulings I have linked and the matter is clearly articulated.

So, how much is the president taxed for living in the white house for free?

[PatriotG]

Marbury v. Madison
2. If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy? [5 U.S. 137, 163] The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain the king himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court.

In the third volume of his Commentaries, page 23, Blackstone states two cases in which a remedy is afforded by mere operation of law.

'In all other cases,' he says, 'it is a general and indisputable rule, that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded.'

And afterwards, page 109 of the same volume, he says, 'I am next to consider such injuries as are cognizable by the courts of common law. And herein I shall for the present only remark, that all possible injuries whatsoever, that did not fall within the exclusive cognizance of either the ecclesiastical, military, or maritime tribunals, are, for that very reason, within the cognizance of the common law courts of justice; for it is a settled and invariable principle in the laws of England, that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress.'

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[PatriotG]

Do you have any initial (qualified or unqualified) thoughts on what our right to money is? Clearly the court stated government essentially has power over all aspects of money. But in another case the court started to say that money policy does indirectly affect private contracts but did not really consider that argument in defining the governments power of money. So is there a private contract right argument? What is the point of congress recognizing redemption of a note? Does that infer a right? Or are you simply asserting that since there is a law to redeem we have a right to be protected under the law? I have several other questions in my mind but I have put the question of what is our right to money off until I review legislative history more. But since you appear to have read that decision and reinforce what I stated earlier in the thread that a condition of remedy is a right I was curious if you had any additional thoughts?

Money is not a right. It is a tool of convenience. Money was really a novelty up until the times that men in the industry of making money made it a necessity.

The primary considerations of the body text of the Constitution is the tenet that it is a doctrine of powers assigned to the government to limit its function and to promote a general welfare along the lines enumerated in the Constitution. It does not propose, nor does it imply a right.

I cannot off the top of my head think of any case that implies some sort of right to have money, as it is ownership of property that is the protected right, and not the tool that implies any right unless so specified as necessity as in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15&16. The action of your labor, which equates to money is a right; Jerome H. Sheip Co. v. Amos, 100 Fla. 863, 130 So. 699, 705 & Jack Cole Co. v. MacFarland, 337 S.W.2d 453, 455-56

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Danke]

I also have nothing to contribute due to my unspeakable genius forbidding me from giving you all the answers you seek, but I will also be following the discussion closely.

Just like god I'm going to be peeping at you while you take a shit. I'm pervy like that.
:D

Live_Free_Or_Die, if I work in the private sector, is the money I receive in my paycheck taxable?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Danke]

Which part of post #4 confuses you about my position?

This is your position to my question?


The landmark supreme court case that I am aware of was the Pollock case. I am going to link to the Pollock and the Brushaber cases because the opinions clearly state the supreme courts position on income tax and the ramifications of the 16th amendment. The pollock ruling is quite comprehensive and the court covers quite a bit of history in the ruling. The brushaber ruling references the pollock ruling and comments on it further. To understand the position of the supreme court on all matters of taxation these two rulings must be read and understood in their entirety.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...ol=240&invol=1
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...=157&invol=429

I hesitate to summarize because my summary could never do the rulings justice but in short the court says the power of congress to tax has never been in question only the manner of the tax. Prior to the 16th amendment the supreme court always considered the source of the tax. Which was always extremely important in their rulings. However the 16th amendment took away the supreme courts ability to consider the source of a tax. That is why people say it did not create a new tax because it did not. The power to tax has always been there. What it did create was a new means to tax. For instance taxes on rents had previously always been considered a direct tax because the source of the tax is real estate. Taxes on real estate have always been considered a direct tax by the court. However amending the constitution taking away the courts ability to consider the source, tax on rents is no longer a direct tax.


So your position is "any source" of money received falls under the income tax, like my paycheck in the private sector?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt