crow
Forum Replies Created
Mornin', jrv…
I would offer nothing else, period, unless and until they do three things:
1) Prove the debt. That includes authenticated, certified copies of everything! Letters from Secretary to his delegate to Commissioner to blah blah, certified copies of w-2s, etc. Anything and everything that was used to determine this alleged debt has to be proven.
2) Prove the authority to collect the debt. Is Sally Jones at the IRS authorized to collect? How would you know?
3) Verify the debt. That's an oath stating personal and requisite knowledge of the facts to YOUR situation.
Like you mentioned about section 861 and their inability/refusal to acknowledge it, these people are going to simply ignore any “legal” arguments you present. So don't argue with them.
Do what any reasonable person would do when notified of an alleged debt: Demand proof.
They have the “luxury” of dismissing any and all “arguments” as “frivilous.” Well, demanding proof of debt, proof of authority, and verification of debt is NOT “frivilous.”
Take care of yourself.
Randy
Hi, Sara-Jane….
Got the link. Thanks. Still looking for a microscope. Did the best I could with my Oxford Dictionary magnifying glass and yep, sure enough, on the back of the check it talks about the “signature line” being a “broken line” and “might” have some “writing imbedded.” And you can tell “something” is there.
Okay. Talk to you soon.
Randy
Hi, Montana….
Please, it's just “Randy.” (Still figuring out how to set up signatures and stuff…)
Well, it's off to find access to a microscope, right?
And yes, you're right. That one little “invisible” truth puts the whole thing into perspective.
Thanks very much.
Also: Got your email. Again, many thanks. And I'm working on it. I'll be in touch. Now, help me find that forum you mentioned. I feel like I'm in my big-truck and lost…again…as usual. 😉
Randy
Hi, Sonic….
You don't need to be told what an excellent letter you wrote–you already know that.
But ain't it fascinating how, in the mind of a bureaucrat, people who want ONLY to obey the law are “troublemakers”?
Or, as the old joke goes: “Reason? There's no reason. It's just company policy.”
Gotta love that old song:
“Talking is cheap, people follow like sheep, even though there is nowhere to go.”
Well done, Sonic.
Randy
Here's some stuff from Title 12, CFR, Banks and Banking
1. Title 12, Chapter 4, Subchapter I
Sec. 531. – Exemption from taxation
Federal reserve banks, including the capital stock and surplus therein and the income derived therefrom, shall be exempt from Federal, State, and local taxation, except taxes upon real estate
The Federal Reserve and member banks pay NO taxes.
2. TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 3 > SUBCHAPTER XI > Sec. 391. Next
Sec. 391. – Federal reserve banks as Government depositaries and fiscal agents
The moneys held in the general fund of the Treasury, except the 5 per centum fund for the redemption of outstanding national-bank notes may, upon the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, be deposited in Federal reserve banks, which banks, when required by the Secretary of the Treasury, shall act as fiscal agents of the United States; and the revenues of the Government or any part thereof may be deposited in such banks, and disbursements may be made by checks drawn against such deposits
All the monies collected as “income taxes” are deposited into Federal Reserve Banks.
3. TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 3 > SUBCHAPTER XI > Sec. 391a. Prev | Next
Sec. 391a. – Reimbursement of Federal Reserve Banks
Beginning in fiscal year 1998 and thereafter, there are appropriated such sums as may be necessary to reimburse Federal Reserve Banks in their capacity as depositaries and fiscal agents for the United States for all services required or directed by the Secretary of the Treasury to be performed by such banks on behalf of the Treasury or other Federal agencies
The United States pays these banks to handle the money for them.
4. TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 3 > SUBCHAPTER XI > Sec. 392. Prev | Next
Sec. 392. – Depositaries of Government funds as confined to banks in Federal reserve system; member banks as depositaries
No public funds of the postal savings, or any Government funds, shall be deposited in the continental United States in any bank not belonging to the system established by this chapter: Provided, however, That nothing in this chapter shall be construed to deny the right of the Secretary of the Treasury to use member banks as depositaries
All that revenue is to be deposited ONLY in Federal Reserve banks.
5. TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 3 > SUBCHAPTER XII > Sec. 411. Next
Sec. 411. – Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption
Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. 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
The “federal reserve notes” really, really are “notes of obligation,” that is, debt. If you want “real” money, go to DC.
6. TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 3 > SUBCHAPTER XIV > Sec. 461. Next
Sec. 461. – Reserve requirements
©
The term ''transaction account'' means a deposit or account on which the depositor or account holder is permitted to make withdrawals by negotiable or transferable instrument, payment orders of withdrawal, telephone transfers, or other similar items for the purpose of making payments or transfers to third persons or others. Such term includes demand deposits, negotiable order of withdrawal accounts, savings deposits subject to automatic transfers, and share draft accounts.
(2)
(A)
Each depository institution shall maintain reserves against its transaction accounts as the Board may prescribe by regulation solely for the purpose of implementing monetary policy –
(i)
in the ratio of 3 per centum for that portion of its total transaction accounts of $25,000,000 or less
Whatever amount a bank “agrees” to “lend” you, they need have only three per-cent of that amount on hand. So it's true. They really, really do simply “create” the money (“notes”) based upon nothing more than you're promise to pay it back.
And just so there's no confusion:
TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 77
Sec. 7501. – Liability for taxes withheld or collected
(a) General rule
Whenever any person is required to collect or withhold any internal revenue tax from any other person and to pay over such tax to the United States, the amount of tax so collected or withheld shall be held to be a special fund in trust for the United States. The amount of such fund shall be assessed, collected, and paid in the same manner and subject to the same provisions and limitations (including penalties) as are applicable with respect to the taxes from which such fund arose.
TITLE 31 > SUBTITLE II > CHAPTER 13 > SUBCHAPTER II
Sec. 1321. – Trust funds
(a) The following are classified as trust funds:
(1) Philippine special fund (customs duties).
(2) Philippine special fund (internal revenue).
ALL those “taxes” (Title 26, IRS) go into a “special fund in trust FOR the United States.” The courts (Title 31) would have us believe it might be a “Philippine special fund.” Now ain't that just plain silly?
Apologies for the somewhat sarcastic tone near the end. But if you're going to discuss the Federal Reserve from an “historical” viewpoing, you really do want to be able to document what the outcome really was/is. It'll go a long way to giving credence to the origins of the Federal Reserve.
Best of luck with your paper. Let everyone know how it turns out, okay? But don't be surprised if it's not well-received. You're challenging “conventional wisdom.” Take it from an old man–that's about the most dangerous thing you can do.
Morning, Author #2….
Newly registered to your site, but have been “lurking and learning” for over four years.
(Actually, just sent you an email a few minutes ago….)
Gotta tell you that of all the “topics” re this “tax stuff,” the strawman-thing just hasn't “clicked,” yet.
I understand the theory (and the “truth” that we're treated as one type of entity while not being that entity), but I haven't yet clarified for myself why, or how, becoming the “secured party” over my wrongly-perceived other “self” would make any difference in how the “theys” of the tax-people would deal with me.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
For the record, and for the benefit of others:
Once you choose to battle the taxman, do follow Family Guardian's example (but NOT advice):
1. Stick to what you know are the facts, period.
2. Do not even hint at anything that might become arguments over “points of law.”
3. Deny, Deny, Deny.
4. Say NOTHING in your correspondence that can be used against you.
5. Admit nothing.
6. Think “burden of proof,” that's all. “They” have to prove stuff, you don't.
7. Be professional. NO “emotional overtones.”
Thanks for the great site, Family Guardian….
Try this:
Ask someone in payroll if they have a system set up which allows them to “block income tax.” I'd never heard of this, either. I've been fired over fighting with employers over withholding and all the rest. Current employer as well “refused” to cooperate, but said if I'd put in writing my request to have them “block income tax,” they'd be glad to do it. Stopped both state and federal.
Randy
