| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Bondservant
Forum Administrator
382 Posts |
 Posted - 08 Apr 2005 : 21:04:24
|
What IS the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)? Is it a Federal Agency of the U.S. Treasury... or is it some obscure department of the International Monetary Fund (IMF)? 
If you think you know the answer, then post your substanciated facts. Let's expose some Truth about what IS and what IS NOT. The ecclesia has been hoodwinked for far too long, and now we are being led to believe that Washington City and its politicos are "Christian" 
He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err. - Mark 12:27 |
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 09 Apr 2005 : 00:23:20
|
And your poetry is invited Manuel.
For one perspective, the IRS is a Puerto Rican corporation. From another it is the International Monetary Fund operating through financial policy. |
 |
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 09 Apr 2005 : 06:07:58
|
Throwing a few quotes:
quote:
Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary - 1827
ATTORN - In the feudal law, to turn, or transfer homage and service from one lord to another. This is the act of feudatories, vassals, or tenants, upon the alienation of the estate. Blackstone
quote:
First National Bank of Montgomery v. Jerome Daly a/k/a Credit River Money Decision - JUDGMENT AND DECREE
Mr. Morgan admitted that all the money or credit which was used as a consideration was created upon their books, that this was standard banking practice exercised by their bank in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, another private Bank, further that he knew of no United States Statute or Law that gave the Plaintiff the authority to do this.
From the World Book Encyclopedia 1966 - United Nations, p. 31
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_UN_organs.jpg
We learn the International Monetary Fund is an organ of the United Nations. We also learn that 18 acres of Manhattan Island was donated by David Rockefeller to be international soil. [How is that done anyway? Do rich influential people have the capability of donating national lands to international causes?]
About ten years ago I went to the Secretary of State and requested verification there was a corporation allowed to operate in the State of Colorado called "Internal Revenue Service". They supplied a Certificate of Fact that there was no corporation private or domestic registered here. Interesting though, they were certain to tell me that the IRS did not need to be registered to operate in the State of Colorado.
quote:
Public Law 94-564 (H.R. 13955) Oct. 19, 1976 An Act - To provide for amendment of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act, and for other purposes. REPORT #94-1148; Calendar No. 1081 pp. 5, 8
Secretary of the Treasury, as U.S. Governor of the Fund, cast favorable vote...
...The U.S. Secretary of the Treasury receives no compensation for representing the United States. The other positions are paid by the institution. The provision prohibits double salary payments.
I have heard many times there is a Puerto Rican corporation registered to operate in the State of Deleware called "Internal Revenue Service". However, since that is not the party of interest in any actions I have participated in, there has never been any need to research that out. My interest has always been in a collection arm of the International Monetary Fund, the International Monetary Fund Internal Revenue Service and the Delaware/Puerto Rican (enclave) corporation always seemed to me some kind of decoy to divert suits out of admiralty and into strict Roman civil law (civil suit).
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Diagram1.jpg
That is why my initial response is the IRS is both UN/IMF and a private corporation. It depends on whether the inquirer is a Son or a slave. I hope to develop a clearer definition of both after some time in the federal repository. But for now, as I understand things, one must strain to make sense of the questions you have posed.
quote:
Is it a Federal Agency of the U.S. Treasury... or is it some obscure department of the International Monetary Fund (IMF)?
Start by looking at the front of a FRN. There are two contracting parties and one should presume the U.S. Treasury is holding a warehouse receipt for all the gold in Fort Knox, now in possession of the private Federal Reserve Bank as the central bank of the United States. That party is represented by the signature of Rosaria Marin, Treasurer of the United States. The difficulty is not to get these parties mixed up in our minds. The U.S. Treasury is not the Treasury. The Treasury is represented by John Snow, the Secretary of the Treasury.
In earlier admiralty cases I would enter a dollar bill as evidence. Then the federal judges began rejecting that a dollar could be allowed into any case as evidence. I let it go because all I was really proving is that a party cannot contract with itself unless it is schizophrenic. Attacking from that angle leads too often into senseless bickering but you have already opened the door with a dichotomized question so it will come up soon for my answer "both" to make sense.
The Puerto Rican "decoy" corporation likely contracts for the IMF. Like the Postal Service does for the Post Office. So go for the principal whenever possible. That would be the IMFIRS. Or even the United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan. [But the security guards will not allow process servers into the building on the UN campus and even process server firms specializing in the Hague Convention (international accord for process service) have no clue how one would serve Kofi Annan with an admiralty suit. That is worth pondering again. That could lead to some answers about infrastructure. So the process servers get "arrested" by the security guard and this proves the international soil aspect of the campus. (Was David Rockefeller's donation that obviously treason? And nobody will do anything? Sometimes I hear murmering about kicking the UN off American soil but that just begs the question about the METRO freedoms and exemptions granted to Patroons* on Manhattan Island http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_METROchapter1.pdf . That is another can of worms altogether; the Protocols and Christian Qabbalah 19+ Kings of Jerusalem/Habsburg Dynasty...ZOG - Zionist Occupied Government etc.) Then the security guards at the larger IRS campuses began turning servers away. Then the smaller campuses too. And maybe this is the colorable flexible overlay inherent in the 10-zone zip code. The federal fictional overlay of the Buck Act - 5 U.S.C. §§105-113 and why the Secretary of State said the IRS is not required to register in the (international) State of Colorado?]
Back to a dichotomy. One original estate for Sons - Matthew 17 and one fictional/colorable estate for legal name/legal tender/"real" estate.
quote:
Mt 17:25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?
Mt 17:26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Integration.jpg
Capital Integration Picture
Recovering from the dichotomy. I call that capital integration.
Regards,
David Merrill.
* Ergo I offer for you to have confidence in the wealth/energy based bill of exchange that cured on September 11, 2001 "Manhattan Judgment". I am a descendant of Teunis Jansen Laenen Van Pelt, one of the original Patroons of Manhattan Island.
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/BOE1.gif
Bill of Exchange Image 1
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/BOE2.gif
Bill of Exchange Image 2
That bill of exchange works in conjunction with Ron Paul's project of sunset to the Bretton Woods Agreement:
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Statement5.gif
Verified Statement of Right Page 5
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/1-HR3812.jpg
HR 3812 Page 1
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/2-HR3812.jpg
HR 3812 Page 2
P.S. I know I promised some research at the repository. But that may not happen. I was just reminded as I typed the last sentence above the solution is in capital integration. Not entertaining dichotomies. I am more tempted to acquire a newpaper photo of Clinton posing with Queen Beatrix of Orange Illuminatti style and give an in depth description of "the work" - Genesis 49:10. But we have been there before and I think Bondservant is after concrete factual definition of what the "IRS" is. Just the same I will connect some links later today.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 09 Apr 2005 08:07:35 |
|
|
|
Bondservant
Forum Administrator
382 Posts |
Posted - 09 Apr 2005 : 09:41:58
|
quote:
Start by looking at the front of a FRN. There are two contracting parties and one should presume the U.S. Treasury is holding a warehouse receipt for all the gold in Fort Knox, now in possession of the private Federal Reserve Bank as the central bank of the United States. That party is represented by the signature of Rosaria Marin, Treasurer of the United States. The difficulty is not to get these parties mixed up in our minds. The U.S. Treasury is not the Treasury. The Treasury is represented by John Snow, the Secretary of the Treasury.
This seems to be a major basis of understanding since the IRS performs its duties as a quasi collection entity, as far as I have researched myself. The question I have is exactly who does the IRS collect for? Are they collecting debt for the U.S. Treasury or for the the actual treasury we all know as the private Federal Reserve Bank? If either is true, is there some way to prove this from any record?
Add in the IMF and Bretton Woods and I get a little confused as to which player is with what and who works for whom. Now, we apparently have a Delaware corporate IRS as another involved player with ties to Puerto Rico? So then, what is the bottom line? Who are the "IRS agents" that run around terrorizing people actually working for? Who is their true employer after all the smoke and mirrors? The IMF, the FRB, the UN, the U.S. Treasury, the Queen of England, or some other entity player we haven't discovered yet?
The reason I began this topic was to get knowledge of what entity I can enforce my Right of Avoidance against. We need to know what or who it is we can lawfully avoid. |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 09 Apr 2005 : 11:49:36
|
My point will seem evasive so I assure you I am on my way down to the repository and local library now.
Suitors avoid any agent after "money". Remember the gas station scenario? Joe drives away because the attendant demanded smaller than $100 bill. Now take that one step further, ignoring HJR-192 altogether. Since the attendant is demanding debt instead of gold or silver, just say "I owe you." and never even pull out your wallet.
One possibility is to simply go into the closest IRS office and inquire. Thing is I don't want to put you off because I will not contact the Secretary of State in Deleware or Puerto Rico.
Service to the agent is service to the principal and vice versa.
I think you may be inquiring who is Kofi Annan's principal? That would probably be whoever is in David Rockefeller's shoes today. Maybe the Rockefeller family trust? That may be a cartel of several families. Then the next question would be who is their principal.
Werner Maximilian [I will keep his family name for privacy, but he is under the Habsburg family crest] effected bond of $11t on March 14, 2001. That did not go into his pocket. It is a bond and it is also debt destroyed in the illusion of money. Not money. So he would only collect like me on the bill of exchange ($3.6q originally) in a bunch of debt if we were to try collecting in FRNs. Then we would be con(fidence) men like the rest of the people and self-executing defeat our claim to the original estate. That is something to understand right there. Colorable money needs a colorable persona. It is self attornment or alienation from the original estate.
This instant comptroller warrant cured waiver of tort and destroyed over $1000 of debt. Actually I never even saw what the amount was, it worked so quickly. http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_novation_ER.jpg
So the reason I am retiscent to reveal the principal is that it is kind of hard to swallow, just because I am carrying the bill of exchange to prove it. And from a conventional Christian perspective one would want to question who the principal serves; Satan or the one true God. [You have moderated quite a few such squabbles.]
But the demand for debt currency makes one an agent and that works. Avoid. So you might wonder, why is the holder of the bill of exchange encouraging the people to avoid honoring the debt? Every time a debt is forgiven, public and/or private, the value of my bill goes down. So why would I be teaching avoidance? Would you like to be a Son? Do you feel like a slave? Do you want to quit calling the warden of the slave-shop every time you see a Son walking by free and instead find the Key to unlock the chains and be like the Son yourself?
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 09 Apr 2005 12:10:07 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 09 Apr 2005 : 22:00:17
|
Here are some cases which I always found relevant of which I will title... THE MA-TRICKS
Excerpted from:
http://www.iahf.com/usa/20010930a.html
1. The IRS is not a U.S. Government Agency. It is an Agency of the IMF. (Diversified Metal Products v. IRS et al. CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I., Public Law 94-564, Senate Report 94-1148 pg. 5967, Reorganization Plan No. 26, Public Law 102-391.)
2. The IMF is an Agency of the UN. (Blacks Law Dictionary 6th Ed. Pg. 816)
3. The U.S. Has not had a Treasury since 1921. (41 Stat. Ch.214 pg. 654)
4. The U.S. Treasury is now the IMF. (Presidential Documents Volume 29-No.4 pg. 113, 22 U.S.C. 285-288)
5. The United States does not have any employees because there is no longer a United States. No more reorganizations. After over 200 years of operating under bankruptcy its finally over. (Executive Order 12803) Do not personate one of the creditors or share holders or you will go to Prison.18 U.S.C. 914
6. The FCC, CIA, FBI, NASA and all of the other alphabet gangs were never part of the United States government. Even though the "US Government" held shares of stock in the various Agencies. (U.S. V. Strang , 254 US 491, Lewis v. US, 680 F.2d, 1239)
7. Social Security Numbers are issued by the UN through the IMF. The Application for a Social Security Number is the SS5 form. The Department of the Treasury (IMF) issues the SS5 not the Social Security Administration. The new SS5 forms do not state who or what publishes them, the earlier SS5 forms state that they are Department of the Treasury forms. You can get a copy of the SS5 you filled out by sending form SSA-L996 to the SS Administration. (20 CFR chapter 111, subpart B 422.103 (b) (2) (2) Read the cites above)
8. There are no Judicial courts in America and there has not been since 1789. Judges do not enforce Statutes and Codes. Executive Administrators enforce Statutes and Codes. (FRC v. GE 281 US 464, Keller v. PE 261 US 428, 1 Stat. 138-178)
9. There have not been any Judges in America since 1789. There have just been Administrators. (FRC v. GE 281 US 464, Keller v. PE 261 US 428 1Stat. 138-178)
10. According to the GATT you must have a Social Security number. House Report (103-826)
11. We have One World Government, One World Law and a One World Monetary System. (Get the Disks)
12. The UN is a One World Super Government. (Get the Disks)
13. No one on this planet has ever been free. This planet is a Slave Colony. There has always been a One World Government. It is just that now it is much better organized and has changed its name as of 1945 to the United Nations. (Get the Disks)
14. New York City is defined in the Federal Regulations as the United Nations. Rudolph Gulliani stated on C-Span that "New York City was the capital of the World" and he was correct. (20 CFR chapter 111, subpart B 422.103 (b) (2) (2)
15. Social Security is not insurance or a contract, nor is there a Trust Fund. (Helvering v. Davis 301 US 619, Steward Co. V. Davis 301 US 548.)
16. Your Social Security check comes directly from the IMF which is an Agency of the UN. (Look at it if you receive one. It should have written on the top left United States Treasury.)
17. You own no property, slaves can't own property. Read the Deed to the property that you think is yours. You are listed as a Tenant. (Senate Document 43, 73rd Congress 1st Session)
18. The most powerful court in America is not the United States Supreme Court but, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. (42 Pa.C.S.A. 502)
19. The Revolutionary War was a fraud. See (22, 23 and 24)
20. The King of England financially backed both sides of the Revolutionary war. (Treaty at Versailles July 16, 1782, Treaty of Peace 8 Stat 80)
21. You can not use the Constitution to defend yourself because you are not a party to it. (Padelford Fay & Co. v. The Mayor and Alderman of The City of Savannah 14 Georgia 438, 520)
22. America is a British Colony. (THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION, NOT A LAND MASS AND IT EXISTED BEFORE THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR AND THE BRITISH TROOPS DID NOT LEAVE UNTIL 1796.) Respublica v. Sweers 1 Dallas 43, Treaty of Commerce 8 Stat 116, The Society for Propagating the Gospel, &c. V. New Haven 8 Wheat 464, Treaty of Peace 8 Stat 80, IRS Publication 6209, Articles of Association October 20, 1774.)
23. Britain is owned by the Vatican. (Treaty of 1213)
24. The Pope can abolish any law in the United States. (Elements of Ecclesiastical Law Vol.1 53-54)
25. A 1040 form is for tribute paid to Britain. (IRS Publication 6209)
26. The Pope claims to own the entire planet through the laws of conquest and discovery. (Papal Bulls of 1455 and 1493)
27. The Pope has ordered the genocide and enslavement of millions of people.(Papal Bulls of 1455 and 1493)
28. The Popes laws are obligatory on everyone. (Bened. XIV., De Syn. Dioec, lib, ix., c. vii., n. 4. Prati, 1844)(Syllabus, prop 28, 29, 44)
29. We are slaves and own absolutely nothing not even what we think are our children.(Tillman v. Roberts 108 So. 62, Van Koten v. Van Koten 154 N.E. 146, Senate Document 43 & 73rd Congress 1st Session, Wynehammer v. People 13 N.Y. REP 378, 481)
30. Military Dictator George Washington divided the States (Estates) into Districts. (Messages and papers of the Presidents Vo 1, pg 99. Websters 1828 dictionary for definition of Estate.)
31." The People" does not include you and me. (Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore. 32 U.S. 243)
32. The United States Government was not founded upon Christianity. (Treaty of Tripoli 8 Stat 154.)
33. It is not the duty of the police to protect you. Their job is to protect the Corporation and arrest code breakers. Sapp v. Tallahasee, 348 So. 2nd. 363, Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, 477 F.Supp. 1262, Lynch v. N.C. Dept of Justice 376 S.E. 2nd. 247.
34. Everything in the "United States" is For Sale: roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, water, prisons airports etc. I wonder who bought Klamath lake. Did anyone take the time to check? (Executive Order 12803)
35. We are Human capital. (Executive Order 13037)
36. The UN has financed the operations of the United States government for over 50 years and now owns every man, women and child in America. The UN also holds all of the Land in America in Fee Simple. (Get the Disks for the Essay and Documents.)
37. The good news is we don't have to fulfill "our" fictitious obligations. You can discharge a fictitious obligation with another's fictitious obligation. (Get the Disks)
38. The depression and World War II were a total farce. The United States and various other companies were making loans to others all over the World during the Depression. The building of Germanys infrastructure in the 1930's including the Railroads was financed by the United States. That way those who call themselves "Kings," "Prime Ministers," and "Furor."etc could sit back and play a game of chess using real people. Think of all of the Americans, Germans etc. who gave their lives thinking they were defending their Countries which didn't even exist. The millions of innocent people who died for nothing. Isn't it obvious why Switzerland is never involved in these fiascoes? That is where the "Bank of International Settlements"is located.Wars are manufactured to keep your eye off the ball. You have to have an enemy to keep the illusion of "Government" in place. (Get the Disks and see the Documents for yourself.)
39. The "United States" did not declare Independence from Great Britian or King George. (Get the Disks for Documents and Essay.)
40. Guess who owns the UN?
|
Edited by - Manuel on 12 Apr 2005 14:41:51 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 09 Apr 2005 : 22:20:22
|
Point number 3 is interesting. Rosaria Marin, the Treasurer for the US has no Treasury. I wonder how long Fort Knox has been a shell?
Running a Google on "had a Treasury since 1921. (41 Stat. Ch" brings out a flurry of that same listing of factoids. http://illuminati-news.com/factoids.htm The listing is exploited like a Patriot Bible to promote a sense of paranoia. The same old "us" against "them" attitude toward money.
However curt this may sound my intent is to bring out the facts in light of a different and much brighter perspective on what is going down today, in light of avoidance. I originally read the list of factoids from somebody I had deemed quite paranoid; or maybe it was back when I was quite paranoid.
Avoidance is nearly impossible from an adversarial position. I cannot argue the facts beyond that I have not researched out the list down at my repository. [That would take all day.] What I do passionately argue is the perspective of understanding bank policy in a factual light. That is why I am so quick to judge paranoia a crippling impediment. I remember Stephen Ames. I researched into this a bit a few years ago when I first read the factoids article. Stephen was finally issued special restraining orders for pestering people by fax machine. That pretty much speaks for itself. I am not sure what to call that particular compulsive disorder.
Thanks for bringing this up Manuel. I had forgotten Stephen's name and sometimes wonder about him. http://www.iahf.com/usa/20010930a.html He had mentioned in his journals, "I don't know how much longer these will be available..." because the domains he was submitting to may be long gone. But he was writing profusely to whatever forums he could find under pressure of people coming by to get him and put him away (again). It was pretty sad.
That list of factoids is helpful on this subject matter. In fact, the blend of Stephen Ames' acute paranoia really spices things up in my favor. I mentioned that I recently read a copy of The Metrocrats by Jo Hindman [heavily cited in the METRO 1313 Article linked above] but you may not have caught that it was borrowed from a former State senator. The book is decades old and was stamped by the senator's book seal. She had the book for decades; probably since the book was just printed! She spent her political career in full knowledge of the UN political infrastructure! I have spoken with her and her son and daughter over the years and always just thought she must be in ignorance of how the world is - to be functional as a State senator and all. Then I realized she had this book, that looked like it had been read at least five times before I borrowed it. That put a new light on things... the way we can have different perspectives according to perceptions, experience and even disorders, complexes and mental illness.
Her overall attitude seems to be, "Well, this is the way the world as it is, is. So what would you propose? Even though the people want me in office I turn the appointment down? I keep from making the world a better place when given an opportunity to?"
One day if I can muster it up to risk being confrontational, I would like to ask her if she remembers the vote to replace C.R.S. 24-1-117, Class 2 delegation of authority to police as Division of Enforcement for the Department of Revenue with "Deleted by amendment." I wonder if she could explain the rationale behind such a move? All I can find in the journals is that it was to 'increase the efficiency of law enforcement' (something like that). Well, duh! Keep the people thinking the policeman is law enforcement - not revenue collection. But it should be obvious to the people anyway. You do not go to the Driver License Store; you go to the Department of Revenue.
Regards,
David Merrill.
quote:
Alan Greenspan
In the broad sweep of history, it is ideas that matter.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2005/20050206/default.htm
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_METROchapter1.pdf
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_METROchapter2.pdf
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_METROchapter3.pdf
American’s Bulletin 1995 METRO 1313 article
P.S. So Readers of interest; and I propose that many of you are or should be. If you can get me interested enough in any particular point on the factoids or with the 24-1-117 deletion, I have a repository of information available. I can link the documentation for you to read.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 12 Apr 2005 09:00:53 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 12 Apr 2005 : 11:48:52
|
Dear Manuel;
I think it wiser to stick with the factoids. Those can be easily verified. Whereas Dan is no longer with us for discussion.
Dan Meader got wrapped around the axle with his views about dichotomizing the district court of the United States. He believed that there were two different court systems, one I believe was United States District Court and the other, the District Court of the United States. Incorrect and determined by the justices of the Tenth Circuit "poppycock". But that faulty foundation skews about anything Dan had to say.
The factoids paint a different picture for each of us I am sure. Depending on experience and study. To me I see a minor flaw in the development of the district courts and that is "1789". Albeit the Act (First Judiciary Act) is known as the Act of 1789 the extension of state district courts for the payment of debts of the United States is found in Chapter 36 and August of 1790.
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Act_-_districts.jpg
Act of 1789 – debts functional
quote:
Dan Meador says in the above article:
Consequently, there are no revenue districts in States of the Union.
Untrue according to Chapter 36 of the Act - September 24, 1789. That is revealed in the factoids.
That "district" court is the court of record. In Colorado they are simply called State district courts. Colorado Springs is in the Fourth Judicial District comprised of El Paso and Teller counties. I think there are many districts in Colorado and possibly 535 or so in the USA. I think a suitor tallied the chief district court judges (federal) to be 106 or so. There are many more chief judges of districts than States.
So Dan was not looking early enough. It was the Continental Congress that did what Dan says Congress may or did not do.
The factoids indicate also that common law and judiciary underwent major renovation in 1789. Well that is the nature of the Constitution itself being admiralty. The Executive fringes are also known as "admiralty" fringes. Debt action in assumpsit.
I enjoyed parts of Dan's treatise, Institutionalized Tyranny. But I only ran a word search for 'municipal' and got that context. He had some accurate perceptions about METRO but I do not think he understood the full scope or importance. Otherwise I think he would have spent a lot more time on that.
Picture the District, which is not a state, to be a municipal construction; "city of Washington, District of Columbia" is what everyone called it until recently. Now its colonization of the States through fictional overlay called districts makes sense while reading the factoids. The paranoid spin I was attacking is that these factoids in context with Stephen's mental illness tries to make it out that these factoids should be all alarming to the senses. I have the advantage of a federal repository nearby so I will continue to dispel such illusions.
Maybe if you edited out all the fluff about Stephen Ames (just from your post but keep a link to the full document) Readers could discuss itemized points about the factoids.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Thank you for slimming down the factoids Manuel. Readers who want to get some insight about Stephen Ames and his conflicts with state induced medications may 'search engine' around http://www.iahf.com/usa/20010930a.html |
Edited by - David Merrill on 15 Apr 2005 12:54:00 |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 13 Apr 2005 : 01:25:30
|
Yes... sometimes its good to put ones pee-shooter back in its holster and settle down a bit.
Another joke:
A little green troll lives on a little green island, on a little green house, with a little green door, with a little green sofa, with a little green doggie, with little green carpets......
THEN! ALL OF A SUDDEN!... A little red troll shows up, and the little green troll screams at it and says: HEY!!!... you don't belong on this movie!!! |
Edited by - Manuel on 13 Apr 2005 22:00:31 |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 15 Apr 2005 : 19:45:09
|
David Merrill, on the last paragraph at: http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Act_-_districts.jpg "Act of 1789 - debts functional," it stops short after "six hundred thousand."
My question is... is that regarding the six hundred thousand sterling silver coins the United States payed the British Crown for restitution following the Revolutionary War?
I am,
Manuel
|
Edited by - Manuel on 16 Apr 2005 10:20:06 |
|
|
|
halbertson
Regular Member
USA
29 Posts |
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 16 Apr 2005 : 10:34:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Manuel
David Merrill, on the last paragraph at: http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Act_-_districts.jpg "Act of 1789 - debts functional," it stops short after "six hundred thousand."
My question is... is that regarding the six hundred thousand sterling silver coins the United States payed the British Crown for restitution following the Revolutionary War?
I am,
Manuel
I have read some revealing excerpts which are taken from the following:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Warren, "The Supreme Court in United States History"
American Historical Association, The Year 1896
Dictionary of American Biography - American Council of Learned Societies
History of the Supreme Court - Gustavus Myers
--------------------------------------------------------------
I had hand typed these excerpts to share with you all, but for some reason, after being stored on floppy and trying to send it out... it flopped... flipped its whig!
Father Willing, I will get it through at some point in time.
Be patient and persevere In His Grace,
I am,
Manuel |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 16 Apr 2005 : 10:53:28
|
| I do not have the next page. But the context is duties and imposts. I will have to get that next page. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 16 Apr 2005 10:57:26 |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 10 May 2005 : 18:25:50
|
" 1. "Territory" means,
as regards the United States, the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and
as regards the United Kingdom, England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and also the Isle of Man, the Island of Jersey, and the Islands of Guernsey, Alderney, Herm and Jethou; and references to the "United Kingdom" or to "territory" in relation to the United Kingdom shall include the Isle of Man, the Island of Jersey, and the Islands of Guernsey, Alderney, Herm and Jethou where appropriate;".
Entire statutory instrument at:
http://www.theantechamber.net/Mirror/StatutoryInstrument1997.html |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 10 May 2005 : 18:40:51
|
Cool link!
It is amazing how many people think Social Security is exclusive to the USA. That link puts a very realistic perspective on the scope of social security agreements.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/04/20050428-9.html
With that in mind one should reread George Walker's recent speech.
quote:
THE PRESIDENT: I feel strongly that there needs to be voluntary personal savings accounts as a part of the Social Security system. I mean, it's got to be a part of a comprehensive package. The reason I feel strongly about that is that we've got a lot of debt out there, a lot of unfunded liabilities, and our workers need to be able to earn a better rate of return on our money to help deal with that debt.
Think international - central banking.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 10 May 2005 18:43:45 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 18 May 2005 : 19:53:42
|
quote:
David Merrill, on the last paragraph at: http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Act_-_districts.jpg "Act of 1789 - debts functional," it stops short after "six hundred thousand."
My question is... is that regarding the six hundred thousand sterling silver coins the United States payed the British Crown for restitution following the Revolutionary War?
I turned up some more information the other day. I felt challenged by the rumor about how the United States was obligated in perpetuity to Britain by the Treaty of Paris (1783). This is crosstalk from that thread.
quote:
quote:
The US was acting as a proxy for the Colonies,to pay their DEBT to the CREDITORES.Can you imagine that!!!After all that American Revolution.
The Treaty says: http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php...page=transcript
quote:
The Definitive Treaty of Peace 1783
In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.
It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch-treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States of America, to forget all past misunderstandings and differences...
Article 4:
It is agreed that creditors on either side shall meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery of the full value in sterling money of all bona fide debts heretofore contracted.
Article 5:
It is agreed that Congress shall earnestly recommend it to the legislatures of the respective states to provide for the restitution of all estates, rights, and properties, which have been confiscated belonging to real British subjects; and also of the estates, rights, and properties of persons resident in districts in the possession on his Majesty's arms and who have not borne arms against the said United States. And that persons of any other decription shall have free liberty to go to any part or parts of any of the thirteen United States and therein to remain twelve months unmolested in their endeavors to obtain the restitution of such of their estates, rights, and properties as may have been confiscated; and that Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the several states a reconsideration and revision of all acts or laws regarding the premises, so as to render the said laws or acts perfectly consistent not only with justice and equity but with that spirit of conciliation which on the return of the blessings of peace should universally prevail. And that Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the several states that the estates, rights, and properties, of such last mentioned persons shall be restored to them, they refunding to any persons who may be now in possession the bona fide price (where any has been given) which such persons may have paid on purchasing any of the said lands, rights, or properties since the confiscation.
And it is agreed that all persons who have any interest in confiscated lands, either by debts, marriage settlements, or otherwise, shall meet with no lawful impediment in the prosecution of their just rights.
Article 6:
That there shall be no future confiscations made nor any prosecutions commenced against any person or persons for, or by reason of, the part which he or they may have taken in the present war, and that no person shall on that account suffer any future loss or damage, either in his person, liberty, or property; and that those who may be in confinement on such charges at the time of the ratification of the treaty in America shall be immediately set at liberty, and the prosecutions so commenced be discontinued.
I have heard the rumor before. The the United States of America indentured itself with the Treaty. It is unfounded and certainly therefore does not boil over onto the Constitution (as a trap). People propagate the rumors verbally without ever resorting to reading a bona fide copy of the Treaty itself. Likewise, if you can see how King George managed to remain a secured party through the Treaty, please point that out.
In Leading American Treaties by Charles E. Hill Ph.D; Macmillan Company 1922 we find:
quote:
Strachey prided himself greatly on obtaining Article IV: "It is agreed that creditors on either side shall meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery of the full value in sterling money, of all bona fide debts heretofore contracted." As a matter of fact, it afterward became very difficult for the British to collect these debts before American juries; and for that reason the British held on to the forts in the northwest longer than dictated by the phrase "all convenient speed," which the treaty provided. These claims were finally paid by the United States under the Convention of 1802, the amount being $2,664,000. But these impediments could not be forseen.
So do not buy into a bunch of rumors. Read the Treaty and you will see the repayment to non-belligerent Brits living here and even to the belligerent ones was a charitable action intended to foster peace. Nothing more. Also that the United States was strongly suggesting this to the states. Nothing more. When it became difficult to get awards, the United States intervened, surpassing its authority but only to foster good relations when Britain would not withdraw forts.
Regards,
David Merrill.
So Manuel; I looked up the next few pages of Chapter 34 and see no correlation to paying off Britain. At the time, 1790, Brits were probably still failing to get any restitution out of American juries. It would not have been a topic for the Continental Congress.
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc_large_image.php?doc=6
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 18 May 2005 20:04:12 |
|
|
|
Janet In St Pete
Junior Member
USA
19 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jul 2005 : 08:49:37
|
| Does anyone have a library of Alfred Adask's Antishyster magazine? There was a 3-4 page article in one of the issues regarding the origin of the IRS. I would like to find a copy of that article if anyone knows where I can get Adask's publication. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Mark
Senior Member
USA
55 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jul 2005 : 17:12:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Janet In St Pete
Does anyone have a library of Alfred Adask's Antishyster magazine? There was a 3-4 page article in one of the issues regarding the origin of the IRS. I would like to find a copy of that article if anyone knows where I can get Adask's publication. Thanks.
I have an incomplete library. Do you remember which issue it was in? I have all the issues that were made available for free, a while back, in pdf format.
I have issues:
7.1-3, 9.2&3, 10.1-3, 11.1-3 and 12.1.
If it's not in any of those issues, sorry.
Peace, Mark |
Edited by - Mark on 06 Jul 2005 18:07:05 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
What IS the IRS anyway?
