bless you Omar! the lawyers that write these statutes are not stupid… they could make the explanations much clearer for the average citizen, but the don’t… it has to be purposefully done to make us interpret it the way we’ve been conditioned to think, thus, preventing us from a deep dive into understanding what it means legally.
I pray that someone will bring this to the attention of Elon and Vivek, DOGE, since half of the USCode, and thus the agencies they fall under, could be eliminated since they are not one of the delegated authorities in the us constitution.
yes sir! This purposeful word salad obfuscation becomes blatantly obvious when you realize that Congress uses different definitions for "United States" even within the same Title 26! Under 26 USD 4612, "United States" is defined including the 50 states but specifically mentions that that definition is for that subchapter ONLY (subchapter A – Tax on Petroleum). Hmmm so this confirms there is purpose behind the definition they decide to use in different subchapters of a Title.
wanted to ask you a couple of things:
1. In this article, you mention: "There’s an attorney who also came to the same conclusion, stopped paying federal income tax, was charged by the DOJ, and won his case". I would love to review that case docket if you have any details I can use to search for it?
2. In your years of research, have you stumbled upon the legal remedy offered by Congress under 12 USC 411 through the demand to redeem for lawful money? Funny enough I just realized that Title 12 is also a non-positive law. I'm actually using this as my first line of attack since it is codified into law; and I would then use the state citizenship as an additional argument to challenge jurisdiction if I had to defend myself in court.
Omar, please remember that this is not legal advice in any way, it is purely my attempt to share knowledge to educate others. once we educate majority of voters we can then work on correcting the obfuscation via legislation.
no worries sir...I have been researching this subject for months now and have taken calculated steps. We'll see how fruitful they will be. The only way to fight back imo is to challenge, rebut, and be ready to engage respectfully. Fear is their most effective weapon. I conquer fear with knowledge.
re: “… then use the state citizenship as an additional argument to challenge jurisdiction if I had to defend myself in court.”
Better research jurisdiction and challenges to it… potential pitfalls if not done correctly. one of my articles briefly mentioned that just hiring an attorney to represent you admits the court’s jurisdiction!!
1. he won his first case, but feds/irs continued to pursue legal action… he eventually died from heart disease before his second trial.
2. know nothing about Title 12. definitely NOT positive law, thus, not a power delegated to fed gov via constitution.
re: obfuscation… the quintessential obfuscation is the word ‘person’ being every kind of business entity one can create in the usa. why weren’t they defined as ‘business entities’ and ‘person’ defined as a living, breathing human being??? simple, so the avg citizen could ACCURATELY interpret the laws that might apply to them!!
well I think putting your brain power and research skills towards the power of redeeming for lawful money would be something to behold. I'll try to give you a quick summary in case it sparks your curiosity; I'll break it up into two replies:
When the Federal Reserve Act was initially written in 1913, it aimed “To provide for the establishment of Federal Reserve banks; to furnish an elastic currency;…”. However, the allowance to furnish an elastic currency goes directly against the two clauses in the Constitution of the United States of America that speak about money, [US Const., Art. 1, Sec. 10] “No state shall … make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts” and the other power to Congress [US Const., Art. 1, Sec. 8, Cl. 5] “To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures.”, in the context intended by the founding fathers where the United States of America was not to have fiat currency; as such, USA didn't have fiat currency between 1789 and 1861. Additionally, furnishing an elastic currency also went against 31 USC 5115, enacted on June 20, 1874, which defines United States currency notes as an inelastic currency by fixing the amount of US notes outstanding and in circulation.
So, in order for Congress to legally circumvent the Constitution and 31 USC 5115, and pursuant to the Judiciary Act of 1789, that read: “…saving to suitors in all cases the right of a common-law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it.” (Congress cannot take away remedy), Congress was required to write a remedy from elastic currency into Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act as follows: “They [Federal Reserve Notes] shall be redeemed in gold on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, or in gold or lawful money at any Federal Reserve bank.”
But in 1934, in order to accommodate the gold seizure of FDR, the wording was changed and Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was codified into Title 12, Section 411, and it has been there ever since; the wording changed as follows: “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 [Federal Reserve Notes] 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.”
Demanding to redeem for lawful money as a restricted indorsement when receiving and depositing this paper into a bank, this notifies the Federal Reserve, US Department of the Treasury, IRS and the Banks of the intended use as US Bank notes and not as Federal Reserve notes. By demanding to redeem lawful money, I am extricating myself from the fiat currency printing agreement between the private Federal Reserve banks and Congress that, after 1861, eliminated the ability to redeem in lawful money (gold coin). Redeeming for lawful money effectively turns the FRNs into lawful money when demand is made: United States notes in the form of Federal Reserve Notes. By demanding to redeem for lawful money, I am hereby rejecting: a) the Federal Reserve banking system, b) the usage of their private credit (usage of their private currency, the FRNs), and c) the endorser’s liability therein that accompanies the usage of that private currency. Therefore, by redeeming lawful money and using lawful money, I now own title to that money and anything I purchase with it. By me rejecting the use of their private currency FRNs, the Federal Reserve (which lends those FRNs to Congress) and the US Treasury no longer hold a first lien against all of my property (a tax lien) or any of my income; I prevented such lien from curing once I did not endorse the Federal Reserve’s private credit, but instead, I demanded to redeem those FRNs for lawful money. The taxpayer presumption exists on the basis that the receivers of FRNs are federal reserve banks or agents (as written in 12 USC 411: “Federal reserve agents”) for the same, therefore required to report any "income" they receive. Holders of FRNs are presumed to be agents of the federal reserve until a demand for lawful money is properly communicated.
The very last thing mentioned in 12 USC 411 is the 'remedy', or the act which can remove the preceding presumptions - which is to state a demand for lawful money. My lawful money and lawful money income does not carry the usage tax liability embedded in the endorsement (and therefore usage) of the Federal Reserve private currency credit (FRNs), as only lawful money existed pre-1861 (no fiat paper currency existed then either). Personal income taxes arise from a usage fee which is voluntarily incurred when using (generally endorsing) the private Federal Reserve credit while, at the same time, not electing your intent to demand lawful money (silence is agreement in law).
I read both of your lengthy replies… some thoughts.
as explained in my article on half the USCode titles are not positive law, they don’t have to be ‘constitutional’, they do not fall under any of the delegated powers but that’s okay if you’re a US citizen, district of columbia citizen. congress is NOT limited when legislating for the District, or its citizens.
Besides citizenship, the second legal issue i researched involved taxes, definition of ‘income’. One aspect of Cryer’s case involved the gov’s assumption that what we earn as payment for services is zero-cost basis, ie everything we earn is profit. well, working for my employer cost me 8 hours/day out of a finite amount of time while alive, that can never be recovered!! There is most certainly a cost!! it’s a very cogent argument.
Brandon Joe Williams has outlined the methods to establishing yourself as a state national and revoking your election with the IRS. Give his name a search. Btw, he recommended your substack, you must be on to something.
Yes, i found brandon several weeks ago and luv what he’s doing! he’s much younger and has lots more energy!
most importantly he’s testing his knowledge in real life actions that will push govt to respond and perhaps pull back the cover so people wake up to legal reality.
Substantive progress won’t happen until our teachings become common knowledge.
thank you for writing this...the positive vs non-positive law explanation was particularly enlightening.
bless you Omar! the lawyers that write these statutes are not stupid… they could make the explanations much clearer for the average citizen, but the don’t… it has to be purposefully done to make us interpret it the way we’ve been conditioned to think, thus, preventing us from a deep dive into understanding what it means legally.
I pray that someone will bring this to the attention of Elon and Vivek, DOGE, since half of the USCode, and thus the agencies they fall under, could be eliminated since they are not one of the delegated authorities in the us constitution.
yes sir! This purposeful word salad obfuscation becomes blatantly obvious when you realize that Congress uses different definitions for "United States" even within the same Title 26! Under 26 USD 4612, "United States" is defined including the 50 states but specifically mentions that that definition is for that subchapter ONLY (subchapter A – Tax on Petroleum). Hmmm so this confirms there is purpose behind the definition they decide to use in different subchapters of a Title.
wanted to ask you a couple of things:
1. In this article, you mention: "There’s an attorney who also came to the same conclusion, stopped paying federal income tax, was charged by the DOJ, and won his case". I would love to review that case docket if you have any details I can use to search for it?
2. In your years of research, have you stumbled upon the legal remedy offered by Congress under 12 USC 411 through the demand to redeem for lawful money? Funny enough I just realized that Title 12 is also a non-positive law. I'm actually using this as my first line of attack since it is codified into law; and I would then use the state citizenship as an additional argument to challenge jurisdiction if I had to defend myself in court.
Omar, please remember that this is not legal advice in any way, it is purely my attempt to share knowledge to educate others. once we educate majority of voters we can then work on correcting the obfuscation via legislation.
no worries sir...I have been researching this subject for months now and have taken calculated steps. We'll see how fruitful they will be. The only way to fight back imo is to challenge, rebut, and be ready to engage respectfully. Fear is their most effective weapon. I conquer fear with knowledge.
if there’s a way to DM me in substack, do so and i’ll provide email address.
re: “… then use the state citizenship as an additional argument to challenge jurisdiction if I had to defend myself in court.”
Better research jurisdiction and challenges to it… potential pitfalls if not done correctly. one of my articles briefly mentioned that just hiring an attorney to represent you admits the court’s jurisdiction!!
1. he won his first case, but feds/irs continued to pursue legal action… he eventually died from heart disease before his second trial.
2. know nothing about Title 12. definitely NOT positive law, thus, not a power delegated to fed gov via constitution.
re: obfuscation… the quintessential obfuscation is the word ‘person’ being every kind of business entity one can create in the usa. why weren’t they defined as ‘business entities’ and ‘person’ defined as a living, breathing human being??? simple, so the avg citizen could ACCURATELY interpret the laws that might apply to them!!
well I think putting your brain power and research skills towards the power of redeeming for lawful money would be something to behold. I'll try to give you a quick summary in case it sparks your curiosity; I'll break it up into two replies:
When the Federal Reserve Act was initially written in 1913, it aimed “To provide for the establishment of Federal Reserve banks; to furnish an elastic currency;…”. However, the allowance to furnish an elastic currency goes directly against the two clauses in the Constitution of the United States of America that speak about money, [US Const., Art. 1, Sec. 10] “No state shall … make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts” and the other power to Congress [US Const., Art. 1, Sec. 8, Cl. 5] “To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures.”, in the context intended by the founding fathers where the United States of America was not to have fiat currency; as such, USA didn't have fiat currency between 1789 and 1861. Additionally, furnishing an elastic currency also went against 31 USC 5115, enacted on June 20, 1874, which defines United States currency notes as an inelastic currency by fixing the amount of US notes outstanding and in circulation.
So, in order for Congress to legally circumvent the Constitution and 31 USC 5115, and pursuant to the Judiciary Act of 1789, that read: “…saving to suitors in all cases the right of a common-law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it.” (Congress cannot take away remedy), Congress was required to write a remedy from elastic currency into Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act as follows: “They [Federal Reserve Notes] shall be redeemed in gold on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, or in gold or lawful money at any Federal Reserve bank.”
But in 1934, in order to accommodate the gold seizure of FDR, the wording was changed and Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was codified into Title 12, Section 411, and it has been there ever since; the wording changed as follows: “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 [Federal Reserve Notes] 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.”
Demanding to redeem for lawful money as a restricted indorsement when receiving and depositing this paper into a bank, this notifies the Federal Reserve, US Department of the Treasury, IRS and the Banks of the intended use as US Bank notes and not as Federal Reserve notes. By demanding to redeem lawful money, I am extricating myself from the fiat currency printing agreement between the private Federal Reserve banks and Congress that, after 1861, eliminated the ability to redeem in lawful money (gold coin). Redeeming for lawful money effectively turns the FRNs into lawful money when demand is made: United States notes in the form of Federal Reserve Notes. By demanding to redeem for lawful money, I am hereby rejecting: a) the Federal Reserve banking system, b) the usage of their private credit (usage of their private currency, the FRNs), and c) the endorser’s liability therein that accompanies the usage of that private currency. Therefore, by redeeming lawful money and using lawful money, I now own title to that money and anything I purchase with it. By me rejecting the use of their private currency FRNs, the Federal Reserve (which lends those FRNs to Congress) and the US Treasury no longer hold a first lien against all of my property (a tax lien) or any of my income; I prevented such lien from curing once I did not endorse the Federal Reserve’s private credit, but instead, I demanded to redeem those FRNs for lawful money. The taxpayer presumption exists on the basis that the receivers of FRNs are federal reserve banks or agents (as written in 12 USC 411: “Federal reserve agents”) for the same, therefore required to report any "income" they receive. Holders of FRNs are presumed to be agents of the federal reserve until a demand for lawful money is properly communicated.
The very last thing mentioned in 12 USC 411 is the 'remedy', or the act which can remove the preceding presumptions - which is to state a demand for lawful money. My lawful money and lawful money income does not carry the usage tax liability embedded in the endorsement (and therefore usage) of the Federal Reserve private currency credit (FRNs), as only lawful money existed pre-1861 (no fiat paper currency existed then either). Personal income taxes arise from a usage fee which is voluntarily incurred when using (generally endorsing) the private Federal Reserve credit while, at the same time, not electing your intent to demand lawful money (silence is agreement in law).
I read both of your lengthy replies… some thoughts.
as explained in my article on half the USCode titles are not positive law, they don’t have to be ‘constitutional’, they do not fall under any of the delegated powers but that’s okay if you’re a US citizen, district of columbia citizen. congress is NOT limited when legislating for the District, or its citizens.
1. Tom Cryer. he was an attorney in south eastern US… Louisiana i think. his court filings should be out there. look for website, ‘truth attack’.
thank you sir...already looks fascinating, more reading for me!
Besides citizenship, the second legal issue i researched involved taxes, definition of ‘income’. One aspect of Cryer’s case involved the gov’s assumption that what we earn as payment for services is zero-cost basis, ie everything we earn is profit. well, working for my employer cost me 8 hours/day out of a finite amount of time while alive, that can never be recovered!! There is most certainly a cost!! it’s a very cogent argument.
Brandon Joe Williams has outlined the methods to establishing yourself as a state national and revoking your election with the IRS. Give his name a search. Btw, he recommended your substack, you must be on to something.
Yes, i found brandon several weeks ago and luv what he’s doing! he’s much younger and has lots more energy!
most importantly he’s testing his knowledge in real life actions that will push govt to respond and perhaps pull back the cover so people wake up to legal reality.
Substantive progress won’t happen until our teachings become common knowledge.