Title
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (245)
sorted by:
Title
I really don't think that's what happened, though I'd have to really dig into the law to be sure. The Fed is a sovereign entity. Congress would have had to get rid of laws on the books to have any actual influence over them. Having input for some fund with the Federal Reserve Board has nothing to do with controlling the Fed. The Fed is completely independent of the Federal Reserve Board. The FRB and the FOMC are advisory entities only. They can't tell the Fed Banks what to do at all, they can only advise.
Unless you have evidence that suggests that the laws that make them sovereign have been overwritten, I think this is a misinterpretation.
https://stillnessinthestorm.com/2020/04/we-did-it-trump-ends-the-fed-as-we-know-it/
That link tells me nothing unfortunately. They say a lot of things, but they don't site their sources and thus don't explain how they come to the conclusions that they have.
At some point I will dig deep into the law and compare it to other laws I have done deep dives into (Federal Reserve Act, Bretton Woods, Laws relating to the Bank of International Settlements, etc.) and see if it changes those laws explicitly. If not, then I don't think their conclusions are accurate.
Making up a story and not supplying evidence is not the way to the truth. It doesn't mean they are wrong, but they offer zero evidence to support their story. Which means I am no closer to finding the truth about this.
You define it as a LAW, when in fact the Fed was NOT a federal extension. The IRS , founded at the same time, has corporate HQ in Puerto Rico. They are both more like a mandate than a law. For decades, people have challenged just what law is broken if you don't pay your income taxes-only the grandfathered POWER of the IRS has intimidated its way through the argment.
The Fed has a charter like any bank and has been allowed to function unlike most banks with currency production and "regulation". IT MUST BE BROKEN UP in order for the Republic to be restored. Mandates are the symptom of mob rule democracy..
The Fed was put into place by law. It was called the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. It was not a mandate. A mandate is not codified into law. Law is something voted on and agreed to by the legislative branch, codified, and signed by the President.
On Dec. 23, 1913 the Federal Reserve Act was passed by a Senate vote of 41 to 25 in a session that wasn't supposed to happen, which is why the vote count was so low. They told the members of the Senate that they would pick up the debate after Christmas; many of those opposed to it went home, those in favor (or paid off) stayed back, they voted, it became Law. This is not ambiguous. The Federal Reserve was created by Law.
That doesn't mean it is controlled by the government. In fact the government has no legal authority whatsoever, which was my entire point above.
The IRS is less clear. I am not sure if it was started in 1933 or 1953 when the Legal branch of the government, the Bureau of Internal Revenue, was gotten rid of and the Internal Revenue Service became the sole government subcontractor to collect taxes. Unlike The Fed, I can find no law which created the IRS. The Bureau of Internal Revenue was put into place in 1913 when they "ratified" the 16th amendment. Commonly you will find websites that state that the BIR changed its name to the IRS. That is not possible. It requires a Law to change a name for a government corporation. I can find no law that does that.
Income taxes do not appear to be illegal. Court cases have been won against the IRS for improper use of the word "income" which legally means profits not wages. There is no law that requires us to pay taxes on wages. That we pay taxes on wages would be following a mandate (spoken word), not a law (signed into law by the government).
I have no found no meaningful evidence that the IRS is a Puerto Rico entity. The corporation I linked above was signed in New York, but incorporated in Delaware. Here are the articles of incorporation:
1
2
3
I am not sure if that is the IRS either. I can find no information on the people who created that company. What is interesting about that company though, is that I can find no information on it whatsoever nor can I find anything on the people who signed it, even though it has been in business for almost 90 years.
Remember Q saying "20% seen 80% unseen?? We have just the bare bones of what actually transpired..
Q#3904 confirms that it was part of the plan.
Check the linked tweet on the Q post.
Yes, interesting, but there is still more here than meets the eye I think. As I said, I need to dig into the law itself. There are too many other things that don't jive with that article, unless the law says a lot more than is suggested.