The below explains how the two dovetail together. This came from the Federal Register and pertains to liens and levy. It is possible to show how the use of the federal reserve note, which is not a true "Note" as defined by the Uniform Commercial Code, can be the basis for the income tax. This is informational only and you must do further research to satisfy for yourself what I present here is a sound basis. I will insert in capital letters my interpretation. You may disagree but that is why I say to do further research to see what you come up with.

"(d) Security. The term "security" means any bond, debenture, note, or certificate, THE FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE FITS THE NOTE MENTIONED HERE, or other evidence of indebtedness WE ALL KNOW THAT THE FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE IS A OBLIGATION OF INDEBTEDNESS OF THE UNITED STATES, issued by a corporation, WE ALL KNOW THAT THE PRIVATE FEDERAL RESERVE IS ACORPORATION, or a government or political subdivision thereof, with interest coupons or in registered form, WE ALL KNOW THAT THE FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES CARRY A REGISTRATION NUMBER, share of stock, voting trust certificate, or any certificate of interest or participation in, certificate of deposit or receipt for, temporary or interim certificate

for, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing; negotiable instrument; or money."
 
 

When IRS files a lien it must have a "security interest" in your property as stated by the Federal Tax Lien Registration Act, which was incorporated into the Uniform Commercial Code of 1966. Federal reserve notes, being IOU's (debt obligations of another) are only yours by possession. You have purchased these "notes" with your labor. Now don't jump to conclusions yet, follow what I quote from the rest of the Register.
 
 

"(f) Purchaser. The term "purchaser" means a person who, for adequate and full consideration in money or money's worth (as defined in paragraph (f)(3) of this section), acquires an interest in property . . . "
 
 

"(f) (3) Adequate and full consideration in money or money's worth. For purposes of paragraph (f) of this section, the term "adequate and full consideration in money or money's worth" means a consideration in money or money's worth having a true value of the interest in the property in the property acquired. See paragraph in section (a) (3) for the definition of the term "money or money's worth."
 
 

From this is can be assured that the "security" (Federal Reserve Note) to NOT be money, but of money's worth. So proceeding to section (a)(3) it states,
 
 

"Money or money's worth. For purposes of this section "money or money's worth" includes money,, a security (as defined in paragraph (d) of this section), SEE ABOVE PEOPLE tangible or intangible property, services and other consideration reducible to a money value, NOTE HERE THE SECURITY, WHICH IS DEFINED AS A FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE CAN BE REDUCED TO MONEY, THEREBY, ABSOLUTELY STATING THAT THE FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE IS NOT MONEY.
 
 

I now bring in the case I cited in my book, The New History of America, on pages 34 and 35. The supreme court said this in two sentences, "Silence gives consent, is the rule of business life. A tender of bills is as good as one of coin, unless the bills are objected to."
 
 

Based on the above, we have taken a draft, misnamed a check, from the company. Gone to the bank and accepted "securities" that are not money and paid for what ever we bought with these "securities." Now the IRS is nothing more than a collection agent for the Federal Reserve private corporation to collect the debt obligations issued by them in registered form as they are trademarked notes. You cannot counterfeit federal reserve notes as they are not money, BUT what counterfeiters have done is encroached on the trademark that caries a registration number on every private note of the federal reserve. As the Congress stated in the first income tax, that it (the income tax) is to sop up the excess notes that exceed the debt the United States owes.

So the question is, is the use of these "securities" that are reducible to money is what makes you a "taxpayer" under the income tax laws, so the coin (gold or silver) can be obtained by the Federal Reserve's division (The IMF), so it can use the hard money by reducing the debt notes "securities" so it can deal in the international trade to lend more IOU's to foreign countries?
 
 

Isn't it about time we started objecting to the Federal Reserve notes and then bringing suit to claim "coin" as stated in the Padleford case? You can receive the notes but you do not have to accept them. What if a great majority of so called "patriots" started to demand coin or U.S. Notes that are debt free from the fiscal agents (the federal reserve member banks) when they cashed their drafts? Just think of all the possibilities that would happen. For one the banks would not be able to keep up with the coin demand, and second that would destroy and show the fraud of the "note" for what it was. Congress is only collecting a portion of its debt obligations from you, which you only have possession.

I think I will close now and let your minds wander into all the possibilities that could happen.

Sincerely, The Informer