PDA

View Full Version : Abolish the Fed



David Merrill
06-22-13, 09:09 PM
In my pursuit of simpler explanations I find the fact that the Fed was designed in 1913 to be abolished by its own charter expiration (1933). That seems to be an easy way to explain it.

Now I cannot explain how since the only thing keeping the Fed going has been endorsement from people who hate the Fed - that the Fed has lasted this long!

Brian
06-22-13, 11:30 PM
In my pursuit of simpler explanations I find the fact that the Fed was designed in 1913 to be abolished by its own charter expiration (1933). That seems to be an easy way to explain it.

Now I cannot explain how since the only thing keeping the Fed going has been endorsement from people who hate the Fed - that the Fed has lasted this long!

People don't make the connection about the foundational nature of the "money" they are using.

Read: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/money-debt#comment-2362949

Note this paragraph: "If you could print a currency at no cost, that had no intrinsic value, and get the legal system to recognize it as the only legally permissibly 'tender' to satisfy all debt, public and private, would you print as much as you could, loan it out to as many entities and people as you could, and sit back, not caring whether 90% or 9% of the loans were repaid, since it cost you nothing to produce the loan, meaning that you can only gain assets (securitized) and indebt institutions (create indebted parties that you can then garnish), and literally lose not one atom of anything of inherent value?"

FRN's were given "legal tender" status in 1933. Between then and 1971 all other forms of "money" were eliminated from circulation except FRN's and current coin. True the statutes still exist for USN's but most people have no idea what they are, let alone ever seen one.

shikamaru
06-23-13, 10:45 AM
From the horse's mouth




US Treasury (http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/currency/pages/legal-tender.aspx)


Legal Tender Status

I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal?

The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."

This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.

shikamaru
06-23-13, 10:49 AM
More interesting information from the horse's mouth:




US Treasury (http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/currency/pages/legal-tender.aspx)

What are Federal Reserve notes and how are they different from United States notes?

Federal Reserve notes are legal tender currency notes. The twelve Federal Reserve Banks issue them into circulation pursuant to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. A commercial bank belonging to the Federal Reserve System can obtain Federal Reserve notes from the Federal Reserve Bank in its district whenever it wishes. It must pay for them in full, dollar for dollar, by drawing down its account with its district Federal Reserve Bank.

Federal Reserve Banks obtain the notes from our Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP). It pays the BEP for the cost of producing the notes, which then become liabilities of the Federal Reserve Banks, and obligations of the United States Government.

Congress has specified that a Federal Reserve Bank must hold collateral equal in value to the Federal Reserve notes that the Bank receives. This collateral is chiefly gold certificates and United States securities. This provides backing for the note issue. The idea was that if the Congress dissolved the Federal Reserve System, the United States would take over the notes (liabilities). This would meet the requirements of Section 411, but the government would also take over the assets, which would be of equal value. Federal Reserve notes represent a first lien on all the assets of the Federal Reserve Banks, and on the collateral specifically held against them.

Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything. This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy. In another sense, because they are legal tender, Federal Reserve notes are "backed" by all the goods and services in the economy.

Let me ask: is this why banks are so interested in getting people to borrow from them?

Is a lien on your personal assets from a bank collateral for the FRB as a part and parcel of its overall assets?

If not the property, than their interest in the property?

shikamaru
06-23-13, 10:52 AM
FRN's were given "legal tender" status in 1933.

I'm trying to find this via some official source or document? Could you help me with the assertion above?



Between then and 1971 all other forms of "money" were eliminated from circulation except FRN's and current coin.

Money is gold, silver, and copper coin. Specie.
"Money" would be USNs, gold certificates, silver certificates, and the like.



True the statutes still exist for USN's but most people have no idea what they are, let alone ever seen one.

I think I've found this one: The Legal Tender Act of 1862.

David Merrill
06-23-13, 01:56 PM
It is supported by deduction with the amendment to Title 12 USC §411 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/411?quicktabs_8=1#quicktabs-8). Look at the Notes (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/411?quicktabs_8=2#quicktabs-8).



1934—Act Jan. 30, 1934, struck out from last sentence provision permitting redemption in gold.


I can likely come up with better and more direct citations by looking. Thanks for asking.

ManOntheLand
06-23-13, 08:41 PM
In my pursuit of simpler explanations I find the fact that the Fed was designed in 1913 to be abolished by its own charter expiration (1933). That seems to be an easy way to explain it.

Now I cannot explain how since the only thing keeping the Fed going has been endorsement from people who hate the Fed - that the Fed has lasted this long!

It is a presumed contract that depends for its existence on the "taxpayer" being unaware of the contract (or in any case, how the contract was formed). I understand some suitors have made retroactive claims that no tax liability was incurred even prior to their knowledge of and use of the remedy in 12 USC S. 411 due to fraud by omission--and that this has reportedly become a less successful strategy over time.

IMHO, the fraud by omission assertion is likely to be ignored by IRS because IRS attorneys know that asserting fraud places the burden of proof upon the one making the assertion, and that this would be difficult to prove in court, while also somewhat changing the subject away from remedy. In other words, a presumed taxpayer defendant who relies on fraud by omission to defend against an obligation that was incurred (prior to demanding lawful money) may find his defense quickly ruled against, merely because he made a very difficult to prove assertion and could not meet the burden of proof for fraud. IRS could get a dismissal of such a claim without having to get into a discussion of lawful money. This may be why they are starting to ignore such assertions.

A stronger position is probably to assert that no contract was formed in the first place, using one or more of the affirmative defenses to performance of a contract described in the Restatements in the Uniform Commercial Code, e.g. no meeting of the minds, no intent to be bound, mistake of law, mistake of fact, failure of consideration, unconscionable contract (who would agree to convert his right to labor and earn a living into a taxable privilege, absent consideration?), none of which require one to prove fraudulent intent by any one.

Also, the U.S. Supreme Court stated in Brady v. United States (1970) that waivers of constitutional rights must be voluntary, knowing and intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the likely consequences.

This seems to me a much stronger position for getting IRS to back off liabilities incurred prior to discovering remedy than asserting "fraud by omission".

Having said that, perhaps a case might still be made (if necessary) for misrepresentation, if not fraud. In Rohwer and Skrocki's Contracts in a Nutshell,. p. 291 it states: "conduct designed to prevent or likely to prevent another from learning a fact is equivalent to an assertion that the fact does not exist."

Consider the following conduct and how it may have prevented you from learning about remedy sooner : removal (in 1964) from the FRN the statement that the note may be redeemed for lawful money? Or the Treasury failing to circulate U.S Notes for the past 42 years? These facts could be used in line with the claim that one would have demanded redemption from the first paycheck ever, if one had known the option existed.

Michael Joseph
06-23-13, 09:42 PM
Money is gold, silver, and copper coin. Specie.
"Money" would be USNs, gold certificates, silver certificates, and the like.



Consider if I hold a Certificate saying that I can redeem said Certificate for property - then isn't that Certificate an INTEREST in the property? And since the property is clearly being held in trust - if it wasn't then you would not be carrying certificates - then the Trustee would have to give the interest in the property OR the property upon demand of the Certificate Bearer.

This was easily seen when the property was gold, silver or any TANGIBLE form of property. But what if the Property is INTANGIBLE. What if the REDEMPTION has to do with PROMISES held in TRUST. Isn't a Promise an EQUITABLE interest? Of course it is!

If I promise you I will do something, then you have equity coming to you according to my promise. I have a duty to perform upon my promise.

Notes are evidence of TRUST. If the Property is Lawful Money [monetary issue with certain obligations and therefore certain rights] then I must make a demand for it as before. The operation of law is the same - the holder of the certificate MUST make a demand.

Brian
06-24-13, 12:45 AM
I'm trying to find this via some official source or document? Could you help me with the assertion above?



Money is gold, silver, and copper coin. Specie.
"Money" would be USNs, gold certificates, silver certificates, and the like.



I think I've found this one: The Legal Tender Act of 1862.

HJR-192 page 112/113

See page 9 of this pdf for a scan of the bill: http://freedom-school.com/money/federal-reserve-notes-not-legal-tender.pdf

ManOntheLand
06-25-13, 01:46 AM
I am not sure if "money" is actually defined anywhere in U.S. law other than by giving examples, but "dollar" is certainly defined in U.S. law.

FRN's use the term "dollar" on them, yet since FRN's became no longer redeemable in gold, the Federal Reserve has zero connection to the public law definition of "dollar". The Federal Reserve is clearly operating under a different definition of the term "dollar" (private law or fiction of law definition).

This private law definition of "dollar" seems to be "one dollar United States note", since this seems to be all you are entitled to get from the Fed in exchange for a dollar FRN.

FRN's can no longer be redeemed for gold as of 1933, but the dollar itself continues to this day to be defined in public law as a given weight in gold. Therefore we have currency, we have lawful money, we have legal tender, we have notes, we even have coins, but none of them can be "dollars" according to the law of the land unless they are redeemable for a given weight of gold. Making it clear that Federal reserve Notes cannot possibly be lawful money according to public law.

The 1792 Coinage Act (amended in 1900 and still in effect today), states that a dollar is 25.8 grains or 1/20 of an oz of gold. The closest you could come to getting a dollar from Fed is to receive a U.S. Note, making it pretty clear that this is their private law definition of a "dollar".

ManOntheLand
06-25-13, 01:48 AM
Thinking about this today, it suddenly struck me that remedy seems to be implied on the face of some payroll checks I have received. This was one of those moments like the last minutes of "The Usual Suspects" where clues that have been right under my nose started hitting me like a ton of bricks all at once.

Many of the thoughts expressed below are more the product of intuition than logic, so I welcome any corrections anyone has to offer. To wit:


Many payroll checks I have received state on their face "Pay exactly (numerical amount spelled out) Dollars and (digits) Cents."

The Box to the right of that also states "Pay Exactly" and contains below that a numerical value expressed in digits with a decimal point but with no dollar sign.

Below those boxes on the face of the payroll check is the phrase "Pay to the Order of" along with the legal name I use, (my PERSON), for commerce.

It seemed on the surface to be redundant and even overkill to state "pay exactly" twice and "pay to the order of" all within the small space of one payroll check, until I realized that slightly different versions of one command are being made on the check as a result of doing it this way:

1) Pay exactly (stated amount) in dollars and cents (lawful money/ i.e. U.S. Notes and/or coins)
2) Pay exactly (stated amount) not in dollars and cents (but instead pay in the form of private credit)
3) In any case, pay to the order of LEGAL NAME

This variability is what makes my paycheck a "negotiable instrument" and not money. I have always known I could endorse a check over to another party, but until now I did not catch the subtle absence of any dollar sign on the box where the numerical value is expressed in digits.

Perhaps leaving the dollar sign off gives the banks plausible deniability and allows them to technically avoid fraud? It seems the absence of a dollar sign on the check is subtly giving notice that Federal Reserve credit is not legally "dollars" (i.e. U.S. Notes/lawful money) even though FRN's seem to say they are dollars on their face. (And U.S. Notes are not circulated anymore, with the intended result that most of us will not know we can demand U.S.Notes in exchange for FRN's).

For those who think I am reading too much into this, I have gotten tax refund checks from federal and state that have the dollar sign in front of the digits listed for the payable amount. Most personal checks I have observed also have a dollar sign in front of the box where you write in the numbers of the amount you are paying.

So I think the absence of a dollar sign has significance. It seems unlikely to me that payroll companies are just too lazy or forgetful to put a dollar sign in front of where the numbers go. I believe the absence of a dollar sign on my payroll checks has everything to do with the public policy of trying to get as many people as possible to trade in their un-taxable right to labor for compensation, exchanging that right for a taxable privilege, by getting such people to accept payment in private credit rather than in dollars and cents (i.e. U.S. Notes/lawful money).

So, based on the face of the negotiable instrument known as my payroll check, I can do any of the following:

1) DEMAND to be paid exactly the amount stated on the face of the check in dollars and cents, (i.e. U.S. Notes and coins, or even entirely in coins if I so choose), "lawful money" as the Federal Reserve Act defines it

OR

2) endorse over the check to another party and leave the option of said party to receive dollars and cents, or private credit in exchange

OR

3) I can demand to be paid exactly the same amount, NOT in dollars and cents but in the form of private credit) in exchange for endorsing and bonding the check into the Federal Reserve System



The remedy in Federal Reserve Act is subtly implied on the face of the payroll check, in that my legal PERSON is named as the party giving the order as to whether the transaction will be in "dollars" (i.e. lawful public money/U.S. Notes) or private credit. FRN credit cannot lawfully be denominated in "dollars" (? not sure about this) So this is why the dollar sign is missing--the amount is not in dollars but represents private credit--an amount that is only a "reserve" for nine times that amount in fractional lending!!

FRN's can be redeemed for dollars but cannot ever be dollars themselves, (not even by the Fed's private definition of "dollar"--a one dollar U.S. Note) because this would make a constructive fraud into an ACTUAL fraud. A dollar is a fixed amount of weight by law. A currency that is continuously depreciated and debased cannot be referred to with the same term without committing fraud.



I have noticed before that W-2 forms and 1040 tax returns also do not have dollar signs in front of the amounts. Nor does the Federal Notice of Lien filed against me have any dollar sign in front of the alleged amounts owing, and nowhere is the word "dollar" used.

The amounts reported on W-2 is relevant information to the IRS, but only to the extent that such amounts were a transfer of private credit. This is why the W-2 form lacks dollar signs. If I made my demand to redeem those amounts in dollars and cents/lawful money/U.S. Notes, then the tax liability from such transfers is mathematically eliminated.


Likewise with the notice of lien, the lien cannot be made against dollars, but only against the Fed's own privately issued credit. They have a first lien on amounts denominated in this private credit or property obtained with such credit. I think this is why the notice of lien has no dollar signs.

1099 forms, however, do use the dollar sign. This is because the party generating the 1099 form is not an "employer" (for purposes of the reported transactions), is not bound to contribute to FICA from the payments, and is presumed to be making a business to business payment.

Year end statements for unemployment checks also use the dollar sign. This is because the payments and forms are generated by states, who are prohibited from issuing bills of credit by the Constitution.

It seems clear to me based on the absence of dollar sign on W-2 that the laborer earning a "paycheck" is the primary target of the income tax scheme. Business to business payments on 1099 forms less so; there is already a legitimate tax nexus on profit from trade or business in the U.S. in the Code (independent of the private credit nexus), so playing the games with the dollar sign is not necessary for the 1099; only for the otherwise untaxable wages of the private sector worker reported on W-2.



Looking back at copies of tax refund checks I have received, it is interesting to note that the "United States Treasury" refund check states: "Pay to the Order of", yet the State refund checks I have received state simply "To:" The State refund check also uses the term "dollars and cents" to describe what I received. (States are prohibited from issuing bills of credit by Article I Section 10 of the Constitution).

Also the U.S. Treasury Refund checks you get from federal taxes do not use the word "dollar" but they do have a dollar sign in front of the digits representing the payable amount.

In cases when I have received interest as a part of Treasury refund checks, the interest amount is separately stated at the bottom of the check, and there is NO dollar sign in front of the interest amount, just the digits. It is interesting that the total amount is paid in dollars and cents, but the interest is separately listed with no dollar sign.

This seems to be because such interest is by public law "gross income" that is legitimately a profit from a "trade or business" within the United States and is being issued as "new currency" exclusively in private credit FRN (since no U.S. Notes are circulated). The rest of the check is just a refund of withholding amounts previously collected which were not ultimately due, so the option to call these dollars is available without committing fraud.

My conclusion: Because dollar-based domestic transactions not generating profit cannot be the basis for income taxation, the reporting of a payment amount which lacks a dollar sign indicates a transfer of private credit that is creating the sole income tax nexus on such payment.

The 1099, although it does indicate payments in dollars and cents, is ostensibly for reporting payments effectively connected to a trade or business within the U.S., creating at least the presumption of a "profit" tax nexus that would be independent of the endorsement of private credit.

(This may explain why I have found it far easier to get IRS to back down when disputing the tax nexus of a 1099 by informing them that the payment was not effectively connected to a trade or business within the U.S.) The same assertion with respect to a W-2 never seemed to work in the long run--now that I understand the income tax nexus from the use of private credit, I know why.

ManOntheLand
06-25-13, 02:47 AM
After checking many of the notices I have received from IRS, it seems they use the dollar sign freely on bills they send me, and any other time that they can, but I think they are safe to do so within a fiction of law context (I am presumed to be a taxpayer already on such notices, and thus presumed to be operating in their fiction of law that FRN's are "dollars".)

It seems they only avoid using the dollar sign in certain contexts where they have to, to avoid crossing the line into actual fraud (rather than just constructive fraud).

The dollar sign seems to be left off only in those cases where there would otherwise be fraud or an indication that a fundamental right is being infringed upon. Thus the private sector worker's pay for his labor, prior to the determination that he is a taxpayer, must be reported on W-2 with no dollar sign (reflecting the transfer of private credit) but the worker is at the same time meant to think that his paycheck is taxable under the public law.

I guess it's the worker's fault for believing his paycheck is taxable and/or not noticing or wondering why the dollar sign is missing on his checks and W-2 form! But if the W-2 ACTUALLY claimed his payment was in dollars AND IRS claimed he is legally taxed on it, IRS would apparently be "crossing the line" into actual fraud and or deprivation of rights under color of law. Only after the worker signs onto all of this and enters the legal fiction can the IRS send him bills telling him how many "dollars" he owes them, using dollar signs.

The notice of tax lien also has no dollar signs, because it is a publicly recorded document and would otherwise on its face be an encumbrance against private property without due process of law, as well as a fraudulent instrument, as the federal tax lien is enforceable only against property with the private credit nexus attached to it.

By contrast, the levy notices I have seen do have dollar signs, as a notice of levy is not a publicly recorded document, but is used only "internally" to the private credit system to seize bank accounts (presumably containing exclusively private credit) and to intercept the transfer of private credit in the form of employee wages.

David Merrill
06-25-13, 08:25 AM
I am not sure if "money" is actually defined anywhere in U.S. law other than by giving examples, but "dollar" is certainly defined in U.S. law.

FRN's use the term "dollar" on them, yet since FRN's became no longer redeemable in gold, the Federal Reserve has zero connection to the public law definition of "dollar". The Federal Reserve is clearly operating under a different definition of the term "dollar" (private law or fiction of law definition).

This private law definition of "dollar" seems to be "one dollar United States note", since this seems to be all you are entitled to get from the Fed in exchange for a dollar FRN.

FRN's can no longer be redeemed for gold as of 1933, but the dollar itself continues to this day to be defined in public law as a given weight in gold. Therefore we have currency, we have lawful money, we have legal tender, we have notes, we even have coins, but none of them can be "dollars" according to the law of the land unless they are redeemable for a given weight of gold. Making it clear that Federal reserve Notes cannot possibly be lawful money according to public law.

The 1792 Coinage Act (amended in 1900 and still in effect today), states that a dollar is 25.8 grains or 1/20 of an oz of gold. The closest you could come to getting a dollar from Fed is to receive a U.S. Note, making it pretty clear that this is their private law definition of a "dollar".


This is the real point about the Diminished Money Counterclaim (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?874-Diminished-Money-Counterclaim&highlight=diminished+money) thread. Thank you for such a delightful connection point - your post!

ManOntheLand
06-25-13, 08:52 AM
More clues right under our noses: Looking at different currencies issued throughout U.S. History, I couldn't help notice that the Treasury Seal on the federal reserve note was changed at some point and this lead me to discover that the flag of the United States Secretary of Treasury was also changed in 1915 from this:

http://https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_United_States_Secretary_of_the_Tr easury_%281887-1915%29.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_United_States_Secretary_of_the_Tr easury_%281887-1915%29.png)

to this:

http://https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_United_States_Secretary_of_the_Tr easury.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_United_States_Secretary_of_the_Tr easury.png)


Comparing the two, the current flag has a similar looking crest as the old one, except placed upon a distinctly maritime looking ocean of blue with two white anchors crossing each other. Also the "water" seems to have flooded out the substance of the crest. The scales are now part of the ocean, as is the key; and the stars that used to be in the chevron are gone. Finally the old flag had 8 stars in a circular formation, plus 5 more in the chevron, and the new one has 13 stars, all on the outside. Not sure what that means...

JohnnyCash
06-25-13, 02:57 PM
Wow. ManOntheLam has been busy at the keyboard! TL;DR

This is how I end the Fed (http://jesse2012.com/endthefed.jpg).

John Howard
06-30-13, 04:38 AM
A Real Dollar is going for 90 FRAUDs now. (http://www.theonion.com/articles/markets-in-turmoil-as-price-of-money-skyrockets-to,32939/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview%3A1%3ADefault)

David Merrill
06-30-13, 09:11 AM
Links in harmonic resonance - striking a chord.

bobbinville
06-30-13, 01:58 PM
The Treasury seal was changed on our currency beginning with Series 1969 notes. At that point, FRNs were the only currency being printed, since printing of Silver Certificates and United States Notes had ended a few years before.

The Treasury Seal has also appeared in a larger format, and in different colors. Check out any of the pre-1928 "horse blanket" US currency, and you will see the Treasury Seal surrounded by a series of engraved arcs. Go back further, and you will see Treasury Seals in even larger formats -- for example, I have a piece of Civil War-vintage "Fractional Currency" in which a silver dollar cannot cover the image of the Treasury Seal.

As for the changes in the flag, quite a few governmental flags have changed over the years. The 1915 SecTreas flag likely has to do with the fact that, for many years, the U.S. Coast Guard was part of the Treasury Department.

David Merrill
07-01-13, 12:56 AM
Cool avatar!

walter
07-01-13, 05:26 PM
Here’s a piece of trivia.
The dollar symbol did not appear on U.S. currency until the $1 coin that was issued in 2007.

1239


The caduceus (?; /k??du?si??s/ or /k??dju???s/; from Greek ????????? k?rukeion "herald's staff"[2] ) is the staff carried by Hermes in Greek mythology. The same staff was also borne by heralds in general, for example by Iris, the messenger of Hera. It is a short staff entwined by two serpents, sometimes surmounted by wings. In Roman iconography it was often depicted being carried in the left hand of Mercury, the messenger of the gods, guide of the dead and protector of merchants, shepherds, gamblers, liars, and thieves.[3]

1240

The dollar symbol is used by everyone yet the stories behind its existence has so many variations of its origins that the truth might never be told.

Brian
07-01-13, 06:28 PM
Interesting, I thought the original dollar sign (the one with two vertical lines) was a derivative of U S laid over itself with the bottom of the U cut off.

shikamaru
07-01-13, 06:41 PM
I am not sure if "money" is actually defined anywhere in U.S. law other than by giving examples, but "dollar" is certainly defined in U.S. law.

FRN's use the term "dollar" on them, yet since FRN's became no longer redeemable in gold, the Federal Reserve has zero connection to the public law definition of "dollar". The Federal Reserve is clearly operating under a different definition of the term "dollar" (private law or fiction of law definition).

This private law definition of "dollar" seems to be "one dollar United States note", since this seems to be all you are entitled to get from the Fed in exchange for a dollar FRN.

FRN's can no longer be redeemed for gold as of 1933, but the dollar itself continues to this day to be defined in public law as a given weight in gold. Therefore we have currency, we have lawful money, we have legal tender, we have notes, we even have coins, but none of them can be "dollars" according to the law of the land unless they are redeemable for a given weight of gold. Making it clear that Federal reserve Notes cannot possibly be lawful money according to public law.

The 1792 Coinage Act (amended in 1900 and still in effect today), states that a dollar is 25.8 grains or 1/20 of an oz of gold. The closest you could come to getting a dollar from Fed is to receive a U.S. Note, making it pretty clear that this is their private law definition of a "dollar".

Money is defined in Blacks. Money does not embrace notes ...

Noah
07-01-13, 08:42 PM
Oh, The Onion (http://www.theonion.com/articles/well-time-to-go-out-in-front-of-a-bunch-of-people,32948/) is a hoot. As for the origin of the US dollar sign, I believe the most accepted view is that it derives from the Spanish coat of arms found on the reverse of colonial Spanish silver coins. The 8 Reale "Real de a Ocho" (piece of eight) was the basis of the US silver dollar; same size & weight 1 (http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/coinage1792.txt). The Spanish coat of arms features two columns (||), which represent the Pillars of Hercules and an "S"-shaped ribbon around each, with the motto "Non Plus Ultra" originally, and later "Plus Ultra."

12411242

Meanwhile, if you'd like some real news ... 580 Tons Of Gold Purchased In Just 7 Days (http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/KWN_DailyWeb/Entries/2013/6/28_Maguire_-_Massive_580_Tons_Of_Gold_Purchased_In_Just_7_Days .html). Seems those who know what real money is (gold & silver) are grabbing all they can while the banksters manipulate the metals (paper) price down. Perhaps they sense this debt-as-money Ponzi scheme is about to tip over.

David Merrill
07-02-13, 12:14 AM
Thanks Noah;

I like that coin!

Debt as money is a rediculous conundrum indeed. It is amazing that it has survived so long.

Michael Joseph
07-02-13, 12:35 AM
Thanks Noah;

I like that coin!

Debt as money is a rediculous conundrum indeed. It is amazing that it has survived so long.

Read and re-read.....

If the PLAINTIFF is considered a DEBTOR to the King [State], then the Court is seen as a CREDITOR because the PLAINTIFF is seeking remedy from a DEFENDANT who has failed to keep his promises. Therefore the PLAINTIFF is considered to be bringing Suit against the DEFENDANT so that the Plaintiff can recover from the Defendant. If the Plaintiff is given judgment, then the Plaintiff is considered to receive Judgment in order to repay the King [State].

THEREFORE the State is CREDITOR to both the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

This is indeed the UNITED STATES EMPIRE.

The purpose is manifest, to establish through the whole jurisdiction of the United States ONE PEOPLE, and that every member of the empire shall understand and appreciate the fact that his privileges and immunities cannot be abridged by State authority; that State laws must be so framed as to secure life, liberty, property from arbitrary violation and secure protection of law to all. Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872)

The foregoing sounds so good to those who cannot read the TERMS. But what was really said is that an EMPIRE state has been erected as Sovereign. Now this Sovereign has Subjects, Citizens and Slaves. Therefore at once there is two classes: Superior and Inferior.

If the United States is a creditor of any citizen, or of any one else on whom process can be served, the usual, the only legal mode of enforcing payment of the debt is by a resort to a court of justice. … officers have been appointed to prosecute the pleas of the government in these courts. …The Court of Exchequer of
England was originally organized solely to entertain suits of the king against the debtors of the crown. But after a while, when the other courts of Westminster Hall become overcrowded with business, and it became desirable to open the Court of Exchequer to the general administration of justice, a party was allowed to bring any commonlaw action in that court, on an allegation that the plaintiff was debtor to the king, and the recovery in the action would enable him to respond to the king's debt. After a while the court refused to allow this allegation to be controverted, and so, by this fiction, the court came from a very limited to be one of general jurisdiction. Such an enlargement of jurisdiction would not now be tolerated in England, and it is hoped not in this country of written constitutions and laws. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 193 (1880)

"A more perfect Union" = [the] UNITED STATES EMPIRE. A people who operate in common law have peace officers however we see that an EMPIRE requires force to enact its ENDLESS infractions and statutes [bills].

Since the PERSON is at once a creation of the STATE EMPIRE, at once it is subject to obligations and rights. And therefore anyone representing the PERSON is at once subject to the obligations. Therefore to argue any statute is CONTEMPT because the PERSON is a slave and has only those rights, privileges or obligations granted to IT. Therefore for IT's representative to argue the PERSON does not have to comply is a BREACH OF PROMISE. And since God cannot lie, the man/woman who argues is failing to keep the Promise.

Therefore at ONCE the money is always DEBT MONEY because the PERSONS are at once DEBTORS wholly SLAVES, SUBJECTS AND CITIZENS of the EMPIRE.

Kind after its Kind...

David Merrill
07-02-13, 12:47 AM
That is one of the most comprehensive posts arguing for redemption of lawful money around!

walter
07-02-13, 02:44 PM
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international-business/us-federal-reserve-to-vote-on-basel-bank-capital-rules/articleshow/20871555.cms

US Federal Reserve to vote on Basel bank capital rules

bobbinville
07-02-13, 03:30 PM
What I recall is that the dollar sign came from the word "peso" being abbreviated as "PS", with the S overlaid on the P. When the US first specified the value of its dollar, the standard was that of the peso, or "Spanish Milled Dollar" (since the coin was commonly referred to a dollar due to its similarity in size and weight to the thalers, talers etc of Europe). Eventually, the bottom of the S disappeared; and thus we have our dollar sign.

David Merrill
07-02-13, 03:35 PM
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international-business/us-federal-reserve-to-vote-on-basel-bank-capital-rules/articleshow/20871555.cms

US Federal Reserve to vote on Basel bank capital rules


Thank you for refreshing Basel III around here - good Bump!

Michael Joseph
07-02-13, 06:32 PM
That is one of the most comprehensive posts arguing for redemption of lawful money around!

It is great that you all can see the Empire. Most people get stuck back in the 1700-1860 and cannot see that the government was revised. Legally speaking a conquer took over after the civil war but even with that contemplation the people were not willing to accept a sovereign government. So then the people were conquered COMMERCIALLY in what I believe to be a "setup" economic disaster. Said disaster occurred in late 1929. After a few years the people were only to ready to accept whatever offer was made to them.

Alas the common law of the Republic was replaced IN FORM ONLY by the CIVIL LAW and POSITIVE LAW of the Democracy. Now then since a Municipality gets its charter [very existence] from a grant of the Empire, then the Municipality can be modeled as a vassal sovereign. But it is the Municipality that now shares in the Sovereignty.

This model of mine was reinforced yesterday upon filing for a new LLC. The Sec. of State called me and said we cannot GRANT approval unless the REGISTERED AGENT is already registered in our system. That bell rang loud because it tells me the so called "ruling State" has made a claim in the NAMES it created and/or the names that are Registered [by consent] into their rolls?

The Empire has rights, titles and interest in the NAMES it created. You got a Birth Certificate - whose seal is atop it? So now at once you see the Empire has Jurisdiction to hear ANY matter in The NAME. As I have tried to propound, the Settlor is sovereign to his/her/its creation.

See now how POSITIVE LAW is used to control a people who VOLUNTARILY represent the interests in a Registered NAME. And said POSITIVE LAW is then coupled [you engineers should like that word] to EQUITY or MORAL LAW this way. God cannot lie. If man is made in the image of God, then it is a crime for man to lie. Therefore if man consents to operate and represent the Registered NAME, then man is at once the Subject or Trustee or Citizen or Slave = all synonymous to the one who CREATED the USE.

So to argue the Registered NAME is not a taxpayer is to be in Contempt of Court. Because OF COURSE the NAME is a taxpayer. Now the question remains is there any Tax to be paid? Meaning how are you OPERATING [its all about commerce] the NAME? Is your use consistent with the bylaws [yes its all about Trust] of the Empire or are you making a use for private gain? If you think to ALIENATE [transfer] property without the Empire then you will be sadly mistaken.

Now then, one who is intelligent will say but where is choice under force? To that end, I ask you - how was El Elyon able to summon all the hosts of heaven to His Court? When you answer that one in your mind then you will see the Settlor/Creator is Sovereign.

Now then did the State create men and women? Yes and no. TERMS are important. Did the State create living souls? Absolutely NOT. Can a living soul bind himself in Contract? Absolutely.

Now therefore there is a new class of Slaves. But they are Fictions that can only be real if you believe the illusion - fiction of law. Else there is the common law of God. One law is civil applying to the fictions at law created and to those who occupy in the office of Trustee; the latter is organic law issued by God for those who again would serve each other in love.

This will naturally lead one into the term Resident - which is a two fold term. Res = Trust Corpus; property; Ident = Identity. Now I ask you is a slave not property of another? Even the Scripture says so. So then the RESIDENT is the NAME.

Now for one to go and argue anything in that NAME is considered a BREACH OF PROMISE or Breach of Contract. Now do you see how POSITIVE LAW [civil law] was coupled to MORAL LAW? The man at the bench is wearing a Black Robe? Why? Who determines Moral Issues? - a priest?

There exists all at once TWO governments. One that is servant to the people - and the other that is Sovereign to the PEOPLE. Every law, code, statute and ordinance applies to the PEOPLE but none of it applies to the people UNLESS there is consent OR a manifest harm or injury.

Since you are considered to be operator or trustee for YOU, if a court concern is claimed in YOU then you might be given an opportunity to represent yourself. See at once how this is possible. Think sets and sub-sets.

Subset = YOU by and thru its trustee you = Yourself
Attorney to represent Yourself subset: you

Attorney's are Licensed by the State to handle matters in the NAMES.

See now the fictions at law regarding CAPACITY. If you have engaged as trustee for YOU then you are bound to abide by the bylaws governing YOU. Do you agree or not? If so, then great, if not, then don't ever make a use of YOU - ever - UNLESS you intend to return all property, titles and interest in YOU to its Owner - the United States Empire.

This is what 12USC411 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/411) does. you get the Use but the titles remain in the United States. This of course is in perfect accord with 12USC95a (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/95a)

====

Has anybody put together what the "little horn" is? See that for this system to work there must be a pyramidal system of Sovereignty but at the top there must be a few men who run the entire show who then give their power to ONE. See now how repugnant this is to God's Law. For under man's "Laws of Nations", the sovereign is NOT subject to his own laws. Remember the movie Camelot - the idea is that the kingdom would be one of laws and NOONE not even the king is above the law. But we see at once that man's nation-states are indeed above the law as they give the law. And so we see a Superior class and at once an Inferior class. The inferior class is its Citizen - Slaves. And while slavery is not moral it is indeed permitted under POSITIVE LAW because if one VOLUNTEERS to be a slave then Positive Law permits.

Notice two that He too donned the flesh just as the elohims were made to. BTW see how all of this was erected in the name of PEACE. But it is just whitewash. There can be no peace unless the hearts of man change. For no sovereign no matter how strong can make any man do anything. And as long as ideas abound in Liberty as in the "perfect Law of Liberty" men will always strive to be totally free. No half-way substitute will satisfy the thirst for freedom/liberty. But see now how the young are being brainwashed to see the State as mommy and daddy.



Shalom,
MJ

bobbinville
07-03-13, 12:45 AM
An interesting fact about the Spanish Milled Dollar -- or, more properly, the 8 Reales piece -- is that, due to a lack of fractional coinage (there were 1/2 Real, 1 Real, 2 Real and 4 Real pieces; but most of the silver went into 8 Reales pieces (and gold into 8 Escudo pieces). If you needed change -- you took out a chisel and cut the coin into as many as 8 pieces, or "bits", each worth 1 Real. If you had a quarter of an 8 Reales piece, then, you had 2 Reales, or "two bits".

BTW -- many European countries used coins of this size as a standard. In fact, if you look at David Merrill's avatar, you will see the Maria Theresa Thaler -- so renowned for its weight and purity that it was often imitated by other countries, and was struck by the Austrians well into the 20th century because certain Arab tribes insisted on them, and only them, as a means of exchange.

JohnnyCash
07-03-13, 04:09 AM
Ah, the 1780 Maria Theresa Thaler. An estimated 800 million of these MTTs were minted continuously since 1780 all bearing the same date. Restrikes. Renowned for its weight and purity? With a fineness of only .833 silver they're heavier than our dollar yet contain less silver as the US dollar is .900 silver (although some MTTs have been minted at .999 fine (http://www.theresia.name/en/smedals.html)).

http://www.ebay.com/gds/1780-Maria-Theresa-Silver-Thaler-Restrike-Trade-Coin/10000000001669778/g.html

David Merrill
07-03-13, 04:37 AM
Ah, the 1780 Maria Theresa Thaler. An estimated 800 million of these MTTs were minted continuously since 1780 all bearing the same date. Restrikes. Renowned for its weight and purity? With a fineness of only .833 silver they're heavier than our dollar yet contain less silver as the US dollar is .900 silver (although some MTTs have been minted at .999 fine (http://www.theresia.name/en/smedals.html)).

http://www.ebay.com/gds/1780-Maria-Theresa-Silver-Thaler-Restrike-Trade-Coin/10000000001669778/g.html


I like the Hapsburg eagle on the obverse. This represents the dichotomy of identity inherent in pseudonomania (http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/3922/pseudonomania.jpg). The suitors' Lesson Plan is:



1) Identity (capital integration)
2) Record-forming (court of competent jurisdiction)
3) Redeeming lawful money (redemption from false balances)



http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/8163/capitalintegrationirono.jpg

At the heart is a pentagram cut topaz. I used a red laser to highlight the stone as redemption being atonement of the two heads eating at the dichotomy like a poison in the stomach of the disease.

bobbinville
07-03-13, 11:40 AM
Yes, renowned for its weight and purity. The people of that era were less concerned about the fineness than they were about its consistency. Many people knew of coinage that was continually being debased; and they knew that when they got a MTT, they could rely on the fact that it was of the correct weight and fineness.

The date was never changed from 1780 because many people relied on the fact that a MTT with that date was the same as any other (any of .999 fineness are NOT circulation strikes). Other countries tried to imitate the MTT (the Italian tallero comes to mind); but none ever replaced it.

JohnnyCash
07-03-13, 04:26 PM
Consistency? The MTT started out in 1741 with a silver fineness of .875 http://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces39150.html and was debased to .833 silver by 1780. In contrast the American silver dollar (http://jesse2012.com/1900_Morgan.jpg) has never been debased.

bobbinville
07-03-13, 07:34 PM
Consistency? The MTT started out in 1741 with a silver fineness of .875 http://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces39150.html and was debased to .833 silver by 1780. In contrast the American silver dollar (http://jesse2012.com/1900_Morgan.jpg) has never been debased.

Yes, consistency. Since 1780, the fineness of the MTT, or at least the ones truck for circulation, has remained constant at .833. THAT is the coin which became so popular. It's also why the date remained at 1780, to show that it was of a higher fineness than the pre-1780 issues. Indeed, most 19th century silver coins were of a consistent fineness; and it was only after World War I that billon coinage began to appear in the UK and elsewhere, because of the need to repay war debts.

Those European countries which did adjust the fineness of their coinage did so mostly to adjust to the standards of the old Latin Monetary Union. France, Italy, Switzerland, Belgium, Spain, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Venezuela, Serbia and San Marino, plus others, harmoized their coinage so that, for example, in Switzerland you were likely to get French francs or Italian lire in change, instead of Swiss issues. The LMU was abolished in 1927 due to debasement in some countries, plus an overvaluing of silver in relation to gold. The Swiss coinage, through 1967, was the last kind struck to LMU standards.

JohnnyCash
07-03-13, 08:01 PM
That is some fine bovine excrement right there and spoken like an attorney, thank you.

I received these 2 quotes in the inbox today:

“The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace, and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies: the Southern Army in front of me, and the financial institutions in the rear. Of the two, the one in my rear is my greatest foe.”
– Abraham Lincoln, 1864

“The division of the United States into two federations of equal force was decided long before the Civil War by the high financial power of Europe. These bankers were afraid that the United States, if they remained in one block and as one nation, would attain economical and financial independence, which would upset their financial domination over the world. The voice of the Rothschilds predominated. They foresaw the tremendous booty if they could substitute two feeble democracies, indebted to the financiers, to the vigorous Republic, confident and self-providing. Therefore they started their emissaries in order to exploit the question of slavery and thus dig an abyss between the two parts of the Republic.”
— German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, 1876

bobbinville
07-04-13, 02:11 AM
And yet you fail to refute any of it. I'll stack my numismatic knowledge up against yours any day.

JohnnyCash
07-04-13, 02:40 AM
Ah, now we begin to see the real bobbinville. No, I do not believe you are a coin collector. Anyway my earlier quotes were the opener for an excellent piece by Michael Henry Dunn, very appropriate for today:

One hundred and fifty years ago today, tens of thousands of Americans died at a small town in southern Pennsylvania, turning back the brilliant Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia at Gettysburg, ending his plan to march on Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C, which would likely have secured foreign recognition for the Confederacy, which would have achieved the Rothschilds’ goal of a divided and indebted American people.

With the 20/20 perfection of historical hindsight, it is common to observe that Gettysburg was the turning point of the war, that the “high water mark” of the Confederacy’s chance for victory can be pinpointed to a low stone wall called “the Angle” where Pickett’s Charge almost breached the Union line. When the breach was quickly filled by reinforcements, and the encroaching rebels killed or captured, the Confederacy’s decline was inevitable, some say, from that moment. Other historians point to a key engagement of the previous day, July 2nd, 1863, when the Confederates assaulted the lightly defended Little Round Top with three successive charges. Had they overrun this small hill, they could have rolled up the Union line with a deadly flank assault, sending the Army of the Potomac in headlong retreat toward Washington, with Robert E. Lee in hot pursuit. A bookish professor-turned-soldier named Joshua Chamberlain commanded the 20th Maine defending Little Round Top, and his men knew they held the fate of the nation in their hands. They repelled charge after charge….and then they ran out of ammunition. And the Confederates attacked once more. And as the rebels advanced uphill, Chamberlain gave the only order left to him – “Fix bayonets! Charge!” The sight of this suicidal attack of bayonet-wielding Yankees charging downhill towards them, sounding a battle-frenzied scream, broke the fabled rebel nerve, and they turned tail and ran.
http://jhaines6.wordpress.com/2013/07/03/the-echoes-of-gettysburg-by-michael-henry-dunn-july-3-2013/

I am bringing your cartel down [redacted], you can take that to the bank.

bobbinville
07-04-13, 02:57 PM
You can believe what you want, Johnny. That's easier than accepting the truth. As for your remark about "Jay" who is he? That's neither my name nor my handle.

David Merrill
07-05-13, 09:12 PM
You can believe what you want, Johnny. That's easier than accepting the truth. As for your remark about "Jay" who is he? That's neither my name nor my handle.

Please, JohnnyCash? Can you allow for a much wider world than Jay? I am pretty convinced that Jay is busy with a much more interesting career as a Texas attorney! You can PM me any direct evidence of course but otherwise you seem unrealistic and unbalanced to assume anybody with a "Q"-sounding perspective is Jay or even from "Q".

Recently a member here was adamantly spouting worn out patriot mythology and it seemed that he was on a mission to disrupt with useless doctrine. I banished him and he just grabbed a new monaker and registered again. I have better things to do and hopefully so do you. BTW it turned out he just wanted to share his opinions before reading and realizing that Redeeming Lawful Money has its basis in law, the Federal Reserve Act and so now things are good. [I reinstated him under the first handle.] I am not shut down to new ideas and opposing opinions. But shunning somebody with lightly evidenced accusations is hurtful and way too easy to do over the Internet and in chat rooms.

Please be careful how you treat others!

JohnnyCash
07-05-13, 10:50 PM
Oh, I'm sorry. Seems to be a bad habit of mine, won't happen again. I hereby issue a formal apology to anyone I have ever called Jay who is, in fact, not Jay.

I don't favor banishment either (accept in extreme cases). I've learned much from the opposition and the fact they are here provides a level of comfort that you & the suitors are on the right track to remedy and freedom.

bobbinville
07-06-13, 12:51 AM
It could also mean that the dissenters are simply curious about what you have to say, and want to see things firsthand. In my case, I joined just so that I could offer comments if they were helpful without being confrontational or argumentative.

John Howard
08-05-13, 01:47 AM
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=186529491399812&set=a.186529488066479.58524.100001282875853&type=1&theater

David Merrill
08-05-13, 10:06 AM
I like the link!

John Howard
08-05-13, 01:32 PM
At the current silver price that would be $3.03 per gallon. I just paid 3.39. That might be an old picture.

David Merrill
08-05-13, 11:17 PM
Or an investment in junk silver.

Goldi
09-20-13, 09:59 PM
The 1792 Coinage Act (amended in 1900 and still in effect today)

The 1792 Coinage Act has NOT been amended. Sections 1-19 remain intact, unaltered, and have not been repealed. Section 20 of the act was moved to Revised Statute 3563 and is still in effect as well. Here are 2 court cases and one law review that reference that section as being intact and relevant today. http://www.mediafire.com/?36pin4jslin7rzq http://www.mediafire.com/?mzj14hxueejyh9o http://www.mediafire.com/?gg3vsfmyoab18sj In addition, in Johnson's speech on the implementation of the 1965 Coinage Act, he cleverly states that this act "supercedes" the 1792 Coinage Act. There is no term "supercede" to be found in Bouvier's or Blacks that I've found. So I went to Websters and one of the definitions of "supercede" is USURP. Fitting, ey? You cannot repeal by omission or by usurpation. Therefore, the 1792 Coinage Act is good law today. The last link above states as much.

David Merrill
09-21-13, 12:34 AM
The 1792 Coinage Act has NOT been amended. Sections 1-19 remain intact, unaltered, and have not been repealed. Section 20 of the act was moved to Revised Statute 3563 and is still in effect as well. Here are 2 court cases and one law review that reference that section as being intact and relevant today. http://www.mediafire.com/?36pin4jslin7rzq http://www.mediafire.com/?mzj14hxueejyh9o http://www.mediafire.com/?gg3vsfmyoab18sj In addition, in Johnson's speech on the implementation of the 1965 Coinage Act, he cleverly states that this act "supercedes" the 1792 Coinage Act. There is no term "supercede" to be found in Bouvier's or Blacks that I've found. So I went to Websters and one of the definitions of "supercede" is USURP. Fitting, ey? You cannot repeal by omission or by usurpation. Therefore, the 1792 Coinage Act is good law today. The last link above states as much.

Thank you Goldi!

John Howard
06-15-14, 11:16 PM
The 1792 Coinage Act has NOT been amended. Sections 1-19 remain intact, unaltered, and have not been repealed. Section 20 of the act was moved to Revised Statute 3563 and is still in effect as well. Here are 2 court cases and one law review that reference that section as being intact and relevant today. http://www.mediafire.com/?36pin4jslin7rzq http://www.mediafire.com/?mzj14hxueejyh9o http://www.mediafire.com/?gg3vsfmyoab18sj In addition, in Johnson's speech on the implementation of the 1965 Coinage Act, he cleverly states that this act "supercedes" the 1792 Coinage Act. There is no term "supercede" to be found in Bouvier's or Blacks that I've found. So I went to Websters and one of the definitions of "supercede" is USURP. Fitting, ey? You cannot repeal by omission or by usurpation. Therefore, the 1792 Coinage Act is good law today. The last link above states as much.

Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p2m105rBU) is an interesting discussion.