You might enjoy this recent comment.
Click Here.
http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/5...tsignature.jpg
Printable View
The Dailypaul is where I first encountered you , Mr. Merril. You have set me on a new course. Thank you!
Ok, I found this site through DailyPaul and am beginning the process. By the way, this is incredibly exciting. (I have also posted the questions on DailyPaul, but haven't heard a reply, so here goes...)
1. If "in elastic" currency, us bank notes, is fixed at 300 million, what happens if/when there are enough suitors demanding their lawful money to exceed that number?
2. I receive personal checks/money orders etc in the line of business I am in, can these be redeemed with lawful money?
3. Can I write a check demanding the pay or redemption of said check be paid or disbursed in lawful money?
4. Now, I've heard it both ways... since Federal Reserve notes have a prior lien on them, people stamp all their cashed paychecks this way, and don't have to pay income tax because they aren't receiving real money. I've heard it the other way, people claim to be paid the demand that payment in lawful money, which cannot be withheld or used as payment for interest on the national debt, so therefore don't have to pay the IRS.
Attachment 1045Attachment 1046Attachment 1047Attachment 1048Attachment 1049
I have been redeeming lawful money since early Dec 2012. I have not had a single question from any teller yet. They don't even blink! Once I started redeeming LM, my deposits started having different codes instead of saying "Deposit" there. It takes about 3-4 days but then it eventually reads "Deposit".
The officer who set up my bank account (from a business account transformed into a non-interest bearing customer account) said he wasn't sure if I could annotate the card. He is a 22 year old kid! He told me to ask the legal department who, when I got in touch with them OBVIOUSLY told me I can't do it... why would they want me to be able to deposit money they can't fractionally lend on??
Anyhow, here's what I need to put on the contract soon, or send a certified document stating thats how it will be. Either way, I ONLY deposit lawful money.
Picture of the disclaimer on the note was an actual 1990 series $20 FRN I had and am kicking myself for spending, as I used to use it to enlighten people. I CANNOT find a duplicate image showing the date on the web. I have found up to a 1960 or 1980 full disclaimer on the web. The bills with the full disclaimers appear to be a variation after 1960-1980 (not sure) as some have the full disclaimer and most do not, but it appears ALL had them 1960 and prior (This is anecdotal evidence from me searching).
I also dont make "copies" of these. I use my iphone and snap a pic, front and back and have created a separate gmail accounts for all my documenting needs. I have one that is "income" only. Each account is a free 10gig storage space. I do the same for all my receipts, because if I dont get it logged IMMEDIATELY, it gets lost. Heres the contract and how I SHOULD'VE annotated it
Attachment 1050
Question #1 is interesting. My theory is, when demand is made, US notes are created by operation of law. The one making the demand invokes the remedy, and Treasury issues the currency, albeit indirectly. Just a thought. I'm sure others have better thoughts on that.
A specialized Libel of Review is in process demanding that the US note be unpegged from the FRN. Otherwise I agree that #1 would likely result in a bank holiday. Not so much because of the US note though, just because that is what state banks were about to do in 1933 causing that bankers' holiday.
#2. Because of confusion to newbees I think I should say that Congress has pegged the US note in value to the FRN. Therefore your act of redemption is limited to making your demand. Make your demand. I do not think there is anything anywhere saying you cannot demand stuff.
#3 Yes! That is what we are saying. Welcome and enjoy reading about it here on StSC.
#4 ??
Please try rephrasing that.
I believe the question for #4 is, "Is redeemed lawful money taxable income?"
David,
Let me just say your responses on this site are extremely appreciated. I also apologize for asking maybe what seem to be obvious questions, but, I am in the process of trying to form a process flow chart with the 3 or 4 steps to begin this process. Each step will have links with supporting text / photos, but, I really want to wrap my head around this, so once again, thank you. Basically I find bits and pieces here on the site, but, a condensed version, bringing all the info together is my goal.
Yeah so question #4, I've heard stating all your income was in FRN and not really lawful money has been a claim to the IRS as a reason for not having to pay taxes. Well, because FRN's aren't lawful and not really anything of substance, therefore you never really received anything for pay and you can't be taxed on something that you didn't receive. So that is one side of the coin, and I thought I saw a thread describing exactly this reason was listed in a memo to IRS agents as a frivolous claim.
The other side of the coin, if all your income is in LAWFUL money, not FRN's, the IRS can't tax it. You can claim all your withholding's are due back to you. This is obviously the most interesting part, and I among others would like to hear a description as to why. I LOVE the idea of not allowing my bank to expand my money and will definitely pass on an interest bearing account if it is necessary to accomplish this end. So yeah, why can't the IRS tax lawful money?
I guess when a bank makes a loan through fractional reserve banking, the money has just been created, increasing the overall supply in the system. What I'm having a tough time wrapping my head around... Does it ever go the other way, does the supply shrink, because how I see it, this system has created a money spewing beast that never gets smaller and always creates interest for the money grabbing octopus we know as the federal reserve.
There is a passage in the Bible at James 1:25-28 or so about doing and hearing. You might have to trust me about this for the first step - make your demand. If you have direct deposit and your boss wont consider giving you a paper paycheck then it starts to get complicated but like Michael Joseph points out there are a lot of banks around for most people. Then you might consider changing your signature to "Lawful Money" or "Lawful Money Demanded"? - Just do that across the board. Tell your bank that your signature has changed and so you need to revise your Signature Card to your new signature.
People pay me cash and that is lawful money for all intents and purposes. Without Step 1 above though, evidence has convinced me, like with your post that the remedy will be evasive for you. What I just did was reduce it down to one simple execution but you are probably conditioned not to change your signature, aren't you? The people at your bank may be upset about it too, heaven forbid.
But this kind of thinking comes natural to me after sharing experiences with intelligent people like you who are coming out of bondage (conditioning).
My signature is David Merrill in paleo-Hebrew. I changed it to that a decade ago. But whenever somebody makes me sign for cash - like with a cash refund, and of course I want the cash I sign "Lawful Money". I do not even sign cursive. Hebrew by the way is all upper case and cursive is completely foreign to it. Punctuation and the vowel sounds (jots and tittles) were foreign to Hebrew in the time before Babylonian Captivity. Nebuchadnezzar knew how to discombooberate the Israelites - he captured the intellectuals into Babylon for seventy years and changed their alphabet and their names too!
Think that over. Your remedy is as simple as you making a simple demand. A principle behind this truth is, If you ask, it shall be delivered unto you. Or - Seek and you shall find.
Are you already demanding lawful money? Great! To your question then:
You want flowcharts? This is the Diagram for Are You Lost at C?
That is probably too much to understand but the tax exemption is expressed in the IRC as Mandatory Exception in §508(c)(1).
If you want to be the good church do not register for 501(c)(3) because that is a non-profit religious organization akin to the Olympic Committee for one example; the religion of sports competition? Hey! Whatever captures the minds as an opiate - in the modern rendition of Nebuchadnezzar!Quote:
(c) Exceptions
(1) Mandatory exceptions
Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply to—
(A) churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches, or
A close semblance is corporation sole. Like a town mayor or the Pope. But I suggest you be like a corporation sole, not to register as one. [Eddie KAHN on Wesley SNIPES conviction served time in prison on this registered rendition of The Good Church.]]
So simply study what the church is as in ecclesia that is pleasing to God.
Here is an example of current bylaws for a 501(c)(3) church for contrast:
All the members are presumed to be 501(c)(3) churches as they await approval and the IRS awaits their applications! It is a nasty trick to pull but then again, it is easy to understand and avoid once you ask the Holy Spirit for direction. Here is a great lesson; the pastor saying this was packing in two weeks!
David,
I think I lost you after Hebrew. Yes, I am going to change my signature card. I will talk to the bank, maybe get something in writing declaring my account as non-interest bearing. But, outside of filing myself as some sort of church/organization, I really was looking for someone's returns, or a sample of the law stating that lawful money isn't taxable.
Also, I'm assuming opening a evidence repository is solely for those interested in filing lawful money to the IRS as support of their claims. As well if the bank was to fractionally lend your account, this evidence repository could be used. Either way, I'm trying to boil this down into a pamphlet I could give my family, my friends to describe the process of demanding and why. The way I look at it, if this money is tax free, awesome, but the biggest part of this is the patriotic step of not increasing the debt.
Anyone else?
I have explored the idea that lawful money is not regarded as taxable income by the IRS in my own small way, via correspondence with the IRS, tax returns on "income" which was so low that the returns should have resulted in refunds no matter how one filed them, and other research and observation.
During the course of this experiment, I experienced the following:
Whenever I wrote letters to the IRS asking questions or making statements about LM, the IRS responded that it would not respond any further to my "frivolous correspondence".
The IRS does not seem to consider LM as anything other than taxable income, if an information return such as W-2 exists which states that a PERSON received so-called "wages or income", regardless of how the backs of paychecks had been endorsed or non-endorsed, and LM had been demanded.
I have a searchable text of the 1986 IRC, and I could not find the term "lawful money" in it.
The IRS doesn't seem to care about what men and women do with cash or FRNs on their own time, as long as this cash doesn't go through PERSONAL numbered bank accounts. Banking with numbered accounts involving SSN or TIN appears to be a "trade or business with the United States".
DISCLAIMER:
I'm linking to the "trade or business scam" research at famguardian only for the discussion of the statutes and court cases which it offers, not for any ideas about remedy, which may or may not be contained therein.
I have observed that some restrictively endorsed (LM demanded) bank checks which were deposited in non-interest bearing accounts and on which no information returns had been filed with the IRS, were not considered "taxable income, gains, or wages" by the IRS.
CONCLUSION:
Based on my experiences, I concluded that the IRS regards amounts of dollar denominated fiat currency which a PERSON (FIRST M LAST, DOB, SSN) receives in the form of bank checks or direct deposits, and which are documented on information returns, such as W-2 or 1099-MISC, as taxable income, regardless of how the checks are non-/endorsed or the bank signature card is signed.
For what it's worth from Geri Powers
http://governmentprinciples.wordpres...s-5-tax-forms/
(g) No books kept; no accounting period
Except as provided in section 443 (relating to returns for periods of less than 12 months), the taxpayer’s taxable year shall be the calendar year if—
And from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tips_a.../message/14133
(1)the taxpayer keeps no books;
(2)the taxpayer does not have an annual accounting period; or
(3)the taxpayer has an annual accounting period, but such period does not qualify as a fiscal year.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/441
Found another http://www.freedomlaw.com/archives/o.../dismyths.html
I think there may be something here
12 USC § 143 - Banks in Alaska and insular possessions; lawful money reserves
Every national banking association located in Alaska or in a dependency or insular possession or any part of the United States outside of the continental United States, and not a member of the Federal reserve system, shall at all times have on hand in lawful money of the United States an amount equal to at least 15 percent of the aggregate amount of its deposits in all respects. Whenever the lawful money of any such association shall fall below 15 percent of its deposits such association shall not increase its liabilities by making any new loans or discounts other than by discounting or purchasing bills of exchange payable at sight nor make any dividends of its profits until the required proportion between the aggregate amount of its deposits and its lawful money of the United States has been restored. And the Comptroller of the Currency shall notify any such association whose lawful money reserve shall be below the amount required to be kept on hand to make good such reserve, and if such association shall fail for thirty days thereafter so to make good its lawful money the Comptroller may, with the concurrence of the Secretary of the Treasury, appoint a receiver to wind up the business of the association as provided in section 192 of this title.
Here non-member banks, basically banks that aren't members of the federal reserve system, are required to hold 15% of their DEPOSITS in lawful money. Once again, this isn't a reserve requirement, this is a requirement in the type of deposits held. I have already sent an inquiry to ALLY bank, a non-member bank in Alaska. The point here is there is a difference in the type of deposits held. If indeed there is a difference, then it would be interesting to find out if they can use this "lawful money" in fractional banking...
Nice Find!!
What that means to me is when the FRNs in the vault fall below that portion the bank can no longer operate in elastic fashion. Ergo, lawful money.
I think there is a distinction though, the bank can only hold a maximum of 85% of it's deposits in "non" lawful money (I take this as meaning FRNs, etc.) This code pertains not to the total reserves, but the type of reserves. Obviously if the total reserves fall below a prescribed %, the bank is at fault, and has to either get funds from somewhere, or decrease it's loans. In the description of that type, the code uses the term lawful money...
15% of deposits must be held in lawful money. If the FRN's in vault fall, that would just mean the bank would have a larger % of lawful money. Now that lawful money has been shown to be different, I wander if those members at the bank can demand their money to be held as such? (***edit - Yeah so i read an earlier thread of you already coming to this conclusion, the belief that coins are lawful money because they fill all the needed requirements, mainly because the are issued from the us treasury) Kind of makes you think about why the Federal Reserve is holding billions in 1 dollar coins? Is there a reserve requirement in written in requiring lawful money to be held in a % within the states?
Another point comes to mind. What if I deposit $1,000 in quarters. To my knowledge, coinage is handled by the US Mint, under US treasury, and not equivalent to FRNs. Would it be too much a request a bank not convert my coinage into FRNs? Are coins lawful money? Though not backed by anything, the fact that they originate from the gov't could be a factor.
Check out this thread.
What I want to do then is go buy $100 in quarters and see if the bank selling me the quarters for one $100 FRN requires identification. A while ago I walked in a bank and wanted some of those Washington dollars with the IN GOD WE TRUST on the rim. The teller wanted ID and I declined the transaction and she reluctantly gave me back my $20 FRN. The security guard dogged me off the premises like I had committed a crime of not identifying myself to a bank teller!
My life is full of these kinds of twists and turns.
You bring to mind of course the Article from 1984 and its Timeline. I like Timelines. The one I am mentioning though is pegging the US note to the Fed note in value. The article amplifies an interim stage where the author was focused in 1984 exclusively on the distinction of coins.
The coins say nothing about the Federal Reserve System anywhere on them.
This is a key to understanding lawful money redemption. One day some folks interrelated to Red Shield - Rothschild - sent me a bundle of cash to publish some citizenship papers here in Colorado. [I have spoken of Colorado's role as War Chest, not quite a Territory.] I was smart enough to change the $4 in surcharges to quarters. After a big discussion about it the manager refused to publish the documents devaluing and rejecting the wad of $100's but being clever about it I kept the wad and left the $4 in coin on the counter. Listen to that link at about the 5:00 Mark about the $4 in quarters.
Interestingly while I was waiting for the manager to study up a fellow walked in and engaged my clerk in conversation about military flag protocols. Amazing - the timing!
Amazingly, while I was correctly under the impression the $4 would compel the county attorney to publish the papers within three days what he did instead was to use my process server, which must have come to mind by the clerks remembering all the times he has picked up documents directly to return the $4 in quarters. Within the three days my process server called and I went downtown and picked them up, confirming that attorneys know full well when under pressure about Refusal for Cause.
Regards,
David Merrill.
David,
Apologize it advance, just trying to follow here... I thought you said $100 in quarters, why did the teller give you a $20 back You can't buy $100 in quarters with a $20 FRN or was this what you were trying to do? Do you mean 100 quarters, not $100 in quarters (I suspect this is the case)
Ok, so someone gave you money to publish an article about CO. Were the $4 in surcharges the cost to publish the article? I'm not sure why the manager refused the wad of cash as a form of payment (how much was it). I got a little lost in your story here and fail to see the importance. Where was the devaluation of the wad of cash?
Once again, I'm in pursuit of the truth, and if I'm clear, this story is proving a distinction in the value the two forms of "money" (coin and FRN). I think somewhere out there is an explanation why lawful money is pegged to the FRN, because it definitely isn't the other way around. Maybe we choose to accept the lawful money pegged to the FRN, when in reality it is worth far more then we suspect. I believe this is what your story is getting at, I'm just not quite getting the importance. Also, you have stated earlier about the us note being pegged to gold at 42/per troy ounce? Where is that information?
I am going to buy $100 in quarters tomorrow. The $20 in George Washington dollars happened a while back.
Where was the devaluation of the wad of cash?
It could not compel performance anymore. I was clever to leave the coins separate as I (my client) was only out the $4.
I think somewhere out there is an explanation why lawful money is pegged to the FRN, because it definitely isn't the other way around.
Thank you so much!
There is - the Congressional Record. I will get on that.
I was driving home today and I just came to the stark realization that, at least I believe, everything in the United States purchased using FRNs, which is basically everything on the fruited plains, is owned by the federal reserve (at least they have 1st lien on it, ahead of anyone else).
I think about it like this, the treasury prints up 20 billion in bonds, the fed prints up 20 billion in notes and gives it to the treasury(who is charged interest payable only payable in gold (i read this online somewhere but couldn't confirm)), well say the treasury goes and buys a building with the money. Well, the treasury owes the federal reserve just like you owe your bank on your mortgage, if you don't pay, where does your house go. If the treasury doesn't pay, where does the building go. Instead of the treasury actually buying these things with the notes, well, they bestow this power to purchase things to us, the debt creators, and we happily oblige.
Damn. I feel a dark cloud above. This is some dark shit man...
(that 1984 article was a great read by the way), is there a way to value lawful money? It has to have some difference, and currency reserves in some non-member banks require it's possession.
That also means there is no (or very limited) property ownership in the US. I would venture to say if one was IN the US and endorsing the Federal Reserve note, ownership of any property is not possible.
I would also say one cannot be "in" the US while demanding lawful money redemption, I always think of my demand as a passing of a port.
I think this to be a more pertinent issue when applying to taxes then the whole freeman movement. I've done quite a bit of research in that field, and I think both subjects do have some points of intersection, but coming to the realization is mind boggling.
I've read an SDR is a basket of currencies, 4 in particular (the euro, yen, pound, and the dollar). I wander if the value of an SDR is based on lawful money?
Also, have you read anything about the Federal Reserve demanding payment of interest in gold?
I have not seen anything about the Fed demanding gold, although if they did, they could not touch the 300 million in gold coins (at face value) held by the Treasury in trust for backing "lawful money" in circulation.
These coins were issued to the public, taken back to fund the War of Federal aggression (Civil War), Gold certificates issued for them were redeemed after the War.
Those same coins were "seized" again in 1933-34 under the "New Deal" of FDR. If any commodity is demanded by the FED for payment, it would be gold (in any form) issued and sold commercially and not the 300 million backing my (our) demand for lawful money, it is a matter of Federal by law those Gold coins cannot be touched.
The FED only has a first lien on "all good and services" "specifically held" to back the Feds credit. That is the essence of redemption, once redeemed, it is no longer backing the Federal Reserve (not just money, but the people as well).
Gold Banks
Associations may be organized under the National Banking Act for the purpose of issuing bank notes payable in gold. (See " Circulation.") Such banks are known as "National Gold Banks," or " Gold Banks," and to take out such circulation must deposit with the Treasurer of the United States, in the same manner as prescribed for the taking out of ordinary circulation, United States bonds bearing interest but payable in gold,1 but not exceeding eighty per cent, of the par value of the bonds deposited. These notes are payable upon presentation at the bank of issue in gold coin of the United States and shall be so redeemable.
1 While the 2% Consols of 1930 are the only bonds which are payable.
While Section 5185 of the United States Revised Statutes, authorizing the organization of "gold banks" has not actually been repealed, practically this result was obtained, however, by the Act of Feb. 14, 1880, authorizing the conversion of " gold banks" into " currency banks." As a result, there are, to-day, no "gold banks" in existence.
Read more: http://chestofbooks.com/finance/inve...#ixzz2IeFecgVi
Special Depository - Specialties
Special Depository
This will be understood by reading "United States Depository."
Special Indorsement
One which specifies the person or to the order of whom payment shall thereafter be made, and which calls for the indorsement of the party to whom it was made payable before it can be further negotiated; as, for example, suppose a note is made payable to Henry Adams. He makes a "special indorsement " by writing across the back "Pay to James Frazer or order," and then signing his own name below; i. e. "Henry Adams." By this form James Frazer is specified as the person to whose order the paper shall afterward be paid, and he must indorse it before it can be further negotiated.
Read more: http://chestofbooks.com/finance/inve...#ixzz2IeEGr186
United States Depository
The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to appoint any national bank as a "depository" for the moneys of the United States Government. This is a method which the Government adopts in order that a portion, at least, of the large sums of money which it often accumulates may get into use. It is conceivable that the Government receipts might be so large that an enormous amount of money could go into its hands and thus out of circulation, making such a contraction that there would be a scarcity of money for actual use, and it is to prevent such contingencies to even a small degree that this plan has been adopted.
The Government does employ national banks as depositories for other reasons than the above. It has what are called "permanent depositories," in localities where the principal offices of internal revenue collectors are located, or where sales of public lands occur, for the purpose of receiving the proceeds of such collections or sales; also " special depositories " in which post-office money-orders and United States Court funds are kept.
Any bank accepting the appointment, as above, must give satisfactory security by the deposit with the Treasury Department of United States Government bonds and otherwise.
The Secretary of the Treasury at one time construed the law as permitting him, at his discretion, to accept other than Government bonds, which may, in his judgment, furnish sufficient security. There is an impression among many leading financiers that this is a bad precedent, and might, sometime, lead to an abuse of the privilege.1
Read more: http://chestofbooks.com/finance/inve...#ixzz2IeEST9FF
Ok,
With this I take issue.
http://www.npr.org/2011/06/28/137394...t-nobody-wants
United States currency notes...
(1) may not be more than $300,000,000; and
(2) may not be held or used for a reserve.
I'm thinking now United States currency notes are indeed lawful money, but, there are other types of lawful money. Coin being one of them. Now, the law doesn't state you can only have 300,000,000 in lawful money, its only 300,000,000 in United States currency notes. Therefore, I'm finding it difficult to connect lawful money as being inelastic. In the article above, "they say" there is 1 billion in coin, which is well above the inelastic 300,000,000 number. Could it be construed that these 1 dollar coins aren't in circulation?
Thanks
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releas...1108assets.htmI believe that at the Amendments to the Bretton Woods Agreements (Secret Jamaica Rambouillet Accord included) the IMF Trust Fund was established at the current earmark of international gold. Look at the Footnotes.Quote:
Damn. I feel a dark cloud above. This is some dark shit man...
(that 1984 article was a great read by the way), is there a way to value lawful money? It has to have some difference, and currency reserves in some non-member banks require it's possession.
I am quickly being convinced that I have found the gold coins. This is a fascinating journey. Those coins are located in the American Numismatic Association museum on the SE Corner of the Golden Rectangle. Like I tell in my first video that whole Rectangle exploration came to me in a dream.
The dream went like this. I had discovered a "map" composed of the Masonic monuments here in Colorado Springs. I went to the middle of the symbol (I did not get the shape until I went to the monuments with GPS equipment) and was in a grove of trees. Most of the area in the Rectangle is Open Spaces like found in the 1313 METRO thread. In the middle of the trees the ground was soft and sandy - easy digging. I found an old wooden chest buried and opened it to find it filled with gold coins! It was one of the best dreams of my life! I found a movie called Bloodline with a similar scene as my dream.
Yes. United States currency notes are all forms of lawful money. United States notes were not included in the United States currency notes until Congress decided to do that in order for Title 31 to be reenacted into positive law. Look at the Notes in the Section you cite.
I thought Congress simply changed the name of United States notes to coerce this pegging to the FRN in value. Oddly I got a call from two women who were both attorneys by their knowledge of Code. They instructed me where to look to discover for myself that United States notes were bundled into United States currency notes. I could probably find that citation, I am sure I still have it but have to remember key words and where I would have saved it.
Assuming these 1 dollar coins are us currency notes, how is it possible to possess 1 billion in 1 dollar coins at the fed?
(also thank you for the link referencing the $42/troy ounce..obviously earmarked for "international" trade...)
Boom... http://chestofbooks.com/finance/bank...l#.UP33MmdtedM..
Required redemption fund for banks...
http://chestofbooks.com/finance/bank...l#.UP3-qWdtedM
I do not equate it that way. There may not be a full $300M in US notes extant. So let's just guess that vault has $150M in value, in gold coins.
In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0jpso4jDC4
This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard. http://constitution.org/mon/greenspan_gold.htm
I guess what I'm getting at, really, I'm trying to get my credit union to admit in writing we can demand lawful money, that they carry lawful money differently on their books (not as big a point, but this is why we need proof, and why we should open an evidence depository), that lawful money is not taxable, and to convince enough people to use lawful money to crash the Federal Reserve system. That is not too much to ask right?
I did find blatant hypocrisy on the Federal Reserve websites...
http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section13.htm
"Any Federal reserve bank may receive from any of its member banks, or other depository institutions, and from the United States, deposits of current funds in lawful money, national-bank notes, Federal reserve notes, or checks, and drafts, payable upon presentation, or other items, and also, for collection, maturing notes and bills;
Then here
http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_15197.htm
"Federal and state courts since then have repeatedly held that Federal Reserve notes are also "lawful money." Milam v. U.S., 524 F.2d 629 (9th Cir. 1974), is typical of the federal and state court cases holding that Federal Reserve notes are "lawful money"."
In the first quotes, then why specify a difference, if lawful money and federal reserve notes are the same, WTF. Oh yeah, because they are not the same. The only distinction I see is that on 12 USC § 411, it states "Federal reserve notes". In the first link, it is also "Federal reserve notes". But, in the second link, in the description, that are called "Federal Reserve notes." Is there a difference in a Federal reserve note and a Federal Reserve note?
Side note, treasury bonds are lawful money, according to investopedia... These are the bonds the fed purchases with their worthless notes.
I love using Milam to make that point!
Presuming that you are being genuine about not getting it I suppose I can understand why it is so frustrating trying to figure it out from my posts.
The reason I feel you are disingenuous is that Milam does not say what you say it says! It does not say that FRNs are lawful money.
MILAM thought he could redeem for metal. The only significant thing Milam says to me is that the justices acknowledge his right to redeem.
No, no. Not disingenuous. I just didn't convey the message. What I was trying to say was the Federal Reserve is clearly making an untrue statement on their website by stating that their notes are lawful money. They are twisting the Milam case. Trust me, I'm completely on board with you.
What I was also was attempting to point out was on another page within a federal reserve website, they make a distinction between Federal Reserve notes and lawful money. I guess what I was trying to say was that if Federal Reserve notes were truly lawful money, why would they separate the two when describing types of deposits made. It's like saying you can deposit apples and oranges, why wouldn't they say you can deposit fruit. Lawful money and federal reserve notes are different, so they can't be combined, they are 2 separate things.
Funny thing is my credit union manager never got back to me. I will be stopping by today for a followup. Also, believe it or not, I have a personal connection to 2 people who actually owned member banks. We aren't talking Bank of America here, just smaller independent banks, but member banks indeed. If you had 3-5 questions to drill them with, what would they be? Keep in mind, 1 has sold his bank since, therefore has no personal ties to it. Thanks again David.
The amount is for paper money (called then US Bank Notes) the "coins" in questions were not only 1 dollar coins, but all the gold coins in circulation from the US Mint in the 1800s up till 1933.
The Federal statute from above is specific to "United States currency Notes" which never were Federal Reserve notes. The clad coins today are only lawful money in that they are:
1. Issued by the US Treasury and contain some material that is consideration.
2. Valued at face value.
3. Coined by the power granted to congress in the Constitution and to set the value there of.
US Notes (paper currency) have always been BACKED by actual gold or silver reserves and sometimes redeemable directly for that gold or silver at face value. The US has suspended the direct redeem-ability of US Notes in any form in times of emergency. Such is the case since 1933.
The US Notes are still backed by lawful money (in fact, the exact same Coins are backing them, I believe) but the notes are not being directly redeemed for those coins. This is why the recorded Demand for lawful money per 12-USC 411
is so powerful.
That demand puts the US government in very dangerous position of NOT obeying its own law (12 USC 411 "shall be redeemed on demand). And it puts the one demanding the redemption in the position of the Creditor and the US in the position of the DEBTOR and the one with the obligation to pay.
You have to be careful to watch the words being used, because not all rules on lawful money or currency apply both coins and/or paper.
Paper is divided by borders, lines on paper mean things. Look at any map of the US or any legal document, lines separate things on paper. There are US Notes in circulation, they are hidden in plain view and they are NOT Federal Reserve Notes, they do reside very close to Federal Reserve Notes.
"Similar things are not the same."
Sooo, the reason we can't redeem our US notes in gold is because of an emergency? I've read little on this. Where is the emergency per se, or what document specifies that, I would love to dig into it. Sooo, to be clear, US Bank notes are backed by gold (possibly the same gold coins). The US treasury can mint coins, but those coins, even though considered lawful money, aren't backed by gold...
I also have read a little bit on the trading with the enemy act from Woodrow Wilson. Somewhere I read FDR took the act even further, claiming all US Citizens were now considered the enemy. Can't back that one up though... http://www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/enemy.html