What's to stop someone from making their demand for lawful money on their tax return?
Printable View
What's to stop someone from making their demand for lawful money on their tax return?
Nothing, but a big fat "denied" letter from them. However I don't think that is the proper place for it. They don't care. All they care about is that someone filed an info return with your mark of the beast number in which there are digits saying you received money. They then automatically "determine" that those digits constitute income per mountains of statues and regs and the SOP of the banks UNLESS you have something that disproves their presumption.
Hmm... If that is the expected response, why should someone expect a different response by making the demand through the Federal Reserve? Isn't Treasury where all these various processes ultimately terminate?
I'm looking at 12 USC 411, and Treasury is one of the proper places, and IRS is the Treasury's agent, is it not?
At any rate, I'm exploring the possibility of including the demand right on the 1040. This is where a person declares his income, so it also seems to be the correct place to demand redemption of the income.
I recognize there may be problems though. That's why I opened the discussion.
People are learning how and getting full refunds without evidence repositories. I teach that one should copy (record) the demands and have some kind of evidence repository. This tends to prevent FrivPens.
I want to thank you for all the work you've done. I never would have even contemplated making a demand for lawful money, except for reading you here and elsewhere on the net.
Now I am looking at filing 1040, not taking any benefits offered there, and making the demand in the margin, while simultaneously using 31 USC 3113 as a gift to the US to pay down the debt. Wouldn't the net result be no further tax liability? And the debt being lowered by the total amount of my income?
The only way that makes sense to me is to Notify them you will be redeeming lawful money for the upcoming year. If you have not been redeeming lawful money for 2012 then you cannot do so on the 2012 tax return and expect a refund.
However there is some evidence that the IRS agents are not resisting lawful money redemption at all. I should wait for more information before I go into that though.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the purpose of the 1040. Isn't it a financing statement? Isn't it notice - in and of itself - to Treasury of whatever demands, claims, or declarations the taxpayer makes?
Since the 1040 is filed in arrears, couldn't the demand be made in arrears as well? Why would a person need to make the demand in advance?
I realize people are successfully making their demands through the Federal Reserve, and thereby reducing their tax liability. But my understanding is the fiduciary duties of the Secretary of Treasury arise from his powers as trustee, overseeing the estates he holds in trust for the people. Therefore, as beneficiaries of the trust, we have the opportunity to claim whatever remedies are available, and the Secretary's office is the proper place for making them.
I've been following many discussions here for several months now, and so far I've held off making a demand for lawful money, because of all the problems I see people having. I'm looking for a simple way to cut through all the red tape, and also avoid a confrontation.
I very much appreciate that you provide a good sounding board for people to discuss this subject.
PS - I'm not looking for a refund. I'm self employed, so I don't have that issue to contend with.
Keith,
I'm not trying to make light of your idea's. I try to come at things from the other sides perspective. The taxable event occurs quite simply when you deposit a paycheck into a bank account without the proper verbiage. When you follow what the bank recommends they use your paycheck as an asset and credit your account with "bank credit" that is derived from "Fed Credit". The check then shifts "bank/Fed credit" from your employer's bank to your bank via the settlement of accounts performed at the Federal Reserve through each banks individual reserve account. When you restrict your endorsement to demand money issued directly from the US treasury that throws an extra step into their process.
Normally: Bank A owes Bank B $1000, Bank B owes Bank A $1500. The net effect is $500 of credit is transferred to Bank A's reserve account from Bank B's reserve account.
LMUS is demanded: Bank A has a check (from Bank B) where $1000 of LMUS is demanded. The Fed transfers $1000 of LMUS (coin) to Bank A, then deducts $1000 from Bank B's reserve account. The Fed then needs to replenish it's LMUS supply and orders $1000 of coin from the US Mint, it then credits the Treasury with $1000.
This is logically how I see it working. Again the taxable event occurs at the bank when you have an incoming transfer of money substitutes (bank credit). However when you invoke a demand for money properly created by the Treasury you are using the money properly authorized by the Constitution (coinage clause 1:8:5). Anything other then that CAN be taxed as an excise (1869: Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 U.S. 533).
I hope this makes sense to you. The "event" is not when filing a return form. That is the part where you try to recover $$ that were not taxable in the first place. You need to restrict your endorsements on your checks AND MAKE COPIES! As David said.
Thank you for your well explained reply. Yes, the taxable event doesn't take place when the return is submitted. I should have added before that I would not be taking any benefit from the fractional reserve system like earning interest, nor from Treasury's 1040 form (like exemptions and such).
It appears I am stuck on the scenarios you laid out. What I see you providing is your idea about what happens behind the counter of the Fed bank. But what about the person making the deposit? Doesn't he take his check from bank A to bank B? And isn't his account credited the corresponding amount, no matter how he makes the endorsement? He's still using bank credit, and banks deal in FRNs.
This brings up another thought. Since FRNs are for advances to Federal reserve banks and no other purpose, when a person receives a check, isn't he holding bank credit representing FRNs? So isn't that the time when the taxable event occurs?
Also, since anyone holding bank credit representing FRNs is a Federal reserve bank, why isn't a person able to make the demand to himself from his private capacity as a living man? (PS-The answer is obvious: he's not one of the 12 Fed Banks, nor is he Treasury. But it makes as much sense as making a demand at a local bank.)
I envision a veritable sea of metaphysical principles at work here. But there are only a few rock solid elements, namely the demand, the Treasury, the person, and the statutes. The subject is credit, whether denominated as FRNs or USNs.
This is why I see the 1040 as the proper vehicle: it is the well settled and customary practice for the Treasury to receive notice of claims and declarations on the form. This is where income is declared and made known. It's where the NAME conducts business with the gov't. Why not fill out the form, taking no benefits, then make the demand on the form? Isn't the return filed as required? Aren't the taxes paid? Didn't the taxpayer exercise his rights timely?
I don't want to discount what people already know regarding making demand through the Federal Reserve. I'm simply exploring another possible avenue.
"But what about the person making the deposit? Doesn't he take his check from bank A to bank B? And isn't his account credited the corresponding amount, no matter how he makes the endorsement? He's still using bank credit, and banks deal in FRNs."
Yes, and yes. The bank credits your account with the face value of the check. To me the check says "pay to the order of". So on the back of the check I give them an order "redeem for current U.S. coin and deposit in acct#XXX signed me" How they handle it at that point does not matter. I have specified the nature of the payment, I have not left them a naked endorsement whereby they can just utilize bank credit between them and the other bank. What matters is that my initial deposit that backs those digits on the account screen is backed up by coin. Where they store it, whether or not I take delivery matters not in my view.
"when a person receives a check, isn't he holding bank credit representing FRNs? So isn't that the time when the taxable event occurs?"
As far as I can tell a check is a negotiable debt instrument (bill of credit). It's nature is not set in stone until negotiated in some manner (cashed, deposited,transferred). (See David's Simpsons episode clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH9OIIJcQM8 ).
"The subject is credit, whether denominated as FRNs or USNs."
This is where I have altered course for myself. I'm sticking with U.S. current coin (Lawful money of the U.S.). FRN's as USN's, I get the metaphysics of it, but try explaining that to one of the drones within an agency or a bank. Everyone knows what coins are. Anyone younger then probably 40 has no idea what a USN is.
"This is why I see the 1040 as the proper vehicle: it is the well settled and customary practice for the Treasury to receive notice of claims and declarations on the form. This is where income is declared and made known. It's where the NAME conducts business with the gov't. Why not fill out the form, taking no benefits, then make the demand on the form? Isn't the return filed as required? Aren't the taxes paid? Didn't the taxpayer exercise his rights timely?
I don't want to discount what people already know regarding making demand through the Federal Reserve. I'm simply exploring another possible avenue. "
OK, I see where you going. You had better have some proof. Either by photocopied checks, signature cards, coin only interest free account, etc. Otherwise the Income Redistribution Service might get snotty with you. Oh and this part "the statutes". The way I see it, using bank credit opens the door to the nightmare known as 26USC. Using coinage minted under the Coined money clause of the U.S. Constitution keeps that door mostly closed. All of my answers are MYOP, keep digging, the puzzle pieces are out there scattered all over the damn place. The nature of the money is heart of the matter. Emitted by a bank or the Treasury is the key distinction.
I found this most helpful..fyi: http://www.lockeanliberty.org/supreme-court-timeline/
Ultimately we are all after the same thing, but it will probably not be easy or easily agreed upon. Collaboration of ideas! Make up your own mind.
Brian,
I really liked that link! Bookmarked for future reference.
It actually sparked yet another thought: the difference between lawful money and legal tender. It appears to me that lawful money is money held under the common law, whereas legal tender is in admiralty.
The way I see it, this relates to saving to suitors and demanding redemption by highlighting what happens when someone makes their demand. Would it be incorrect to say that: one is demanding his currency be redeemed from one jurisdiction, and brought into another?
The funds made subject to a tax are legal tender, and subject to siezure, correct? Now it's occurring to me that in the case of filing a return, the legal person taxpayer is also in admiralty, which is why he must file a return. He is in admiralty because he - being simply the NAME - is the res of a trust.
The living man however is not the res. Rather he is the beneficiary of the trust.
Now then, if the NAME files his return as required, but the living man makes his demand on the return, I can see why this would be confusing for IRS to process.
If, as someone said, the result would be a denial of the claim by IRS, it seems the ball would then be handed back to the taxpayer/living man. Here is where the benefit of experience in dealing with them is most necessary. I do not know what form a denial would take. Do they list their reason(s) for denial?
In any case, I would accept their denial on the condition they show proof of claim that I am not entitled to make the demand.
Does this sound realistic? Reasonable? Workable?
On the tax return? Seems that appropriate and applicable would be:
(1) redeeming the treasury check for lawful money
(2) properly dealing with the account to which a tax refund might be electronically deposited.
"the difference between lawful money and legal tender. It appears to me that lawful money is money held under the common law, whereas legal tender is in admiralty."
I think legal tender refers to what the government will take in payment of taxes. The government conveys the status upon certain forms of money. Like USN's, they are legal tender for everything EXCEPT payment of duties on imports and interest on the public debt. So they are not a FULL/unlimited legal tender like gold coin was prior to 1933. See page 17 of this: http://archive.org/details/sciencemoney00margoog
Lawful money in my view is that which is authorized by law. Lawful money of the United States (LMUS) is authorized by law and issued by the U.S. Treasury. I think where the admiralty/equity part gets into the mix is by using bills of credit (checks). Admiralty/equity law was in part created for the passing of bills of credit between countries with dissimilar mediums of exchange so that an equitable exchange/trade system could be set up. This was so that merchants did not need to send ships full of gold or silver risking the loss of that metal in order to buy goods overseas. Bills of credit were implimented to avoid the risk, and I think (i'm going off memory of something I read awhile ago) the jurisdiction governing these devices were within admiralty and or equity. I could be totally off base here, but that is my understanding at this point in time. That is I think why the IRS sometimes goes after people's stuff "in rem"...they are going after the thing (money), and not particularly you.
The trust aspect is something I have not devoted a large part of my time into unwinding. Many others on here are probably way better versed then I in dealing with that. My thinking is that by dealing in LMUS authorized by the US Constitution 1:8:5. I can avoid the sticky issues of admiralty/equity and remain in common law. However I'm always open to other ideas as everyone should be.
Very clever of you to choose 'unwind'! For the benefit of anyone reading this thread, one of its definitions is: unwind a trade - to reverse a securities transaction through an offsetting transaction. Now I do not want to unwind the trust, but rather begin using it skillfully in commerce. Perhaps this is why I'm perceiving a bit of reluctance from people in accepting the idea of making the demand on the tax return. My goal is different than their's, and the subject so esoteric, that the mental models pass each other without ever really connecting.
My theory is this: if I can establish the difference between the NAME and the living man with Treasury - as in accepted by Treasury - I would automatically become recognized as inhabiting the de jure republic, without ever having to jump through any other hoops. I would then be using the Social Security account as a friendly national citizen, as opposed to an enemy of the state. There would be no need to fill out forms declaring myself to be a non resident alien, or anything like that.
I would be free to enter and do business in the jurisdiction of the United States at will, and leave again unmolested. Do you see what I'm driving at? The Social Security number is a vehicle, a very useful vehicle, and the government is set up to work with people through it. Why not use it as it was intended?
A new suitor quickly learns his or her true name. This seems like silliness or even idiocy to any attorney reading here. And it has very little effect on the surface. The effect is however profound.Quote:
Now I do not want to unwind the trust, but rather begin using it skillfully in commerce.
True Name gains the choice of being the trustee for the Legal or Full Name. First Middle Last becomes the name of the FIRST MIDDLE LAST trust that is available for First Middle to use.
A moment ago I was reviewing another thread - http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...-the-1040-Form - where there is contained a supporting schedule for 1040 with the dmand made at the top of the page!
Now I need to rethink everything again.
I've been reluctant to make demands on checks, because I don't see what is in it for the banks. After seeing the supporting schedule referenced above, I now understand the motivation for keeping a good record, but still question why it's necessary. I noticed that the suitor's supporting schedule reserved the right to make another demand nunc pro tunc to an earlier date.
Why is this in the mind of the suitor, if his documentation only reaches the last three months of 2011?
Only problem is that much of lawful money is fiat currency i.e. demand notes, greenbacks, etc.
The key difference I have seen concerning lawful money vs legal tender is who the issuer is.
The U.S. Treasury issues lawful money. The Federal Reserve issues legal tender.
By the above, US Treasury Notes and Bonds would be considered lawful money.
Interestingly enough US Treasury Notes and Bonds are, in part, reserve currency for the issuance of FRNs.
Well, aren't we saying the very same thing? Treasury and Congress are not authorized to issue private equity currency, which is why (I think) the Federal Reserve was created/authorized. I don't think the issue of fiat currency matters as long as - like you say - the issuer complies with its jurisdictional authority. What matters is under which jurisdiction the currency is operating. Upon being redeemed, the same physical (including digital) currency becomes lawful money, not legal tender.
What started me along this way of thinking was, demanding lawful money results in the currency being removed from admiralty (where it's subject to siezure) and coming into common law (where it is not) as per the saving to suitors clause. After all, there is no physical alternative to what appear to be FRNs. But as we all know, the right side of the note belongs to Treasury. Also, there exists a potential that all FRNs in existence could be redeemed, resulting in $ trillions of lawful money in circulation, all fiat.
Each individual transaction that uses FRNs generates more debt BECAUSE each one is a PROMISE to pay, an IOU-based transaction because it is based on liability (PROMISE) instruments. Each one of these needed to be backed-out by a corresponding REDUCTION entry!!! AWESOME!!!
One is actually helping to PAY debts and thereby reduce the national debt. One is helping correct the mistake THEY made by PRESUMING that FRNs were being used in such transactions. These must include all withholding-based transactions as well, since both the debt and the reduction is TRANSACTION-BASED! THIS IS S KEY CONCEPT THAT MUST BE UNDERSTOOD! Each transaction that assumes FRN usage must be backed-out (reversed) to settle the national debt.
One could easily prove each FRN transaction increases the national debt by auditing any check deposits at any bank and see if these funds are included in the reserve required for fractional reserve lending. One can see the multiplier effect in the diagram at that website, and also see why bank employees get fired for not respecting demands for lawful money, because all of the multiplier "ripples" of mistakenly-created and un-bonded debt that has to be backed-out/reversed!
By following FRCP 803(6) rule of hearsay exceptions, one is making a substantive record on documents used in the normal course of business. By writing "lawful money is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411" on all commercial instruments (deposit slips, checks, etc), one enables the equitable title transfer of the credit (labor) held by the the United States Treasury via the Federal Reserve Banks since the April 5, 1933 Executive Order 6102 of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, which transfer then enables the Trustee to setoff the national debt to that extent.
This reduction therefore, in effect if not in essence, constitutes FOR-GIVENESS of the national debt. It is applying the prepaid labor credit of the people loaned to the corporations that enabled them to pro-duce goods and services for the people.
The Beneficiaries have NOT been doing their duty of authorizing the application of lawful money to PAY debts, by demanding lawful for all transactions. Using FRNs is only a PROMISE to pay, and each such PROMISE is fractionalized, as well as each derivative transaction from the prime transaction which mainly is one's GROSS PAY-check.
Doug555, I had not thought of it that way. Thank you for pointing out that a person is actually forgiving the debt when he makes his demand. This is a new concept for me, so I will think about what it means to me. The idea of paying down the debt was one of my motivations for considering making demand at Treasury.
But now I'm seeing that, instead of paying it down (as a surety for the state) a person can actually forgive the debt!
Before you get too far along with your concept of reducing the (Federal Reserve) debt, let's look at how the banking system views your transaction. Suppose your employer (?) sends you a paycheck (actually sends a computer file from payroll to the bank, instructing them to credit your account). The "money" exists only as a computer balance in the employer's bank account. Since you noticed the bank that you want to redeem lawful money, the bank must credit your account with LM, ie, it must not add your new balance to their 'reserve balance' which they report weekly to the FR, and upon which they can advance fractional reserve lending to others. Your balance exists as LM, but there are no actual dollars involved. Now suppose you buy a car, pay the dealership $30k in LM; your LM balance is reduced by $30k. The dealership deposits your check in their Federal Reserve account, having endorsed the credit. Presto! the LM is now back to being 'fiat money,' now endorsed by the dealership. No new debt was accepted by you, so the FR debt was not reduced, it was just not enlarged by your non-endorsement. But as soon as you circulate (spend) your LM, it goes right back to being legal tender, and now can be used to increase fractional reserve lending (thus increasing the debt). If everyone would demand lawful money, the bank's fractional reserve lending balance would be driven to zero, and they could not increase the debt by creating more unbacked fiduciary media, but as long as the total users of LM remain trivial, there is no effect on the national (Federal Reserve) debt. Note also that the FR is creating over $1 trillion in new unbacked fiduciary media this year, by their program of buying $40 billion per month of bad MBS (Mortgage Backed Securities) paper from the banks and from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and $45 billion per month of new Treasury bonds (interest bearing debt notes). [see this link: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...improves.html] The 'money' the Fed creates when it buys the newly-issued Treasury bonds is actually just computer entries in the government accounts at various FR banks; these 'credits' are then transferred to SNAP cards, SS checks, and other government giveaway programs, and shows up as credits in those voter's bank accounts, thus increasing the reserve balance at those banks, thus allowing more creation of unbacked fiduciary media by those banks.
So the effect of demanding lawful money on reducing the national debt is trivial. The more important feature is the concept of removing your assets from admiralty to common law, and taking it outside the purview of Title 26, thus avoiding the irrecusable obligation to pay income taxes on the excised privilege of dealing in FR credit (which is an admission that you are bankrupt, and are not discharging the debt, merely promising to pay at some future date). By using LM, you are actually discharging your debt, paying in sound money, backed by silver (which has intrinsic value) not tendering elastic currency debt notes, which are promises to pay, not backed by anything but your future labor.
I hear the buzz is that nearly half of the IRS agents are going into retirement.
How can LM - the way it currently manifests - be backed by silver? And how is LM not fractionalized, seeing that it is the resulting trust created by demanding redemption of fractionalized FRNs?Quote:
So the effect of demanding lawful money on reducing the national debt is trivial. The more important feature is the concept of removing your assets from admiralty to common law, and taking it outside the purview of Title 26, thus avoiding the irrecusable obligation to pay income taxes on the excised privilege of dealing in FR credit (which is an admission that you are bankrupt, and are not discharging the debt, merely promising to pay at some future date). By using LM, you are actually discharging your debt, paying in sound money, backed by silver (which has intrinsic value) not tendering elastic currency debt notes, which are promises to pay, not backed by anything but your future labor.
Reminds me of this story: http://www.unclefed.com/TxprBoR/JWWade.html
Wonderful contribution - thank you! I had not thought about checking for the law curing 30 days after the Bankers' Holiday. I think the Note in my Public Papers and Addresses book might help shed light. Image attached.
You also bring to light why this Schedule was refunded in full. - GROSS Paycheck.
and a newspaper cliping http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/48423796
I agree that the effect of demanding lawful money for all transactions is MUCH greater at a PERSONAL level than the effect at the national debt level, due to few people doing it at this time.
However, the MAIN point I am trying to make, and which your LM/FRN transaction scenarios above support, is that both the FRN-based Debt and the USN-based Reduction are TRANSACTION-BASED! This is WHY the 1040 Supporting Schedule for Lawful Money Demand Reduction has to include the Withholding transactions - to reverse these corresponding unauthorized and un-bonded debt transactions.
I believe that these Withholding transactions transfer amounts to other Federal and State government agencies that are presuming these amounts to be FRN-based Debt funds, which are deposited in a bank and are included in their "reserve" amounts since they may have no notice (plausible deniability) to the contrary if the government agencies have not performed their fiduciary duty under the Principal-Agent Doctrine to pass along the substantive record one has made with one's local Federal Reserve member bank.
Therefore, the Form 1040 may be the only instrument that "catches" these "Mis-Takes" and enables the government agencies to correct their books and records and ledgers and truly settle (PAY) the corresponding obligations with the "For-Given" credit of the people held in trust for this purpose, and also then reverse the prime and derivative debts and their multiplied "ripples" as the diagram in this 'How Banks Work' article clearly illustrates.
NOTE: This diagram suggests that the effect on the national debt may not be so "trivial" after all. Such a lawful money reduction procedure, if done by everyone, would certainly improve our economy and national security!
You are quite correct about the GROSS pay/withheld issue, Doug. And I agree that the legal issues are transaction based. And I concur that the Federal Reserve and its subsidiary corporations (IRS) presume that all transactions are conducted in their debt money (but a rebuttable presumption). I am retired and do not get paychecks with taxes already withheld, so had not considered that issue. The paycheck you deposit (in LM) is already reduced by the amounts withheld. However, if you redeem all your (now reduced) income in LM, you can ask for a full refund of all income taxes paid. Whether the IRS then unwinds these previously credited transactions I know not, but based on their disregard of other legal issues, I would guess they ignore them. I believe that all money collected by the IRS for the Federal Reserve is delivered to the IMF.
It is clear to me that the banksters intended ab initio to bankrupt the government and all businesses, as debt loaned at interest, and not invested in productive enterprises that earn a sufficient return to pay the interest, can have no other outcome. [the debtor is servant to the lender; by keeping everyone in debt, the banksters can live by the work of other's hands] Borrowing trillions to spend on social programs, which generate no return, makes this conclusion a slam dunk.
I suspect that the only record that is corrected is the total amount of FRN credit that you used, which is then the subject of income tax, and SS tax. (The IRS keeps a permanent record of your reported transactions in FRN's for your entire life, or until you opt out of Title 26.)
Lawful money is/was issued by the US Treasury, and was limited to $300 million because that was the amount of silver available at the time. It is public money, can only be issued by the Treasury, and cannot be over-issued beyond the $300 million of silver backing it. And it cannot be counted as reserves for fractional reserve lending. FRN's are private money, issued by the Federal Reserve. Their rules allow their member banks to lend more money out than they have in deposits. This is fractional reserve banking; it is fraud, and it results in inflating the money supply, thus diluting its value (same as counterfeiting). Title 12, which created the right of the Fed to issue private debt money, could not force citizens to use it, thus incurring the obligation to pay taxes (the interest on the private debt), as people have a right to contract, and to refuse to contract, with whomever they choose. So Title 12 had to allow an exit from the private money debt scheme: demand public money, which cannot be taxed by the IRS (it can only be taxed by Congress, following the rules for taxation found in the Constitution). And it cannot be used as reserves for fractional reserve lending, because that is a private scheme, carried out by a corporation (the Fed). Such lending would be un-Constitutional if conducted by the Treasury; thus public money cannot be used in the private scheme.
You are wrong about there being trillions of lawful money in circulation. Per my prior discussion of the banking industry's approach, there are almost no dollars of lawful money in circulation. When you write a demand on a check for deposit, the bank credits your account; no dollars are involved. When you write a check on your lawful money account, the recipient endorses the check, and the 'dollars' involved revert to FRN's. What the silver held by the Treasury backs is now irrelevant, as the option to redeem in specie has long been vacated. But the key feature of lawful money is that it cannot be 'fractionalized;' it cannot be used for fractional reserve lending, and it cannot be issued without backing, of which the Treasury has none. So the amount of lawful money 'in circulation' is limited to $300 million. And since now when you demand to redeem lawful money as cash, the FR bank will give you FRN's (which you can stamp as lawful money if you like). Even the stamped cash notes, when deposited at a FR bank, revert to FRN's, since the person depositing did not know to express his demand, and the bank teller will ignore the stamp. (BofA says in their account agreement that they will ignore any writing on the back of your check!) Since lawful money now trades at par with FRN's, which are being counterfeited at an alarming pace (20+% per year during the last 5 years), the intrinsic 'value' of lawful money has been eliminated, so its only value now is that the demand for it takes your transaction out of the purview of Title 26. And I believe that lawful money is required to do business with the District Courts of the United States (Article III courts).
Others have said that when you endorse FRN's, you make the debt notes lawful money. Based on the distinction of inelastic public money vs elastic private money, this is clearly not possible. When you endorse FRN's, they remain legal tender, but they are still debt notes, not money. As debt notes, they cannot pay off debt, as they themselves are debt. Only lawful money can actually discharge a debt.
Finally, the lawful money people are demanding today are US Notes. The fact that the Treasury has not re-issued any such notes since 1971, and the FR makes no effort to have said notes available for people who demand them is just an indication that the Treasury/Federal Reserve syndicate is trying to blur the distinction in the public mind, in hopes that everyone will forget that Constitutional money still exists in the US, just as they are trying to make people forget that they have common law rights. All part of the continuous propaganda to further enslave the populace.
Freed, Why not just demand these and forget all the metaphysical things?
http://seattletimes.com/ABPub/2011/11/05/2016699255.jpg
Oh and I should add...didn't the Federal Reserve bitch and complain that they had too many of them and had to build all kinds of new storage space for them. Why not relieve them of some of that burden and distribute them to the local banks?
I beg to differ Sir.
The Fed and their collection agency, the IRS, are parasites upon this once great nation.
"Give me control of a nations money supply, and I care not who makes it’s laws"- Amschel Rothchild
"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance." - James Madison
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power of money should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs." - Thomas Jefferson
The FED is nothing more than a conglomerate of Bankers that have taken over the control of the USA's monetary issuance, thereby able and willing to control it's government and it's servants by inflation and deflation of the currency.
THIS ^^
The Fed is the Genesis of the cancer that is very much destroying this country. The nature of the money was hijacked and all other (common law) forms suppressed or driven out of circulation.
The bankers know damn well the implications if the intended original monetary system was allowed to flourish:
"1865 London Times editorial directed against Lincoln's debt-free Greenbacks:
If that mischievous financial policy which had its origin in the North American Republic during the late war in that country, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without debt. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world. The brains and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe."
I want to be polite, and respond out of respect, but I'm pereceiving anger on your part. Or maybe frustration. At any rate, I'm not here to call into question anyone's world view. I firmly believe everyone has the God given ability to reason, and people often reach different conclusions from the same data points. My conclusions are simply different than yours.
If you like, I would be happy to discuss my views on the subject, but I think another thread would be a more appropriate place.