Respectfully Disagree with David

Printable View

12-14-12, 06:24 PM
Chipper

Respectfully Disagree with David

David Merrill,

You have done some fine work. I respectfully disagree with one of your premises regarding 12USC411 and would like to propose the following (admittedly imperfect) treatise for consideration:

My Premise which contradicts yours:

Using Federal Reserve Notes (FRN) does NOT make you a Federal Reserve System (FRS) bank or agent.

Additional Premise:

All FRNs in circulation are redeemed.

Given:

That the US Government has the capacity to create new jurisdictions.

Evidence:

Within the "jurisdiction of the Federal Reserve System" (JoFRS), unredeemed FRNs (UFRN) can be used for only one thing, interbank transfers, and "no other purpose".
Within the JoFRS, UFRNs can be redeemed into Lawful Money which I will call "redeemed FRNs" (RFRN).
It is a legal impossibility for UFRNs to be transferred out of the JoFRS, or used in the capacity of lawful money, as that would constitute "another purpose".

Therefore:

UFRNs must be redeemed by the FRS, which is within their authority, into RFRNs (lawful money) before they can be used for any "other purpose".
Simply by using FRNs for any "other purpose", the FRS would automatically invoke its redemption power, or it would be performing a legal impossibility.
It is a legal impossiblity for UFRNs to reach my hands as I transact in lawful money mostly in the common law jurisdiction.

Similarly:

Federal Reserve Agents (FRA) can legally only transfer UFRNs to other Federal Reserve Agents.
It is a legal impossibility for an FRA to transfer UFRNs to a non-FRA. Again, any attempt to do so would invoke redemption.

Furthermore:

Federal law cannot be repugnant (contradictory).
Federal law apparently establishes FRNs as only interbank transfer certificates.
Federal law apparently establishes FRNs as legal tender for <<<all debts public and private>>>.
These two laws appear to contradict as the second is an "other purpose".

Resolution (of the Furthermore section):

Legal tender laws operate in a different jurisdiction than the JoFRS, which for convenience I will call the Common Law jurisdiction.
There is no authority for the FRS to decide what is or isn't money, so the legal tender laws don't fit in the Federal Reserve Act.
The term "Federal Reserve Note" has a different definition in the two jurisdictions.
Inside the JofRS, FRNs are private interbank transfer certificates.
Outside of the JoFRS, FRNs are Legal Tender and Lawful Money, alloidally owned by the bearer not the FRS.
For the most part UFRNs and RFRNs are legally distinct and mutually exclusive.
And as I have shown, for an FRN to enter the common law jurisdiction, it must be redeemed.

Additionally (possibly off topic):

On FRNs in circulation, the words "Federal Reserve Note" at the top have no meaning except as a historical curiosity.
The words Federal Reserve note must be there only because that is part of the design of us paper money, much like art.
A redeemed note is no longer a note (a promise to pay), it is just a ruined piece of paper.
Circulating FRNs cannot be redeemed, they have already been redeemed.
A circulating FRN is not a debt instrument, it is merely a used piece of paper that we have chosen to use as money.
Remember, the USA can make anthing money, to some degree it doesn't matter what is written on it, and things written on it can be with or without meaning.
According to 12USC412, UFRNs are backed 100% by lawful money.
RFRNs are not legally backed by anything, period. The are redeemed, cashed, non-negotiable, tokens, a medium of exchange, not a store of wealth.

And Finally:

If a court could be made to recognize me as an agent of the federal reserve system, I could argue that I have been an employee of the federal government since the age of four (when a dollar was still worth 25 cents), when I first recall handling a federal reserve note. I would therefore qualify for a pension with 49+ years of service under the federal retirement system.
12-14-12, 07:43 PM
David Merrill

I like how you think.

Your premises would mean that the tax refunds of withholdings are a fluke or mistake and that the IRS will be coming back for those funds later. At least that is what I get at a glance. I just started a thread that furthermore validates that people get permanent contemplated Refunds for redeeming lawful money.

I do not see much difference between being a state bank and being treated in naked contract (uninformed, conditioned endorsement) like a state bank. You still have to pay for the benefits granted to state banks.
12-14-12, 09:49 PM
David Merrill

P.S. I was not surprised when I found where people who endorse can be considered state banks by the Fed. Look specifically for §202.

Quote:

In order to facilitate the admission to membership to the Federal Reserve System of any State Bank... the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System may waive in whole or in part the requirements of this section relating to the admission of such bank to such membership...

Quote:

All FRNs in circulation are redeemed.

I agree. Therefore I cannot debate the premises you propose based on that. The diversity of jurisdictions is why I am saying the plainest and most useful diversity of citizenship for the Libel of Review is whether or not you are in contract with the Fed.

Regards,

David Merrill.
12-15-12, 12:30 PM
shikamaru

Quote:

All FRNs in circulation are redeemed.

Redeemed? Redeemed for what? The benefit privilege of discharging debts in equity?
12-16-12, 01:36 AM
David Merrill

Quote:

Originally Posted by shikamaru

Redeemed? Redeemed for what? The benefit privilege of discharging debts in equity?

Redeemed in obligations of the United States and liabilities of the Federal Reserve. Thanks for that on the other thread by the way.
12-16-12, 12:53 PM
shikamaru

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Redeemed in obligations of the United States and liabilities of the Federal Reserve. Thanks for that on the other thread by the way.

I'd bet a taxpayer is a member of an association with joint and several liability as constitutor for debts and obligations of government.
The beneficiary becomes acting debtor.
12-16-12, 03:14 PM
Keith Alan

Quote:

Originally Posted by shikamaru

I'd bet a taxpayer is a member of an association with joint and several liability as constitutor for debts and obligations of government.
The beneficiary becomes acting debtor.

I agree that it appears taxpayers are members of a private association, and liable to perform the obligations of that association. If then they are liable to perform, isn't that indiciative of them being trustees?

What I don't understand is how a beneficiary can be held liable to perform. I don't think that's possible, but I think you know more about this than I do. Can a person be both a trustee and beneficiary at the same time?
12-16-12, 04:04 PM
Keith Alan

Chipper said, "...circulating FRN's cannot be redeemed, they have already been redeemed."

I don't see how that's possible, unless demand has been made. What am I missing? I think if someone receives FRN's, they are by default a state bank, since the purpose of FRN's is to facilitate interbank transfers. If you purchase goods with them, you are given a receipt in return so you can justify your accounting. The goods are merely the excuse for the transfer to happen.

Now if you make demand that FRN's be redeemed, the state bank making the redemption has your demand for a receipt. You, on the other hand, have lawful money. That lawful money was still issued by the Fed, but now you're in the role of beneficiary creditor, right?
12-16-12, 06:01 PM
shikamaru

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith Alan

I agree that it appears taxpayers are members of a private association, and liable to perform the obligations of that association. If then they are liable to perform, isn't that indiciative of them being trustees?

Taxpayers are members of a PUBLIC association. In this case, U.S. citizens.
Public is synonymous with government.

Private would be without government.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith Alan

What I don't understand is how a beneficiary can be held liable to perform. I don't think that's possible, but I think you know more about this than I do. Can a person be both a trustee and beneficiary at the same time?

Liability to perform via contract or acceptance and usage of privileges offered.
12-17-12, 01:44 PM
Keith Alan

Quote:

Originally Posted by shikamaru

Taxpayers are members of a PUBLIC association. In this case, U.S. citizens.
Public is synonymous with government.

Private would be without government.

Liability to perform via contract or acceptance and usage of privileges offered.

I say it's private because you have to apply for things like social security and driver licenses. If you don't apply, you're not part of it. You remain in the public. That's why I don't see how beneficiaries can be compelled to perform. All these programs are for promoting the general welfare, securing the blessings of liberty, and providing defense for the public's benefit.
12-17-12, 03:09 PM
David Merrill

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith Alan

I say it's private because you have to apply for things like social security and driver licenses. If you don't apply, you're not part of it. You remain in the public. That's why I don't see how beneficiaries can be compelled to perform. All these programs are for promoting the general welfare, securing the blessings of liberty, and providing defense for the public's benefit.

That is an excellent point!
12-18-12, 06:38 AM
David Merrill

Quote:

Originally Posted by shikamaru

Redeemed? Redeemed for what? The benefit privilege of discharging debts in equity?

I suppose that what I meant to say is that FRN's cash function as if they are redeemed lawful money.
12-18-12, 07:05 AM
David Merrill

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chipper

David Merrill,

You have done some fine work. I respectfully disagree with one of your premises regarding 12USC411 and would like to propose the following (admittedly imperfect) treatise for consideration:

My Premise which contradicts yours:

Using Federal Reserve Notes (FRN) does NOT make you a Federal Reserve System (FRS) bank or agent.

Additional Premise:

All FRNs in circulation are redeemed.

Given:

That the US Government has the capacity to create new jurisdictions.

Evidence:

Within the "jurisdiction of the Federal Reserve System" (JoFRS), unredeemed FRNs (UFRN) can be used for only one thing, interbank transfers, and "no other purpose".
Within the JoFRS, UFRNs can be redeemed into Lawful Money which I will call "redeemed FRNs" (RFRN).
It is a legal impossibility for UFRNs to be transferred out of the JoFRS, or used in the capacity of lawful money, as that would constitute "another purpose".

Therefore:

UFRNs must be redeemed by the FRS, which is within their authority, into RFRNs (lawful money) before they can be used for any "other purpose".
Simply by using FRNs for any "other purpose", the FRS would automatically invoke its redemption power, or it would be performing a legal impossibility.
It is a legal impossiblity for UFRNs to reach my hands as I transact in lawful money mostly in the common law jurisdiction.

Similarly:

Federal Reserve Agents (FRA) can legally only transfer UFRNs to other Federal Reserve Agents.
It is a legal impossibility for an FRA to transfer UFRNs to a non-FRA. Again, any attempt to do so would invoke redemption.

Furthermore:

Federal law cannot be repugnant (contradictory).
Federal law apparently establishes FRNs as only interbank transfer certificates.
Federal law apparently establishes FRNs as legal tender for <<<all debts public and private>>>.
These two laws appear to contradict as the second is an "other purpose".

Resolution (of the Furthermore section):

Legal tender laws operate in a different jurisdiction than the JoFRS, which for convenience I will call the Common Law jurisdiction.
There is no authority for the FRS to decide what is or isn't money, so the legal tender laws don't fit in the Federal Reserve Act.
The term "Federal Reserve Note" has a different definition in the two jurisdictions.
Inside the JofRS, FRNs are private interbank transfer certificates.
Outside of the JoFRS, FRNs are Legal Tender [and function as if] Lawful Money, alloidally owned by the bearer not the FRS.
For the most part UFRNs and RFRNs are legally distinct and mutually exclusive.And as I have shown, for an FRN to enter the common law jurisdiction, it must be redeemed.

Additionally (possibly off topic):

On FRNs in circulation, the words "Federal Reserve Note" at the top have no meaning except as a historical curiosity.
The words Federal Reserve note must be there only because that is part of the design of us paper money, much like art.
A redeemed note is no longer a note (a promise to pay), it is just a ruined piece of paper.
Circulating FRNs cannot be redeemed, they have already been redeemed.A circulating FRN is not a debt instrument, it is merely a used piece of paper that we have chosen to use as money.
Remember, the USA [Congress] can make anthing money, to some degree it doesn't matter what is written on it, and things written on it can be with or without meaning.
According to 12USC412, UFRNs are backed 100% by lawful money.
RFRNs are not legally backed by anything, period. The[y] are redeemed, cashed, non-negotiable, tokens, a medium of exchange, not a store of wealth.

[This is a great point! If they are not a store of wealth then they are counterfeit money. They do store wealth called Special Drawing Rights (SDR's). I have spoken much about SDR's and the Amendments to the Bretton Woods Agreements.]

And Finally:

If a court could be made to recognize me as an agent of the federal reserve system, I could argue that I have been an employee of the federal government since the age of four (when a dollar was still worth 25 cents), when I first recall handling a federal reserve note. I would therefore qualify for a pension with 49+ years of service under the federal retirement system.

[Indeed you have lived life receiving benefits that you were never aware of to apply for and actually receive. Thus you have been paying for them without receiving them - a naked contract. The other party has always expected you to be receiving consideration offered.]

It took a couple days to absorb how enlightened your post is. It totally supports endorsers of private credit being treated as though they are state banks. My point in red about SDR's explains any discrepancies that appear to have been created by Congress. Three links I have already peppered StSC with are 1) the Senate Report, 2) Report by Undersecretary KATZ and 3) the "Secret" Jamaica Rambouillet Accord. I sincerely hope you are still reading here and want to discuss this further. I am sorry that I dismissed your insights as skepticism and did not look for the jewels until this morning.

I am interested in you showing how you established the coins were in alignment with the value of dollars when you were four years old? That would be good to mention in my next rendition of videos - Part 3.

Regards,

David Merrill.

http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/7...ascurrency.jpg

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/358...valuesfrns.jpg