Using USC vs. Public Law

I spoke with another gentleman who supports and believes in the value of lawful money redemption. He suggested two things, and I am looking for feedback.

1. Use public law rather than USC when making the redemption due to the presumption that USC is corporate US law rather than public law (someone have actual proof of this? heard it for years, but don't remember bonafide evidence of it.). This to me also seems impractical unless written as "Public Law and all amendments" or something of the sort so as to avoid a lengthy endorsement.

2. He also suggested that the newer, black-eagle stamp FRS notes are not the same as the $1, $2, and some remaining $100 FRN with the reserve bank lettered stamps on them, and that to redeem lawful money would require such "older" notes. I question this one because I don't see anything in 12 usc 411 indicating that one or the other constitutes that into which an FRN can be redeemed. Can someone direct me to actual PL or case law that strictly dictates what constitutes that into which the FR is allowed to return during a redemption demand?

The redemption process is defined in 12 USC 411, which is private law creating/controlling the Federal Reserve system. It is the law which controls the use of FRN's, so it is the law we use when we redeem. Lawful money is/was created by CONgress under the Constitution, which is public law. The whole point of redemption is to opt out of the Federal Reserve debt money system, and go back to using real money, which is controlled under public law.

Since 1971 (or 1983) Congress has stated that United States Notes will circulate alongside FRN's, trading at par. Thus there is no difference in form of the paper involved. In effect, the banks are trying to make the lawful money disappear. Under the latest law revision, any paper notes, issued by a FR bank, after you make your demand for lawful money, are lawful money. The distinction is useful only for tax avoidance, and for obtaining legal title to items purchased (since debt cannot extinguish debt).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TMI

1. Use public law rather than USC when making the redemption due to the presumption that USC is corporate US law rather than public law (someone have actual proof of this? heard it for years, but don't remember bonafide evidence of it.). This to me also seems impractical unless written as "Public Law and all amendments" or something of the sort so as to avoid a lengthy endorsement.

---

Statutes at Large are a good way to go.
They leave a lot out by just publishing the Code ....

House and Senate Reports are good too. That is if you want to get the full story about any particular legislation. The Congressional Reports actually tell you all the conversations on the Floor and can be found easily using the Index. But that is a lot of reading!

I have spent quite some time at the federal repository. The Statutes at Large are a record of laws passed by Congress but are in the daily order by time. The United States Codes are topical. Congress does not stay on a particular topic and if you look in the Congressional Record you see that Congress may cover over ten topics in one day. So if you want to see what happens by topic you are best to look in the US Codes by Title (topic). However, the actual law approved by Congress is found in the US Code verbatim.

I should be clear that his recommendation was to write the Public Law rather than USC on the back of the check, etc. However, this to me seems impractical being that there are multiple that would have to be written. However, being that the account is that of the strawman/alter-ego, using USC should not matter anyway since the USC would be applicable to the account anyway. It is the strawman making the demand, yes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TMI

I should be clear that his recommendation was to write the Public Law rather than USC on the back of the check, etc. However, this to me seems impractical being that there are multiple that would have to be written. However, being that the account is that of the strawman/alter-ego, using USC should not matter anyway since the USC would be applicable to the account anyway. It is the strawman making the demand, yes?

---

The first problem is that the law is from 1913 and has been revised.

I think it best to say that remedy is for state banks. Calling that the Strawman brings in a lot of connotations.