Legal Tender = Lawful Money = FRN

Please give further evidence that will support or debunk, thus giving validity, either way. Paragraph 12 as seen at http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/...38/182/211365/ in the US v Rickman 638 F.2d 182 case states,

"Defendant argues that the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, § 8, United States Constitution. We have held to the contrary. United States v. Ware, 10 Cir., 608 F.2d 400, 402-403. We find no validity in the distinction which defendant draws between "lawful money" and "legal tender." Money is a medium of exchange. Legal tender is money which the law requires a creditor to receive in payment of an obligation. The aggregate of the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution includes broad and comprehensive authority over revenue, finance, and currency. Norman v. B. & O. R. Co., 294 U.S. 240, 55 S.Ct. 407, 79 L.Ed. 885. In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money. Defendant received Federal Reserve Notes when he cashed his pay checks and used those notes to pay his personal expenses. He obtained and used lawful money."


Please answer the following from the quote above:

1. How can "we" (assuming judiciary until informed otherwise) hold to the contrary that FRN which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, § 8, United States Constitution, when 12 USC 411 states, "They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...," thus clearly making a distinction that Federal reserve notes CANNOT be deemed "lawful money" in and of themselves without further specification or promulgated stipulation thus converting them to lawful money?

2. They further state "lawful money" and "legal tender" are the same by stating, "no validity in the distinction which defendant draws." Where does Congress states these are one in the same allowing for such a ruling?

3. I find this contradictory. Above is stated, "Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money. Defendant received Federal Reserve Notes when he cashed his pay checks and used those notes to pay his personal expenses. He obtained and used lawful money."

a. If Congress intended for legal tender and lawful money to be the same, why wouldn't they state, "Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in legal tender?" OR lawful money redeemable in lawful money?

b. How can Congress declare FRN are legal tender redeemable (a buying back, repurchase of notes by paying their value to their holders, title of property restored free and clear) in lawful money - they obvious recognize FRN as notes and evidence of debt, and therefore lawful money cannot be debt.) in lawful money AND then this court state that, "he obtained and used lawful money?" Their statement can only be interpreted that he obtained lawful money and used lawful money. What does the court know that I don't as evidence that he "obtained" lawful money? Point me to the actual evidence please (not theories).

4. Being that FRN are issued only "for the purpose of making advances," for what are these advances made? I have heard over and over that these advances are the result of the commercial energy of the living man and that one's indorsement is the commitment of that commercial energy. Is this true or is there some other basis upon which the United States has acquired credit with which it can obtain advances? (citations if possible)

5. If #4 is true, how does my living indorsement of the strawman's or alter-ego's "employment" check constitute obtaining lawful money as stated by the court?

Good questions.

I ask myself how can representation of money (banknotes) be money (precious metal specie)? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TMI

Please give further evidence that will support or debunk, thus giving validity, either way. Paragraph 12 as seen at http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/...38/182/211365/ in the US v Rickman 638 F.2d 182 case states,

"Defendant argues that the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, § 8, United States Constitution. We have held to the contrary. United States v. Ware, 10 Cir., 608 F.2d 400, 402-403. We find no validity in the distinction which defendant draws between "lawful money" and "legal tender." Money is a medium of exchange. Legal tender is money which the law requires a creditor to receive in payment of an obligation. The aggregate of the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution includes broad and comprehensive authority over revenue, finance, and currency. Norman v. B. & O. R. Co., 294 U.S. 240, 55 S.Ct. 407, 79 L.Ed. 885. In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money. Defendant received Federal Reserve Notes when he cashed his pay checks and used those notes to pay his personal expenses. He obtained and used lawful money."


Please answer the following from the quote above:

1. How can "we" (assuming judiciary until informed otherwise) hold to the contrary that FRN which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, § 8, United States Constitution, when 12 USC 411 states, "They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...," thus clearly making a distinction that Federal reserve notes CANNOT be deemed "lawful money" in and of themselves without further specification or promulgated stipulation thus converting them to lawful money?

2. They further state "lawful money" and "legal tender" are the same by stating, "no validity in the distinction which defendant draws." Where does Congress states these are one in the same allowing for such a ruling?

3. I find this contradictory. Above is stated, "Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money. Defendant received Federal Reserve Notes when he cashed his pay checks and used those notes to pay his personal expenses. He obtained and used lawful money."

a. If Congress intended for legal tender and lawful money to be the same, why wouldn't they state, "Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in legal tender?" OR lawful money redeemable in lawful money?

b. How can Congress declare FRN are legal tender redeemable (a buying back, repurchase of notes by paying their value to their holders, title of property restored free and clear) in lawful money - they obvious recognize FRN as notes and evidence of debt, and therefore lawful money cannot be debt.) in lawful money AND then this court state that, "he obtained and used lawful money?" Their statement can only be interpreted that he obtained lawful money and used lawful money. What does the court know that I don't as evidence that he "obtained" lawful money? Point me to the actual evidence please (not theories).

4. Being that FRN are issued only "for the purpose of making advances," for what are these advances made? I have heard over and over that these advances are the result of the commercial energy of the living man and that one's indorsement is the commitment of that commercial energy. Is this true or is there some other basis upon which the United States has acquired credit with which it can obtain advances? (citations if possible)

5. If #4 is true, how does my living indorsement of the strawman's or alter-ego's "employment" check constitute obtaining lawful money as stated by the court?

---

1) "We" judiciary make our demand for lawful money.

2) Gary RICKMAN was obviously arguing that metals essentially described or defined lawful money. This is the basic misunderstanding and sophistry that both Congress and the international banking industry (the Fed being the US central bank) are counting on to slur the basic fundamental right of demand. This requires both thought, and avoidance of over-thinking. In other words you have to go back to "1)" there and really get it.

They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...

Make your demand.

Quote:

---

3. I find this contradictory. Above is stated, "Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money. Defendant received Federal Reserve Notes when he cashed his pay checks and used those notes to pay his personal expenses. He obtained and used lawful money."

---

Not at all contradictory.

I request cash in payment. I receive lawful money. How far we trust in the world is expressed through how we identify ourselves. The transaction defines and describes endorsement or in the case of demanding lawful money - non-endorsement.

Quote:

---

"Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in legal tender?"

---

They state - They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand.

4) The perspective that makes sense out of it all is that between 1913 and 1933 only Fed and state banks were involved in the transactions. In 1933 to save the Fed FDR made the issuance available to the American people:

http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/8...dsvoluntar.jpg

5) It spends the same. The only difference is whether you accepted a bond against yourself and your substance in the transaction. If you endorse private credit then you give your consent for the bank you cashed your paycheck at to utilize the credit in fractional lending. That increase in the currency has to be bonded, and your signature bonds it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shikamaru

Good questions.

I ask myself how can representation of money (banknotes) be money (precious metal specie)? :)

---

If there is anyone that I respect around here it is you; and a few others, however, ask yourself this one: "How is it that metals are money"? I will answer it for you so as not to introduce confusion.

Answer: Because the Settlors of the Trust DECLARED what money would be. Any Trust FIRST begs a DECLARATION OF TRUST. What awaits is for someone to act upon said Declaration. Now then who would have the power to change the bylaws of the business plan? That would be the group or class of men that the Settlors vested those powers. In the case of the business plan called Constitution, the class of men was termed Congress. Therefore, the Congress acting thru power vested in it, can proclaim money to be ANYTHING the Congress mandates to be money. A new Declaration is made in terms of Money which is not really a Declaration but merely a Policy Decision regarding the Business Plan.

Just run a business or sit as a member of the Board of Directors for a trust or corporation and you will soon become familiar with what I am propounding herein. Anyways, Congress decides what money will be WITHIN, I said WITHIN the United States of America. End of Story. But that decision is a business decision, and it might fail or have success depending on the acceptance of the people who the Use was made for - Trustees.

A business plan can easily be modified in Trust Minutes. That is analogous to the Congressional Record. I trust you comprehend.

Now perhaps you might consider the converse argument dealing with the space WITHOUT the United States law boundary. In that case, you will most likely need to use whatever you can agree to be money in effort to contract. If you desire gold, or perhaps camels, or maybe seashells or shiny beads, since you are now International, then the consideration must be valuable to the one receiving the consideration. Whether or not there is any value to the Buyer, is of little consequence. The Seller determines what he/she will accept as value. Therefore what now of metals in light of food or any other commodity?

So please do FRAME your argument and in doing so you will find your framing will show you to be WITHIN a certain business construct and then you might ask yourself "How did I get here"

If possible, let it be peace brother,
Michael Joseph

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael Joseph

If there is anyone that I respect around here it is you; and a few others, however, ask yourself this one: "How is it that metals are money"? I will answer it for you so as not to introduce confusion.

Answer: Because the Settlors of the Trust DECLARED what money would be. Any Trust FIRST begs a DECLARATION OF TRUST. What awaits is for someone to act upon said Declaration. Now then who would have the power to change the bylaws of the business plan? That would be the group or class of men that the Settlors vested those powers. In the case of the business plan called Constitution, the class of men was termed Congress. Therefore, the Congress acting thru power vested in it, can proclaim money to be ANYTHING the Congress mandates to be money. A new Declaration is made in terms of Money which is not really a Declaration but merely a Policy Decision regarding the Business Plan.

Just run a business or sit as a member of the Board of Directors for a trust or corporation and you will soon become familiar with what I am propounding herein. Anyways, Congress decides what money will be WITHIN, I said WITHIN the United States of America. End of Story. But that decision is a business decision, and it might fail or have success depending on the acceptance of the people who the Use was made for - Trustees.

A business plan can easily be modified in Trust Minutes. That is analogous to the Congressional Record. I trust you comprehend.

Now perhaps you might consider the converse argument dealing with the space WITHOUT the United States law boundary. In that case, you will most likely need to use whatever you can agree to be money in effort to contract. If you desire gold, or perhaps camels, or maybe seashells or shiny beads, since you are now International, then the consideration must be valuable to the one receiving the consideration. Whether or not there is any value to the Buyer, is of little consequence. The Seller determines what he/she will accept as value. Therefore what now of metals in light of food or any other commodity?

So please do FRAME your argument and in doing so you will find your framing will show you to be WITHIN a certain business construct and then you might ask yourself "How did I get here"

If possible, let it be peace brother,
Michael Joseph

---

As clear as always, Mr. Joseph :).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael Joseph

A business plan can easily be modified in Trust Minutes. That is analogous to the Congressional Record. I trust you comprehend.

---

I have heard that ignorance of the law is no excuse. I have also heard that if you were to read the Congressional Record you would do nothing else in life.