Very interesting development regarding online payment from lawful money account

Hi David,fellow redeemers

It has been awhile since i tried to deal with that ticket problem which was a learning experience for me.
Anyway, I have opened a bank account with a novation for redeemed money(which has had me engaged with several conversations with the VP of the bank directly lol). I have already made a novation for lawful money redemption on my W4 and paychex direct deposit form so the whole bank thing is a non issue really. What is really more interesting is that last night I tried to make an online car payment to Santander Consumer USA with my lawful money account debit card and immediately got bounced out to the loging screen. I was somewhat bemused but figured it might have been a browser error and figured I would try again this morning and this what I got:


Attachment 1154
Attachment 1155



I became really curious at the reference to 12 CFR 205 Regulation E so I decided to look it up



Attachment 1156
Attachment 1157


and there it is right at the bottom. Congratulations Mr Merrill I think your theory about us as individuals being considered banks by the fed is spot on.

What Im wondering about now is (and I know this is something you have posted on extensively) about the intrinsic value of redeemed notes for which all intent and purpose are now considered United States Notes. I have a gut feeling that they haven't pegged the value to the FRN because that would constitute a breach of the public trust in the governments duty to provide lawful money per the consitution. I don't think they want to go there. Anyway my point is I wonder if the United States Dollar[Note] is pegged to the enumerated quantity of gold or silver the Constitution defines as a dollar and how much it would take to pay this loan off in this denomination. All comments and thoughts are most welcome my brothers : )

Wow,

I think that is the first time I've seen in a statute defining us as natural people. I think they have to in order for us to legally sign away our rights. I'm with you by the way on the legality of us notes. They in my opinion are still pegged to gold, but, fdr and nixon "temporarily" disallowed them to be redeemed, I dont think they have ever changed the actual definition of the dollars value since 42 per ounce, as stated on the books with the earmarked federal reserve gold. If they did, it would be reflected on their books.

31 USC § 5112 - Denominations, specifications, and design of coins

(a) The Secretary of the Treasury may mint and issue only the following coins:
(1) a dollar coin that is 1.043 inches in diameter.
(2) a half dollar coin that is 1.205 inches in diameter and weighs 11.34 grams.
(3) a quarter dollar coin that is 0.955 inch in diameter and weighs 5.67 grams.
(4) a dime coin that is 0.705 inch in diameter and weighs 2.268 grams.
(5) a 5-cent coin that is 0.835 inch in diameter and weighs 5 grams.
(6) except as provided under subsection (c) of this section, a one-cent coin that is 0.75 inch in diameter and weighs 3.11 grams.
(7) A fifty dollar gold coin that is 32.7 millimeters in diameter, weighs 33.931 grams, and contains one troy ounce of fine gold.
(8) A twenty-five dollar gold coin that is 27.0 millimeters in diameter, weighs 16.966 grams, and contains one-half troy ounce of fine gold.
(9) A ten dollar gold coin that is 22.0 millimeters in diameter, weighs 8.483 grams, and contains one-fourth troy ounce of fine gold.
(10) A five dollar gold coin that is 16.5 millimeters in diameter, weighs 3.393 grams, and contains one-tenth troy ounce of fine gold.
(11) A $50 gold coin that is of an appropriate size and thickness, as determined by the Secretary, weighs 1 ounce, and contains 99.99 percent pure gold.
(12) A $25 coin of an appropriate size and thickness, as determined by the Secretary, that weighs 1 troy ounce and contains .9995 fine palladium.


There is no getting around it, a $50 gold coin that is 32.7 mm weighs 33.931 grams and contains one troy ounce of fine gold. This might be the indirect way evaluate the definition of the dollar...

Coinage act 1792 defines a dollar as DOLLARS OR UNITS--each to be of the value of a Spanish milled dollar as the same is now current, and to contain three hundred and seventy-one grains and four sixteenth parts of a grain of pure, or four hundred and sixteen grains of standard silver.

http://constitution.org/uslaw/coinage1792.txt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith Alan

Coinage act 1792 defines a dollar as DOLLARS OR UNITS--each to be of the value of a Spanish milled dollar as the same is now current, and to contain three hundred and seventy-one grains and four sixteenth parts of a grain of pure, or four hundred and sixteen grains of standard silver.

http://constitution.org/uslaw/coinage1792.txt

---

The dollar has changed definition many times since then. From wiki, but you can find it on many other resources...

Quote:

---

The Gold Standard Act of 1900 abandoned the bimetallic standard and defined the dollar as 23.22 grains (1.505 g) of gold, equivalent to setting the price of 1 troy ounce of gold at $20.67. Silver coins continued to be issued for circulation until 1964, when all silver was removed from dimes and quarters, and the half dollar was reduced to 40 % silver. Silver half dollars were last issued for circulation in 1970. Gold coins were confiscated by Executive Order 6102 issued in 1933 by Franklin Roosevelt. The gold standard was changed to 13.71 grains (0.888 g), equivalent to setting the price of 1 troy ounce of gold at $35. This standard persisted until 1968.

Between 1968 and 1975, a variety of pegs to gold were put in place, eventually culminating in a sudden end, on August 15, 1971 to the convertibility of dollars to gold later dubbed the Nixon Shock. The last peg was $42.22 per ounce[citation needed] before the U.S. dollar was let to freely float on currency markets.

---

It says the us dollar was free to float, but, David noted this a while back...

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releas...1208assets.htm

Look at footnote number 1.

I don't know how, but, for some reason I can't kick the idea it is still stuck there. The value of US notes are still defined this way I believe, somehow though, we accept them to float right along with the FRNs. This is definitely what has been plaguing my mind for some time. The US Treasury has "sold" gold certificates to the Federal Reserve at the 42.22 dollars per ounce. Basically issued around 11 billion in these certificates, the amount of gold which they possessed, which then the Federal Reserve could lend upon. It was a way to sell the gold, yet keep it in the gov't vaults. That number is locked until the certificates are reclaimed. It's crazy to think about, but the value of the United States notes should be as good as gold.

Another thing, redeeming the FRN for lawful money was also a way for the Treasury to back out of the Federal Reserve system. The gov't took on all the liabilities of debt, but, they could also receive all the assets from the system. Since the US note has been diluted, I can't see why it hasn't kept it's value. Either way...

But did the definition of a dollar really change? I seem to be remembering they became offered as "trade" dollars, and not dollars.

It sounds to me that this would be the next logical step, file for declaratory judgement on the true value US notes.

Quote:

---

Congratulations Mr Merrill I think your theory about us as individuals being considered banks by the fed is spot on.

---

Thank you. Scroll to the bottom - Section 202. In order to facilitate (more state banks)...

Quote:

---

I have a gut feeling that they haven't pegged the value to the FRN because that would constitute a breach of the public trust in the governments duty to provide lawful money per the consitution.

---

Lately I find myself signing with the Great Seal as trustee for the resulting public trust. This is done in Application for a court order from a federal judge too. So that means I would be confessing to a class 5 felony if the position, affiliated with state business were not opened by that breach of the public trust.

One of the applications even ends with the signature line:

Quote:

---

I am including $46 cash lawful money to open a Miscellaneous Case File and a Return Envelope prepaid postage for the clerk of court in Denver to send me back a marked copy of this Application and Order. Furthermore the Congressional Record indicates that the Territory of Colorado was never properly formed in early 1861. This is a breach of the public trust allowing me to be the trustee of the resulting trust.

Respectfully,

DAVID MERRILL.
TRUSTEE of this resulting trust.

---

On the SE Corner of these monuments we find an abundance of gold. It works out in BUCHANNAN's (President just before LINCOLN) War Chest, rather than a proper Territory scenario - GILPIN's fiat script being based in the '59er's gold field claims in Auraria and Central City.

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/7...menttended.jpg

I know that is a bizarre rendition of reality but the only reason I would present it is that it makes sense to me. The SW Corner is the Territorial Capital where GILPIN issued the script. When I view all these factors coming together mathematically I can appreciate the ability to decrypt patterns and furthermore extract patterns from noise.

I type this paragraph from The Essential Ernest Holmes from memory. It is found on Page 18, second paragraph:

Quote:

---

The evolutionary process that impels things upward and onward, from lower to higher intelligence is occasioned because everything is impregnated with intelligence as an unconscious memory, not as an intellectual conception. The logic of the Holy Spirit is in the intellect, but the Holy Spirit is in the heart. The logic of faith may be in the intellect as a mathematical equation, but the Holy Spirit cannot be analyzed or dissected. You can kill the nightengale, but you cannot capture its song. Here is the spark that is the cause of all evolution.

---

I decrypt the term Spirit as used by Ernest Shurtleff in the same manner that the 1611 Book of Acts (KJV) calls for decryption. I add Holy before Spirit as in neshemah, not the slur leading to Separation - ruach. Western seminaries (primarily Roman Catholic priests) are taught the rabbinic slur that the Breath of Life breathed into Adam was ruach. There are three levels of spirit expressed in the original Bible Hebrew. There is the lower form - nephesh, the breath or wind - ruach, and the spirit of God - neshemah. The Pentateuch teaches us that God breathed His own Breath neshemah into Adam. The neshmat chaim. The rabbis taught the early priests that this term was ruach. Logically this would lead to a presumption of separation - that our breath is our own and not the Image of God in us.

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/6...eshemahscr.jpg

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/3...eshmatchai.jpg

Underlined on the bottom right - neshmat chaim.

That changes the entire equation in the paragraph by HOLMES; who did not understand his relationship, but spoke from the Holy Spirit just the same!

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/7...ysicsclose.jpg

Wow just wow.
They consider us all ruach no wonder they don't respect our sovereignty as neshamah.
A pure Luciferian lie in order to exact punishment on Adam's descendants. Honestly the implications of all this are gonna take me a while to process.
I've always understood Genesis related the first account of the creation of man (ruach) and the second which was the creation of Adam (neshamah).
Yahweh Elohim baruch et Haaretz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AllanNR

Wow just wow.
They consider us all ruach no wonder they don't respect our sovereignty as neshamah.
A pure Luciferian lie in order to exact punishment on Adam's descendants. Honestly the implications of all this are gonna take me a while to process.
I've always understood Genesis related the first account of the creation of man (ruach) and the second which was the creation of Adam (neshamah).

Yahweh Elohim baruch et Haaretz

---

So you have arrived at the Tree of Life, guarded by an angel with a flaming sword.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/const/art11.html

Found number 7 and number 9 most interesting.

Section 7. All bills or notes issued as money shall be, at all times, redeemable in gold or silver; and no law shall be passed, sanctioning, directly or indirectly, the suspension, by any bank or banking company, of specie payments.

Section 9. No bank shall receive, directly or indirectly, a greater rate of interest than shall be allowed, by law, to individuals loaning money.

What I found interesting about 9 is the phrase "to individuals". This implies the individual as the one loaning the money, and the bank collecting interest on said money. Obviously, the goal here with non-endorsement is to NOT allow them to fractionally lend on your money. I'm still digging, in the appendix of Miracle on Main street, I have found a few other interesting things.

1. Lawful money used to be defined in 12 U.S.C. 152, but was repealed in 1994 (The terms 'lawful money' and "lawful money of the United States' shall be construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States). As well

2. The attorney general from the state as defined in statute cannot render legal opinions to private parties. The question is, what party can they offer opinions too? What is lawful money as defined by this state? I actually know 2 judges...

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/incode/22/2/5/22-2-5-1

Seems every payment to any employee In Indiana needs to be in lawful money in the account of the United States.

(a) Every person, firm, corporation, limited liability company, or association, their trustees, lessees, or receivers appointed by any court, doing business in Indiana, shall pay each employee at least semimonthly or biweekly, if requested, the amount due the employee. The payment shall be made in lawful money of the United States, by negotiable check, draft, or money order, or by electronic transfer to the financial institution designated by the employee. Any contract in violation of this subsection is void.

Do you receive lawful money from your employer?

Also...look at B, again, what if you dont endorse?
Lending deposited money
Sec. 4. (a) A savings bank may do the following:
(1) Lend the money deposited in the savings bank upon:
(A) individual credit;
(B) the security of comakers or personal endorsement;
(C) the mortgage or pledge of personal property, either tangible or intangible; or
(D) the pledge of choses in action.
(2) Discount, purchase, or otherwise acquire retail installment sales contracts, notes, bills of exchange, or acceptance or other choses in action.
(b) The savings bank may contract for and receive on loans and discounts described in this subsection the highest rate of interest allowed by Indiana law to be contracted for and received by individuals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikecz

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/const/art11.html

Found number 7 and number 9 most interesting.

Section 7. All bills or notes issued as money shall be, at all times, redeemable in gold or silver; and no law shall be passed, sanctioning, directly or indirectly, the suspension, by any bank or banking company, of specie payments.

Section 9. No bank shall receive, directly or indirectly, a greater rate of interest than shall be allowed, by law, to individuals loaning money.

What I found interesting about 9 is the phrase "to individuals". This implies the individual as the one loaning the money, and the bank collecting interest on said money. Obviously, the goal here with non-endorsement is to NOT allow them to fractionally lend on your money. I'm still digging, in the appendix of Miracle on Main street, I have found a few other interesting things.

1. Lawful money used to be defined in 12 U.S.C. 152, but was repealed in 1994 (The terms 'lawful money' and "lawful money of the United States' shall be construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States). As well

2. The attorney general from the state as defined in statute cannot render legal opinions to private parties. The question is, what party can they offer opinions too? What is lawful money as defined by this state? I actually know 2 judges...

---

If you are good with legislative history please see what you can find about Title 31 USC §371:

http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/9008/pomc.jpg

Apply for an (Order for an) opinion with a $46 Miscellaneous Case file.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tips_a.../message/17135

" To stop the use of the POMC Congress voided 31 USC 371 and had the states prosecute those that used the POMC improperly. I never did discontinue using the POMC because we have a statute in Louisiana that is identical to 31 USC 371. I have found that most states have a similar statute. To avoid any retaliation the Louisiana Public Office Money Certificate was modified to say: “void where prohibited by law.” Of course there is no law prohibiting the use of the POMC. Using the POMC is the most fun of all patriot issues. All it is saying is:”I’m willing to pay what you allege I owe if you will tell me how to do such without breaking the law.” Really it is not allowing them to break the law and demand private money when by law they can only demand public money. "

So thats the thing, 31 USC 371 had to do with keeping money in the account of the US. That was banned, I think because of Saussy's efforts. But as this suitor explains, most states have identical sections in their constitutions. In Louisiana, theirs read...

"R.S. 1§53. Money accounts in dollars and cents

The money accounts of this state shall be expressed in dollars or units, cents or hundredths, and mills or thousandths; and all accounts in banks and public offices, and all proceedings in the courts of this state, shall be kept in conformity herewith. "

In Indiana, ours states I believe more clearly dealing with actual payments made...

"(a) Every person, firm, corporation, limited liability company, or association, their trustees, lessees, or receivers appointed by any court, doing business in Indiana, shall pay each employee at least semimonthly or biweekly, if requested, the amount due the employee. The payment shall be made in lawful money of the United States, by negotiable check, draft, or money order, or by electronic transfer to the financial institution designated by the employee. Any contract in violation of this subsection is void."

It's almost a presumption of lawful money. Much the opposite of what we assume. I think that is why an endorsement is required. Anyway, as I read this code, I believe the POMC would also be applicable here in Indiana as with Louisiana. We have a very similar if not more specific code. I have to admit, I was a little blown away when I read this, I'm thinking every freaking paycheck given out MUST BE BY LAW in the form of LAWFUL MONEY. Obviously lazy politicians haven't updated the code (maybe they aren't as tactful as the Feds).

Ok, so this is what I need help with. If I give a POMC to someone and they accept iut, I assuming it basically states 1. They have accepted that the debt is discharged and the burden of proof is now on their shoulders. 2. They then need to define lawful money, and present the POMC back to the payor (me) with the definition for redemption of said lawful money. 3. We all know we can't pay in gold and silver, therefore the service is discharged without actual payment. Crazy right?

To your question: The only thing I discharged with POMC's was government fines. Then I apparently got greedy and tried to set up an account so that every parking ticket etc. they could just discharge it from that. That is what the author on Yahoo is speaking to. You cannot do that and the DA called it theft.

Quote:

---

”I’m willing to pay what you allege I owe if you will tell me how to do such without breaking the law.”

---

This is why HJR-192 can be considered a supersedeas bond and an interlocutory appeal. One can ride the coattails of criminal syndicalism like most Americans do.

Thank you for your post. Since I once used POMC's regularly I thought myself an expert. I am glad to find there are real experts sharing their knowledge.

I think the real problem lies in the treasury, they are the ones buying the feds credit and floating it out to us poor saps.
IRS mailings don't mention the Fed on their letterhead they mention the treasury. And therein lies the real problem, I believe we have as much right to the use the treasury of our nation in our daily lives as is lawful for conduct of business which is what drives David's whole point home. When we redeem lawful money we are applying remedy per the savings to suitors clause and its guarantee of common law. It has taken me while to get used to these concepts but once they take your eyes are truly opened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AllanNR

I think the real problem lies in the treasury, they are the ones buying the feds credit and floating it out to us poor saps.
IRS mailings don't mention the Fed on their letterhead they mention the treasury. And therein lies the real problem, I believe we have as much right to the use the treasury of our nation in our daily lives as is lawful for conduct of business which is what drives David's whole point home. When we redeem lawful money we are applying remedy per the savings to suitors clause and its guarantee of common law. It has taken me while to get used to these concepts but once they take your eyes are truly opened.

---

"All common law is is case law - stare decisis."

That was the utterance of a second-year law student, my cousin's wife, to me at a family reunion. That is a stark reality check too. This is the safety net protecting all formal suitors. None of the suitors face criminal prosecution (under regular circumstance of redeeming lawful money) because the DoJ understands that if they lose the appeal then authority is established (case law) by way of the justices' opinion to release all Americans from the mental imprisonment that they must endorse private credit from the Fed.

This was revealed more clearly by the withdrawal of an appeal by 'government' upon mandatory notice to the USCA (United States Codes Annotated) publication service. The annotations become the common law - the opinions of the appellate justices become citations to pursuade subsequent appeals opinions. Of course that should have been obvious to me already - but it only came into my consciousness when I read it on a court docket report. The USCA is a sacrosanct medium of the common law. Even if it is government appealing, they have to live with the outcome. So the government withdrew the appeal. [I am having trouble remembering the case right now but will show you when I can find it.]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikecz

The dollar has changed definition many times since then. From wiki, but you can find it on many other resources...



It says the us dollar was free to float, but, David noted this a while back...

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releas...1208assets.htm

Look at footnote number 1.

I don't know how, but, for some reason I can't kick the idea it is still stuck there. The value of US notes are still defined this way I believe, somehow though, we accept them to float right along with the FRNs. This is definitely what has been plaguing my mind for some time. The US Treasury has "sold" gold certificates to the Federal Reserve at the 42.22 dollars per ounce. Basically issued around 11 billion in these certificates, the amount of gold which they possessed, which then the Federal Reserve could lend upon. It was a way to sell the gold, yet keep it in the gov't vaults. That number is locked until the certificates are reclaimed. It's crazy to think about, but the value of the United States notes should be as good as gold.

Another thing, redeeming the FRN for lawful money was also a way for the Treasury to back out of the Federal Reserve system. The gov't took on all the liabilities of debt, but, they could also receive all the assets from the system. Since the US note has been diluted, I can't see why it hasn't kept it's value. Either way...

---

I went off on a mathematical tangent... (hey! That's a pun!)

I might have been better to wait for a certain email that informed me:

Quote:

---

...that goes back to the Wheeler case of 1914, - 1914.SCT.244 , 233 U.S. 434, 58 L. Ed. 1030, 34 S. Ct. 607


...where in federal reserve notes is what is taxed for the privilege of their use in fact one administrative corporate supreme court, not the original one on 333 constitution ave. judge made the decisional statement and I paraphrase to shorten

The federal reserve has the right to tax their notes that are the debt obligations of the United States. They had transferred them to you via the company you worked or if you worked as yourself they were transferred to you by a man that you did work and you in turn transfer them to others and no matter where the notes, their situs, as stated by the court, lies in the federal reserve system.


and get this;


Again it is noted that situs is the legality to tax the notes be they in California, Maine, France or China. Remember we are applying the PRINCIPLE here to the federal reserve note since the court stated that technically there is no difference between the notes they are talking about in this case and federal reserve notes which are also defined as bills of exchange as they are blank notes, which you have not endorsed but merely passed on called a transfer.

---

On my first reading I find a very satisfying verification about redeeming lawful money!

Quote:

---

...But it is plain that bills and notes, whatever they may be called, come very near to identification with the contract that they embody. An indorsement of the paper carries the contract to the indorser. An indorsement in blank passes the debt from hand to hand so that whoever has the paper has the debt.

---

David,

I do lack the terminology here, but am definitely in line with the gov't complete avoidance of case law. They don't want to clear and in a formal opinion of the courts a decision on lawful money (seriously, is it not clear enough in the constitution, which I believe could be the largest elephant in the room in human history.) This is why it is so difficult to get anyone to write anything about money, the dollar, lawful money, or gold on paper.

So, I have the constitution of the United States Section 10. I have the Indiana constitution Article 11 Section 7. I have Indiana state code defining what employers can only be paid in...lawful money. IC 22-2-5-1. So since I'm paid in lawful money, I can then only "pay" others in lawful money. What I'm looking for is case law as you speak. I need a few cases where lawful money is clearly defined. I have found a few older cases that were of some interest. Basically a contract had been written between two parties for payment in confederate dollars.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/115/566

So in this case, someone bought land in confederate currency. The war was fought, confederate currency lost all the value, and needed to be paid in lawful money. The confederate currency was valued in lawful money, a clear distinction in rate. I wish we could get a case noting a difference in FRNs and Lawful money. Either way.
I'm going to solicit the law department of my credit union. We'll see where that goes...






Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

Section 7. All bills or notes issued as money shall be, at all times, redeemable in gold or silver; and no law shall be passed, sanctioning, directly or indirectly, the suspension, by any bank or banking company, of specie payments.

(a) Every person, firm, corporation, limited liability company, or association, their trustees, lessees, or receivers appointed by any court, doing business in Indiana, shall pay each employee at least semimonthly or biweekly, if requested, the amount due the employee. The payment shall be made in lawful money of the United States, by negotiable check, draft, or money order, or by electronic transfer to the financial institution designated by the employee. Any contract in violation of this subsection is void.

Quote:

---

I wish we could get a case noting a difference in FRNs and Lawful money. Either way.
I'm going to solicit the law department of my credit union. We'll see where that goes...

---

That 1914 case I just read is fairly close. I like how it distinguishes bills from notes. That is very helpful in my mental models.


Also, along the way I have collected:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by US v Rickman; 638 F.2d 182

In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by US v Ware; 608 F.2d 400

United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by USA v. Thomas 319 F.3d 640

Paper currency, in the form of the Federal Reserve Note, is defined as an “obligation[ ] of the United States” that may be “redeemed in lawful money on demand.” 12 U.S.C. § 411 (2002). These bills are not “money” per se...

---

Thank you!!! Wonderful.

I had this crazy idea on the way home. Imagine we get two amicable parties to sue each other to formally have a case law example? This could be set up in a number of ways, a contract of sorts, but most importantly, the language of the suit could be designed to force a clear definition of lawful money from the court.

This isn't perfect and can be refined, but just an example here.

Say I contract with another party for a good, lets just say something cheap like a table, and require payment only in the form of lawful money of the united states. The person buying the table offers FRNs and I refuse the payment, as I claim it is not lawful money. I'm trying to think how to frame this so there is no wiggle room for the courts. I suppose FRNs are legal tender and must be accepted for payment, but, as stated in some other cases, like at restaurants, legal tender must be accepted, but for things like convenience stores, or vending machines, certain types can be excluded, as it is a private contract. We, the two parties, could disagree on what the definition of lawful money of the united states in the contract (which would be in writing). It could start at the small claims level (its only $81), though we might not get a completely lawful result, I think it might be a stepping stone for an appeal, etc.

Just thinking out loud here.

Thank you!!! Wonderful.

I had this crazy idea on the way home. Imagine we get two amicable parties to sue each other to formally have a case law example? This could be set up in a number of ways, a contract of sorts, but most importantly, the language of the suit could be designed to force a clear definition of lawful money from the court.

This isn't perfect and can be refined, but just an example here.

Say I contract with another party for a good, lets just say something cheap like a table, and require payment only in the form of lawful money of the united states. The person buying the table offers FRNs and I refuse the payment, as I claim it is not lawful money. I'm trying to think how to frame this so there is no wiggle room for the courts. I suppose FRNs are legal tender and must be accepted for payment, but, as stated in some other cases, like at restaurants, legal tender must be accepted, but for things like convenience stores, or vending machines, certain types can be excluded, as it is a private contract. We, the two parties, could disagree on what the definition of lawful money of the united states in the contract (which would be in writing). It could start at the small claims level (its only $81), though we might not get a completely lawful result, I think it might be a stepping stone for an appeal, etc.

One better would be an argument claiming a difference in value. Something like, I've found FRNs to have depreciated rapidly in value, and demand payment in lawful money. Currently lawful money was last pegged at 42.22 per ounce gold, therefore my demand is either payment in lawful money, or a conversion of said value in FRNs...

Just thinking out loud here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

USA v. Thomas 319 F.3d 640

Paper currency, in the form of the Federal Reserve Note, is defined as an “obligation[ ] of the United States” that may be “redeemed in lawful money on demand.” 12 U.S.C. § 411 (2002). These bills are not “money” per se...

---

The last part of that quote from USA v. Luther THOMAS is interesting. See the distinction FRNS are not Money. So then 12USC411 makes it clear they can be Redeemed ON DEMAND in Lawful MONEY. So the operation of Law requires a CHOICE.

Balaam cannot curse you. You can submit to Tribute or you can choose to make a Demand. In you lies the Redemption of the Debt. Has to be because as an operation of law the Redemption requires a Demand be it Oral or Expressly written. If I was engaged in banking I would prefer the latter, then there are no presumptions to overcome. However, the Right to issue FRNS is in the Federal Reserve Board by way of Contract with the Congress; the Obligation for said Notes lies within the United States by formal agreement codified at Title 12 USC 411. Or if you desire the Congressional Record which is THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA in Congress Assembled - Reference the Federal Reserve Act.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

USA v. Thomas 319 F.3d 640

Paper currency, in the form of the Federal Reserve Note, is defined as an “obligation[ ] of the United States” that may be “redeemed in lawful money on demand.” 12 U.S.C. § 411 (2002). These bills are not “money” per se...

---

Now where it gets real interesting - at least to me - is WHY does the Obligation reside in the United States and NOT in the United States of America? In my opinion, this is because the Sovereigns forming the Corporate Body known as the United States pledged as Surety their own Estates, Honor and Lives - as Surety for the debts of the United States of America. Or as Washington called them the [Dis] United States of America. So then the debtor is slave to the lender. And the Obligation and therefore the Rights that derive from those Obligations are therefore IN the United States.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael Joseph

The last part of that quote from USA v. Luther THOMAS is interesting. See the distinction FRNS are not Money. So then 12USC411 makes it clear they can be Redeemed ON DEMAND in Lawful MONEY. So the operation of Law requires a CHOICE.

Balaam cannot curse you. You can submit to Tribute or you can choose to make a Demand. In you lies the Redemption of the Debt. Has to be because as an operation of law the Redemption requires a Demand be it Oral or Expressly written. If I was engaged in banking I would prefer the latter, then there are no presumptions to overcome. However, the Right to issue FRNS is in the Federal Reserve Board by way of Contract with the Congress; the Obligation for said Notes lies within the United States by formal agreement codified at Title 12 USC 411. Or if you desire the Congressional Record which is THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA in Congress Assembled - Reference the Federal Reserve Act.

---

maybe this will shed a little more light on the matter?


Westfall vs. Braley, 10 Ohio 188, 75 Am. Dec. 509:

“Bank notes are the representative of money, and circulate as such,
only by the general consent and usage of the community. But this
consent and usage are based upon the convertibility of such notes
into coin, at the pleasure of the holder, upon their presentation to
the bank for redemption. This is the vital principle which sustains
their character as money. So long as they are in fact what they
purport to be, payable on demand, common consent gives them the
ordinary attributes of money. But upon failure of the bank by which
they are issued, when its doors are closed, and its inability to
redeem its bills is openly avowed, they instantly lose the character of money,
their circulation as currency ceases with the usage and consent upon
which it rested, and the notes become the mere dishonored and
depreciated evidences of debt . . . It is only upon this idea that they
can honestly be tendered as money, and when accepted as such,
under the same supposition, the mutual mistake of facts should no
more be permitted to benefit one party, or prejudice the other, than
if the notes had been spurious, or payment had been made in base
or adulterated coin."

These banknotes were a form of representative money which could be converted into gold or silver by application at the bank. Since banks issued notes far in excess of the gold and silver they kept on deposit, sudden loss of public confidence in a bank could precipitate mass redemption of banknotes and result in bankruptcy.

The use of bank notes issued by private commercial banks as legal tender has gradually been replaced by the issuance of bank notes authorized and controlled by national governments. The Bank of England was granted sole rights to issue banknotes in England after 1694. In the USA, the Federal Reserve Bank was granted similar rights after its establishment in 1913. Until recently, these government-authorized currencies were forms of representative money, since they were partially backed by gold or silver and were theoretically convertible into gold or silver.

Definition of 'Lawful Money'
Any form of currency issued by the United States Treasury and not the Federal Reserve System, including gold and silver coins, Treasury notes, and Treasury bonds. Lawful money stands in contrast to fiat money, to which the government assigns value although it has no intrinsic value of its own and is not backed by reserves. Fiat money includes legal tender such as paper money, checks, drafts and bank notes.

Also known as "specie", which means "in actual form."

Investopedia explains 'Lawful Money'

Oddly enough, the dollar bills that we carry around in our wallets are not considered lawful money. The notation on the bottom of a U.S. dollar bill reads "Legal Tender for All Debts, Public and Private", and is issued by the U.S. Federal Reserve, not the U.S. Treasury. Legal tender can be exchanged for an equivalent amount of lawful money, but effects such as inflation can change the value of fiat money. Lawful money is said to be the most direct form of ownership, but for purposes of practicality it has little use in direct transactions between parties anymore.

Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/...#ixzz2LIHcDxpT

David maybe you can answer this...

What is the difference between this notation..

DEPOSITED FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
OR EXCHANGED FOR
NON-REDEEMABLE FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES

and...

REDEEMED IN LAWFUL MONEY
PURSUANT TO TITLE 12 USC 411

One seems to require Fed Reserve notes, the other...lawful money. Both have posts saying they aren't taxable. Not sure...

Non-redeemable Federal Reserve notes are US notes in the form of Fed notes. They cannot be redeemed in any higher form of currency. Federal Reserve notes can be redeemed in lawful money, according to Congress and the courts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Non-redeemable Federal Reserve notes are US notes in the form of Fed notes. They cannot be redeemed in any higher form of currency. Federal Reserve notes can be redeemed in lawful money, according to Congress and the courts.

---

Ok,

I have a stamp here with the language of 12 USC 411, and just want to make sure we are accomplishing the same end. Basically we are saying the same thing but in different ways.


But this guys argument below is a little different. The point I don't get "a barter transaction of two different kinds of things being traded even-up for equal value are not taxable, there was no sale or financial gain just a private trade." "No one gets paid for anything with anything of valuable substance.

Quote:

---

This guys argument...

"This is all based upon what is lawful money of value and HJR-192 (House Joint Resolution-192, June 5, 1933) , that none is in circulation for private use by the public. There are no lawful dollars out there only credit and debt ledger entrees, and no one gets paid for anything with anything of valuable substance. The IRS can’t tax credit, debt, or barter. The Congress licensed the use of FRNs to be used as money, as a medium or exchange for discharge of public and private debt into the US bankruptcy. At that point FRNs became contraband and that gives the BATF and the IRS jurisdiction over its use and transfer. Just like trafficking in alcohol, guns, drugs, or tobacoo , or other substances subject to excise taxes.

There are many types of commercial paper that properly prepared can discharge debt other than FRNs but few know how to use them. Using FRNs is licensed money laundering, plain and simple.

When I get a check, it says “dollars” on the front. If I endorse it openly, I just testified I received dollars of valuable substance, even though there are none. When I stamp or write:

DEPOSITED FOR CredIT ON ACCOUNT
OR EXCHANGED FOR
NON-redEEMABLE FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES

I just corrected the error on the front and converted the check into a bill of exchange. In other words: a barter transaction of two different kinds of things being traded even-up for equal value are not taxable, there was no sale or financial gain just a private trade. "

---

He states his stamp is saying he isn't getting anything of valuable substance. It's the "illegal" valuable substance that is taxable. The argument I've formed from the website is quite different, lawful money isn't taxable because it isn't private credit. Maybe I'm going in circles here, but I'm not quite getting them two notations stating the same thing...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LearnTheLaw

maybe this will shed a little more light on the matter?


Westfall vs. Braley, 10 Ohio 188, 75 Am. Dec. 509:

“Bank notes are the representative of money, and circulate as such,
only by the general consent and usage of the community. But this
consent and usage are based upon the convertibility of such notes
into coin, at the pleasure of the holder, upon their presentation to
the bank for redemption. This is the vital principle which sustains
their character as money. So long as they are in fact what they
purport to be, payable on demand, common consent gives them the
ordinary attributes of money. But upon failure of the bank by which
they are issued, when its doors are closed, and its inability to
redeem its bills is openly avowed, they instantly lose the character of money,
their circulation as currency ceases with the usage and consent upon
which it rested, and the notes become the mere dishonored and
depreciated evidences of debt . . . It is only upon this idea that they
can honestly be tendered as money, and when accepted as such,
under the same supposition, the mutual mistake of facts should no
more be permitted to benefit one party, or prejudice the other, than
if the notes had been spurious, or payment had been made in base
or adulterated coin."

---

Holy crap!
Thank-you for this.

That makes me wonder if there is some kind of 100-year expiration of charter, maybe from the Bible somewhere?

Could it be that the Fed will be shutting its doors this Christmas?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shikamaru

Holy crap!
Thank-you for this.

---

I stumbled upon this today and thought you might like it.


I was searching for "Letter, Oct. 26, 1989, Dept. of Treasury, Russell Munk, Asst. Gen. Counsel"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 1980 Congress passed, among other things, Public Law 96-221, providing for the furtherance and expansion of the profligate rehypothecated debt pyramid scheme, and reduced the reserve requirements on "transaction accounts" to a minimum of 3% per centum to a maximum of 14 per centum (See: Depository Institutions Deregulation And Monetary Control Act of 1980, Section 103(b) (E)(2)).

"In the United States neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities. Intrinsically, a dollar bill is just a piece of paper. Deposits are merely book entries. Coins do have some intrinsic value as metal, but generally far less than their face amount...."

Compare this with the United States Constitution, which says: "No State shall make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debt..." and which also says: "Congress shall have the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof..." (Italics added for emphasis; this paragraph added to the original John B. Nelson document of February 21, 1992 on July 18, 1999 to reiterate what was stated previously in this document and to demonstrate, first hand, yet another way the Constitution is being usurped, in fact and in intent).

http://home.absolute.net/xode/nwofra...Bankfraud1.htm

No part of the 1792 Coinage act has been altered, moved or repealed. So you can use it as it is, because it is intact. Now you can't say the same thing for HJR 192. All parts but 1 have been repealed. That which is printed on page 112 of 48 stat is intact. The rest of it on pages 113 and forward are all repealed.

BTW, there are only 18 states which specify the use of dollars in their statutes. Those states are: Arkansas, California, Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goldi

No part of the 1792 Coinage act has been altered, moved or repealed. So you can use it as it is, because it is intact. Now you can't say the same thing for HJR 192. All parts but 1 have been repealed. That which is printed on page 112 of 48 stat is intact. The rest of it on pages 113 and forward are all repealed.

---

That is amazing about the States specifying dollars! It is good to have you posting Goldi.

About HJR-192, there are some stipulations related that remain. Page 1, on Page 2. Also it is good to note that a Resolution is not the same as law, but that should be obvious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goldi

BTW, there are only 18 states which specify the use of dollars in their statutes. Those states are: Arkansas, California, Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

---

Where did you find this info?

Interesting David you showed and the move to 50 USC § 1601 - Termination of existing declared emergencies | Title 50 - War and National Defense | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1601 that we are still in a state of emergency.

5 USC § 105 - Executive agency | Title 5 - Government Organization and Employees | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/105

For the purpose of this title, “Executive agency” means an Executive department, a Government corporation, and an independent establishment.

THE DECLARATION OF SEPARATE AND EQUAL STATION http://keystoliberty2.wordpress.com/tag/hjr-192/ gives some detail on that subject.

We need another Congressman like Louis T. McFadden.

I went to the federal repository one afternoon and collected this about McFadden.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikecz

Where did you find this info?

---

https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/j...L.51(1991).pdf

On page 53, footnotes

How many have gotten an IRS/State tax refund by indorsing checks with the old restriction of "deposited for credit on account or exchanged for non-negotiable federal reserve notes of face value" ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goldi

https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/j...L.51(1991).pdf

On page 53, footnotes

---

Thanks for the post...