What is the Lawful Value of Lawful Money?

This is a thread for the discussion of determining what the lawful value of demanded "lawful money" is.

We know that 1 "dollar" (unit of measure) of Federal Reserve Notes is a debt obligation in the amount of 1/1000th of an ounce of gold. It takes approximately 1000 FRNs to obtain an ounce of gold according to current conventional index. That is what "private credit", as termed on this forum, is valued at.

What should 1 "dollar" of demanded "lawful money" be valued at? Of course, everyone here knows that even if we "demand lawful money" for every transaction, a cheeseburger at McDonald's will remove 1 "dollar" out of one's pocket and one will receive the same amount of "change" in return regardless of one's "demand". Also, everyone will pay tax on that burger regardless of one's proclaimed self-determination of being inherently excepted from "taxation".

Therefore, to summon the wisdom of those who proclaim deep and vast knowledge on the subject, I pose this question...

What is the Lawful Value of Lawful Money?

Let's use 1 ounce of gold as the comparison.

Perhaps the coinage act of 1792 can give a hint or perhaps give us a relationship between gold and silver.
Gold is called an Eagle and the dollar is defined by silver

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

Canadiansolution

Why recreate the wheel?

$42.22/ounce gold; however the gold window has been closed - Under Nixon

Therefore $1.00 frn = $1.00 lawful money. The difference is the claim or lack thereof.

The window has been closed.

Hence, even though one does not participate in "ordering up more credit" and does not endorse fractional reserve banking, one's right to 'just balance' "buying power" is still interfered with.

"Public Money" should have more value since said value should remain virtually constant due to no allowable fractional lending against it - no rampant printing of notes which devalues said notes over time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLBereans

The window has been closed.

Hence, even though one does not participate in "ordering up more credit" and does not endorse fractional reserve banking, one's right to 'just balance' "buying power" is still interfered with.

"Public Money" should have more value since said value should remain virtually constant due to no allowable fractional lending against it - no rampant printing of notes which devalues said notes over time.

---

The "rampant printing" in part is a function of the ignorance of the people in State. The "company store" would have a time ordering up new credit if noone endorsed the "company store" - a choice, yes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael Joseph

The "rampant printing" in part is a function of the ignorance of the people in State.

---

In part.. agreed.

Yet the ability of those, who make the proper demand, to operate and function with 'just balance buying power' is impeded unlawfully.

My take on it and what I have read is the Federal Reserve paper is not lawful money, not government money.

It is the scrip of a private corporation partially owned by your local banker.

Whether it's a $100 bill or a $1 bill, a Federal Reserve note is intrinsically worth about one cent.

Its extrinsic worth is whatever it will buy from day to day in the marketplace.

Between 1913 and 1963, the Federal Reserve promised redeemability in lawful money on their notes. But in 1963, they began issuing notes minus the redeemability promise.

This enabled your banker to issue you a note that said "In God We Trust" in exchange for your silver dollar, without his having to exchange that silver dollar back for the note.

Federal Reserve notes were shipped out on November 26, 1963, which happened to be the day of John F. Kennedy's funeral.

For America to be "off the gold (or silver) standard" the Coinage Act of April 2, 1782, which specifies in detail how our money is to made, would have to be rescinded or repealed by Congress.

Then, a constitutional amendment permitting the states to make something other than gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts would have be passed and ratified by three-fourths of the states.

It is the Federal Reserve's monetary system that is no longer on the gold or silver standard. In the Federal Reserve's own published statement:

Today, in the United States, there are only two kinds of money in use in significant amounts--currency (paper money and coins in the pockets and purses of the public) and demand deposits (checking accounts in commercial banks).

Since $1 in currency and $1 in demand deposits are freely convertible into each other at the option of the bank's customer, both are money to an equal degree.

What ... makes these instruments acceptable at face value payment of all debts?

Mainly, it is the confidence people have they will be able to exchange such money for real goods and services whenever they choose to do so.

The government is limited to a special kind of money by federal statue.

In order to live up to the Constitution's promise of establishing domestic tranquility and promoting the general welfare, the people instructed their representatives to keep all official accounts and proceedings in "the money of account of the United States."

First legislated in the Coinage Act of 1792, this requirement is found in current law at Section 371 of Title 31 of the United States Code, The money of account of the United States shall be expressed in dollars or units, dimes or tenths, cents or hundredths, and mills or thousandths, a dime being the tenth part of a dollar, a cent the hundredth part of a dollar, a mill the thousandth part of a dollar; and all accounts in the public offices and all the proceedings in the courts shall be kept and held in conformity to this regulation.

From Gold and Debt: An American Hand-book of Finance, Google Books

A dollar, therefore, is neither a coin nor a piece of paper, but simply the name of the unit by which the paper, but simply the name of the unit by which the value of money is measured, just as "quart" is the name of a unit by which liquid is measured.

Is there any doubt in your mind as to what the money of account of the United States is?

The Coinage Act of 1792 specifically declared gold and silver to be "as money in the United States."

But in 1933, Congress suspended our currency's redemption in gold, and in 1968 suspended the redemption of silver certificates in silver.

(In both cases the excuse was "temporary emergency," as it always is when governments work with bankers to harvest the people's property without due process.)

The cumulative effect of those acts of 1933 and 1968 was this: Congress eliminated the money of account of the United States from the banking system without declaring a replacement, with the astonishing result that neither our courts nor our public offices are complying with 31 U.S.C. 371!

Federal Reserve notes and all those confidence-building, important-looking instruments of Federal Reserve banking may be "money,", but they've never been declared to be the money of account of the United States, as gold and silver have.

They may even be measured in dollars or units, but not in dollars or units of the money of account of the United States.

Federal Reserve notes can be a tender for debts, and they may even be "lawful" money in the sense that they've never been specifically declared unlawful but they are not the money of account of the United States that is measured in dollars in which "all accounts of the public offices and in all proceedings in the courts shall be kept and had."

And if in doubt ask any judge or lawyer or attorney general to show you legislation that disproves it.

I guess the point is being missed...

The OP question is posed in order to spark conversation regarding the remedy for those who do NOT endorse "private credit", nor participate in the fractional reserve banking scheme, as is relates to the compensation received for labor, energy and time expended.

Long term storage of wealth is not what I speak of for that is simple; gold, silver, and real property keeps one from being subject to market and currency devaluation and manipulation... for the most part.

However, those of us who choose to operate upon lawful money, are NOT receiving proper, just and rightful compensation for our labor, energy and time. While we are fully able to exercise our inherent right to make our demand in order to quash the presumption of owing tax on "income", we still only receive the devalued buying power as everyone else does. In other words, if we deem that work done should be compensated at a rate of $20 per hour, we should be receiving $20 as it relates to the $42.22/oz gold value rather than the diminished and devalued $20 which only buys 1/50th of an ounce of gold in the market place at this moment in time.

I realize the "window is closed", however, where is the remedy for those who demand lawful money, for EVERY and ALL transactions, whereby they may receive the rightful and just buying power compensation afforded to those who choose the righteous path of "non-endorsement" of the Federal Reserve's system of unjust balances? Not owing a "tax" is one part of the remedy, another part is NOT being affected by the diminished buying power of the devalued FRN "dollar" in the marketplace. I believe this unjust "taxation" is MORE of a burden than the yearly requests of the IRS; the expectation of a certain percentage of "return of income" based upon "yearly earnings".

I believe we are affected more by having to obtain food, products and services at a rate which does NOT reflect our true and just purchasing power which we SHOULD be receiving in exchange for our labor, energy and time.

Think about it; how much would you care about "income tax" if your compensation was valued using the $42.22/ oz of gold measure?


$50,000/year = 50 ounces of gold (standard $1000/ounce of gold)


$50,000 divided by $42.22 = 1184.27 ounces of gold


1184.27 x $1000 = $1,184,272.86 (true and just lawful money buying power in the marketplace)


Shouldn't that be the main focus of remedy for those who demand lawful money?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLBereans

Shouldn't that be the main focus of remedy for those who demand lawful money?

---

hi BLBereans,

I for one, certainly think so. it sure would catch on a whole lot faster too. thinking about it more though, what if 50% of the people are able to do this (or more)?

everything would change, not only in america but all over the world! hopefully for the better but who knows?

this does seem like the proper course of action for the lawful money remedy though! how to make it work this way?

thanks

Isn’t the 1040 and others all about FRN’s other than –line 21. Maybe a copy of warren buffets tax return might help. (:confused:LOL:confused:) Gains and losses…….Nonbusiness bad debts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by george

hi BLBereans,

I for one, certainly think so. it sure would catch on a whole lot faster too. thinking about it more though, what if 50% of the people are able to do this (or more)?

everything would change, not only in america but all over the world! hopefully for the better but who knows?

this does seem like the proper course of action for the lawful money remedy though! how to make it work this way?

thanks

---

The system in place should function properly for both endorsers and non-endorsers alike. I do not diminish the importance and honor of making the demand even if the "buying power" remedy is never realized. However, to not address the other issue with the same fervor and effort as the "income tax" issue is quite perplexing in my view.

Getting a "30% increase in pay" through lawful money demand seems like scraps compared to the big picture of getting one's rightful compensation.

$50,000 - 30% = $35,000. One receives a $15,000 increase (back to $50,000) if one claims and succeeds with their "lawful money tax filing".

$50,000 x 23.69 (current true gold ratio) = $1,184,500.00 if one receives just and proper compensation according to lawful standards.

That's a 2369% increase in pay - which would you prefer?

Lawful money 'demanders' have a rightful claim to that just exchange and buying power by virtue of declining to conduct business with, and/or accommodate for, the Federal Reserve Bank and its fractional-lending and currency-devaluing practices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLBereans

$50,000 x 23.69 (current true gold ratio) = $1,184,500.00 if one receives just and proper compensation according to lawful standards.

---

$50,000 devalued would coincidentally be a 4% (prime rate + .75%) interest payment on $1,184,500 worth of lawful money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allodial

$50,000 devalued would coincidentally be a 4% (prime rate + .75%) interest payment on $1,184,500 worth of lawful money.

---

Well... isn't that interesting...

Coincidence; I think not.