Lawful money per US Code

Look what I found !! :D

This has been repealed but ....

Title 12, Chapter 2, Section 152 of the U.S. Codes

Quote:

---

-CITE-
12 USC Sec. 152 01/24/94

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 12 - BANKS AND BANKING
CHAPTER 2 - NATIONAL BANKS
SUBCHAPTER IX - FORMATION OF ASSOCIATIONS TO ISSUE GOLD NOTES

-HEAD-
Sec. 152. Lawful money reserve of associations issuing gold notes;
receiving notes of other associations

-STATUTE-
Every association organized under section 151 of this title shall
at all times keep on hand not less than 25 per centum of its
outstanding circulation, in gold or silver coin of the United
States; and shall receive at par in the payment of debts the gold
notes of every other such association which at the time of such
payment is redeeming its circulating notes in gold coin of the
United States, and shall be subject to all the provisions of title
62 of the Revised Statutes: Provided, That, in applying the same to
associations organized for issuing gold notes, the terms ''lawful
money'' and ''lawful money of the United States'' shall be
construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States; and the
circulation of such associations shall not be within the limitation
of circulation mentioned in title 62 of the Revised Statutes.

-SOURCE-
(R.S. Sec. 5186.)

---

Found this from Franklin Sanders, the Moneychanger.

Since it has been repealed, does that mean the definition of "lawful money" has changed or is the definition still valid? "lawful money" is not defined anywhere else that I can find in the U.S.C.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishnet

Since it has been repealed, does that mean the definition of "lawful money" has changed or is the definition still valid? "lawful money" is not defined anywhere else that I can find in the U.S.C.

---

Those are fantastic questions which I am unable to answer.

what would put this issue to bed, would be a Tax Court case
People may receive refunds for a while, based on their Verified testimony & Signature under Penalty of Perjury

Now, I cannot see the Dept of Justice allowing this idea to prevail

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Binbokusai Yagyuu

what would put this issue to bed, would be a Tax Court case
People may receive refunds for a while, based on their Verified testimony & Signature under Penalty of Perjury

Now, I cannot see the Dept of Justice allowing this idea to prevail

---

The IRS would have to initiate that tax court case as best I can tell. If you go in with a counterclaim or appeal then you carry the burden of proof.

There is only one administrative letter threatening the $5K frivolous fine so far and it was Refused for Cause timely. Otherwise there are no pestering IRS agents about anybody who redeems lawful money; only dregs from before, mostly Pete's Cracking the Code victims. Even those cases are doing well.

The letter should be explained though. This particular suitor is a great scientific endeavor. Much like you BY, knowing what you have gleaned here imagine you are a banker for a large international bank with a tax preparation license. You are at a co-worker's get-together and you hear his sister, who is an attorney for the IRS say in conversation, There is a group of people in Colorado who do not pay Income Tax; they are doing it right. You would likely recognize that she is talking about me and my suitors, albeit there are suitors all over the country. When he approached for more details she became nervous about talking too much too loudly in a social setting.

He contacted me and we arranged for him to become a suitor and he began demanding lawful money a couple years ago; mid-2009 I think. Also he lives in NJ, and NY in a manner of working and living so that he files returns in both states. Everything went great with federal and state(s) and with $100K+ he was quite pleased with his new pay raise. Then NJ started billing him for about half of the refund back so he opened a Libel of Review in NY but his evidence repository ended up remanded to NJ. This last year he kept getting his federal refund delayed for this and for that reason.

He is friendly with the IRS attorney but she is a little tight-fisted with the information. He did manage to get a comment about how she could no longer access his file anyway! So this indicates that the IRS is nervous about the scientific method and credentials of this experience. However, as we were waiting for the prize, a 2011 full refund it is disappointing to get a threat of a $5K fine instead. It was refused for cause timely and I suspect that is the last we will ever hear about it. They owe the suitor/banker a lot more than that in refund.

However, since endeavoring to demand lawful money this particular suitor is probably around $40K in the black so far. He is not complaining.

This is typical - just in today.

Quote:

---

With great joy we both went to the mail box today and opening up that envelope we saw the full return. I give praise to Yehovah because I prayed that a reasonable agent would receive our return. There are no giants.



There are no giants.

---

This particular suitor couple will not be taking the IRS to tax court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishnet

Since it has been repealed, does that mean the definition of "lawful money" has changed or is the definition still valid? "lawful money" is not defined anywhere else that I can find in the U.S.C.

---

Here is an idea.

How about you self-define what lawful money is? Send it to proper authorities. Start a Libel of Review or miscellaneous case jacket.

Where the legislature or courts are silent. Set the definition.
The silence could be because it is already recognized by common law. You just need to claim it and use it.

This is the quintessence of LAWFUL.

>=]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shikamaru

Here is an idea.

How about you self-define what lawful money is? Send it to property authorities. Start a Libel of Review or miscellaneous case jacket.

Where the legislature or courts are silent. Set the definition.
The silence could be because it is already recognized by common law. You just need to claim it and use it.

This is the quintessence of LAWFUL.

>=]

---

That is so bold and forthright I want dearly for it to make sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

That is so bold and forthright I want dearly for it to make sense.

---

We have lots of good elements here :).

Giving notice, evidence repository, issuing one's own opinion, etc.

All you need are contracts specified with 'at law' and it would be really interesting.

I predict if done, no court will really want to touch it with a 10 foot pole. There are those subjects that are still sensitive.

Lawful money is one of them.

We aren't doing this to be combative, but to assert ourselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shikamaru

We have lots of good elements here :).

Giving notice, evidence repository, issuing one's own opinion, etc.

All you need are contracts specified with 'at law' and it would be really interesting.

I predict if done, no court will really want to touch it with a 10 foot pole. There are those subjects that are still sensitive.

Lawful money is one of them.

We aren't doing this to be combative, but to assert ourselves.

---

While waking from a good night's sleep your intriguing suggestion cogitated. I liked the idea of defining lawful money independently and collaterally but that simply will not do in common law unless I carried the authority of the de jure (pre-1861) Congress. Even if I did the definition is already understood to be fully bonded money. The bond on redeemed lawful cash is the signatures of the US Treasurer and Secretary on the face of the bills. The issue of private workers is when you have endorsed the practice of fractional lending which produces extra cash into the system. Lately though Bailouts, leading to Quatitative Easing have usurped that signature authority to a new level based apparently on over 99.9% of people endorsing private credit 100% of their personal transactions. To Save the Bankers - government (central banking on UN combinatorial mathematics) has found authority to inject hundreds of billions of $$$$ into the world economy keeping the US Dollar the Reserve Currency of the World.

The easiest way to define lawful money is by simple substitution (1934).

http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/3...411pre1934.jpg

Gold and gold certificates are lawful money as intended in Section 16 of the Fed Act as it was codified in Title 12 USC 411 until 1934 when it was changed to:

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

That simple substitution is the obvious definition in the scope of this application.

I have explained the role of US notes as fiat currency between 1861 (beginning with Territorial Governor GILPIN's notes here in Colorado) many times so I am skipping that. I will presume that people understand that FRNs and US notes, neither one is redeemable in gold today. In fact, gold was removed as the standard for the exchange rate of the US Dollar (domestic & foreign) by around 1976 with the Amendments to the Bretton Woods Agreements. The point being that my definition, which I think is the correct definition is not functional. From the Senate Report linked we find something quite interesting:

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/55/pl945643.jpg

See that? The IMF Trust Fund has sealed the price of gold in anticipation that it might be put back into the system. That gold price is $42.22/troy ounce according to the assets of the Federal Reserve. Look at the Footnotes; and notice how interrelated the price of international gold as earmarked is to Special Drawing Rights.

The audio link above to this morning's news, that the Spanish government is going to find the money (Quantitative Easing) to by up more than half of its biggest bank in order to save it indicates that crashing gold from today's Spot to $42.22/troy ounce is not yet being considered an option. It will take something a bit more draconian to finally quit this nonsense of considering government debt (conditioning of the citizenry - signature bond behind SDR's) as money.

The solution is to shorten the time it takes to locate the two Prime Addends in the private key with Public Key Cryptography used in the banking system.

http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/2...lgorithmfo.jpg

Once this time/delay is defeated the Greed will execute what the bankers will not do also out of greed. Instead of TOO MANY SECRETS there will be NO MORE SECRETS. NO MORE ELECTRONIC VAULTS.

Reducing the price of gold by 1/20 or better though, that is going to feel like a Crash.

However that is the only reconciliation for the correct definition of lawful money - to reintroduce gold into the System.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

While waking from a good night's sleep your intriguing suggestion cogitated. I liked the idea of defining lawful money independently and collaterally but that simply will not do in common law unless I carried the authority of the de jure (pre-1861) Congress. Even if I did the definition is already understood to be fully bonded money. The bond on redeemed lawful cash is the signatures of the US Treasurer and Secretary on the face of the bills. The issue of private workers is when you have endorsed the practice of fractional lending which produces extra cash into the system. Lately though Bailouts, leading to Quatitative Easing have usurped that signature authority to a new level based apparently on over 99.9% of people endorsing private credit 100% of their personal transactions. To Save the Bankers - government (central banking on UN combinatorial mathematics) has found authority to inject hundreds of billions of $$$$ into the world economy keeping the US Dollar the Reserve Currency of the World.

The easiest way to define lawful money is by simple substitution (1934).

http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/3...411pre1934.jpg

Gold and gold certificates are lawful money as intended in Section 16 of the Fed Act as it was codified in Title 12 USC 411 until 1934 when it was changed to:

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

That simple substitution is the obvious definition in the scope of this application.

I have explained the role of US notes as fiat currency between 1861 (beginning with Territorial Governor GILPIN's notes here in Colorado) many times so I am skipping that. I will presume that people understand that FRNs and US notes, neither one is redeemable in gold today. In fact, gold was removed as the standard for the exchange rate of the US Dollar (domestic & foreign) by around 1976 with the Amendments to the Bretton Woods Agreements. The point being that my definition, which I think is the correct definition is not functional. From the Senate Report linked we find something quite interesting:

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/55/pl945643.jpg

See that? The IMF Trust Fund has sealed the price of gold in anticipation that it might be put back into the system. That gold price is $42.22/troy ounce according to the assets of the Federal Reserve. Look at the Footnotes; and notice how interrelated the price of international gold as earmarked is to Special Drawing Rights.

The audio link above to this morning's news, that the Spanish government is going to find the money (Quantitative Easing) to by up more than half of its biggest bank in order to save it indicates that crashing gold from today's Spot to $42.22/troy ounce is not yet being considered an option. It will take something a bit more draconian to finally quit this nonsense of considering government debt (conditioning of the citizenry - signature bond behind SDR's) as money.

The solution is to shorten the time it takes to locate the two Prime Addends in the private key with Public Key Cryptography used in the banking system.

http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/2...lgorithmfo.jpg

Once this time/delay is defeated the Greed will execute what the bankers will not do also out of greed. Instead of TOO MANY SECRETS there will be NO MORE SECRETS. NO MORE ELECTRONIC VAULTS.

Reducing the price of gold by 1/20 or better though, that is going to feel like a Crash.

However that is the only reconciliation for the correct definition of lawful money - to reintroduce gold into the System.

---

I'm satisfied with specifying my intent in contract as 'at law' and tendering specie. :)
Besides, the contract won't be reviewed unless someone complains to bring it before a court.

You write that on the backside of your paychecks?

It might be worth considering that relation between the world 'gold' and the word 'yield'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allodial

It might be worth considering that relation between the world 'gold' and the word 'yield'.

---

That is an interesting comment...


?

Etymologically speaking:

Quote:

---

yield (n.)
O.E. gield "payment, sum of money" (see yield (v.)); extended sense of "production" (as of crops) is first attested mid-15c. Earliest English sense survives in financial "yield from investments."

---

Quote:

---

yield (v.)
O.E. geldan (Anglian), gieldan (W.Saxon) "to pay" (class III strong verb; past tense geald, p.p. golden), from P.Gmc. *geldanan "pay" (cf. O.S. geldan "to be worth," O.N. gjaldo "to repay, return," M.Du. ghelden, Du. gelden "to cost, be worth, concern," O.H.G. geltan, Ger. gelten "to be worth," Goth. fra-gildan "to repay, requite"), perhaps from PIE *ghel-to- "I pay," found only in Balto-Slavic and Germanic, unless O.C.S. zledo, Lith. geliuoti are Germanic loan-words. Sense developed in English via use to translate L. reddere, Fr. rendre, and had expanded by c.1300 to "repay, return, render (service), produce, surrender." Related to M.L.G. and M.Du. gelt, Du. geld, Ger. Geld "money." Yielding in sense of "giving way to physical force" is recorded from 1660s.

---

David, I am pretty sure that you posted something earlier about the $300 million in US Treasury notes that Congress authorized. This is public money, inelastic and backed by gold. FRN's are private money. While they both circulate at par, lawful is backed by value, FRN's are backed by debt; the difference is income tax liability, ie, the interest on the debt. While the fictional reserve banking system (see Mish website http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/ - he clarifies periodically that there are no 'reserves' backing FNR's) can print any amount of money they want, it is not wealth, only a claim on wealth. Since the banksters get the newly printed money first, they use it to buy up real assets (like gold). But the world debt is unpayable, and that ponzi system is about to crash. Rather than devalue gold by 1/20th, the Federal Reserve will just buy gold for about $20,000 per ounce. Presto, the US govt has enough 'cash' to pay off all its debts.
ps to shikamaru: the SCOTUS has struck down contracts which specified payment in gold. I think you can get around it by styling the contract in ounces of gold with no mention of dollar value. Assuming you are dealing in good faith with reliable parties, there is no reason why anyone else needs to know what your contract says.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freed Gerdes

The SCOTUS has struck down contracts which specified payment in gold.

---

When was the latest case which did this?
Also when you get a chance, could you provide such a case?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freed Gerdes

I think you can get around it by styling the contract in ounces of gold with no mention of dollar value. Assuming you are dealing in good faith with reliable parties, there is no reason why anyone else needs to know what your contract says.

---

I like it :).

My opinion is that the tendering of gold and silver coin AT LAW (stated within the contract) is what gives the agreement force and intent.
Remember also that a dollar was originally a specific weight, grain, and purity of silver specie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freed Gerdes

David, I am pretty sure that you posted something earlier about the $300 million in US Treasury notes that Congress authorized. This is public money, inelastic and backed by gold. FRN's are private money. While they both circulate at par, lawful is backed by value, FRN's are backed by debt; the difference is income tax liability, ie, the interest on the debt. While the fictional reserve banking system (see Mish website http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/ - he clarifies periodically that there are no 'reserves' backing FNR's) can print any amount of money they want, it is not wealth, only a claim on wealth. Since the banksters get the newly printed money first, they use it to buy up real assets (like gold). But the world debt is unpayable, and that ponzi system is about to crash. Rather than devalue gold by 1/20th, the Federal Reserve will just buy gold for about $20,000 per ounce. Presto, the US govt has enough 'cash' to pay off all its debts.
ps to shikamaru: the SCOTUS has struck down contracts which specified payment in gold. I think you can get around it by styling the contract in ounces of gold with no mention of dollar value. Assuming you are dealing in good faith with reliable parties, there is no reason why anyone else needs to know what your contract says.

---

I think you are talking about HJR-192 and it was repealed in around 1976.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

I think you are talking about HJR-192 and it was repealed in around 1976.

---

While the joint resolution may have been repealed in 1977, the public law (which reflects everything in the resolution) still remains on the books at Public Law 73-10 as Public Policy (otherwise known by such luminaries as Henry Kissinger as "foreign policy," if you can mentally hear him giving voice to these two words). That public policy is the foreign policy that he is often heard to be referring to, and why he's been so interested in it, since it provides for his ill-gotten standard of living.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KnowLaw

While the joint resolution may have been repealed in 1977, the public law (which reflects everything in the resolution) still remains on the books at Public Law 73-10 as Public Policy (otherwise known by such luminaries as Henry Kissinger as "foreign policy," if you can mentally hear him giving voice to these two words). That public policy is the foreign policy that he is often heard to be referring to, and why he's been so interested in it, since it provides for his ill-gotten standard of living.

---

That is interesting!

I was thinking more about:

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...l_PL94-412.jpg
http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...tipulation.jpg

HRJ 192 declared void in 1982!!

Congress Reinstates Gold Clauses for contracts!!

I do NOT need your stamp of approval period. (Emphasis added).

Here is some info that you will all enjoy reading:

"The holding of gold remained prohibited until 1973, when Congress repealed the 1934 ban on private ownership of gold (87 Stat. 352 (1973), as amended by 88 Stat. 445 (1974), but did not address the 1933 prohibition of gold clauses.

This omission was remedied in 1982, when the statute was adopted (31 U.S.C.A. 5118(d)(2) (1983), hereinafter "section 5118"). The language provided that obligations covered by gold clauses prior to 1977 are, as before, dischargeable dollar for dollar with United States currency. . . . Gold clauses are enforceable after October 27, 1977, pursuant to section 5118; . . .Therefore, the gold clause contained in the August 28, 1982 contract is enforceable.

The amount of rent owed under the gold clause and the date from which it should accumulate will be determined at trial. THEREFORE, plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED."

The FAY CORPORATION a Washington corporation, Plaintiff v. BAT HOLDINGS 1, INC., also known as Marshall Field & Co., a Delaware corporation; and Frederick & Nelson Seattle, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants. No. C86-542D. United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle, 646 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT 946, 948, 952, 953 (October 23, 1986). And;

"This court concluded that the effect of novation was to revive the original gold clause. Thus rent after August 28, 1982 is to be made pursuant to the original lease terms "in lawful gold coin of the United States of America of the present standard of weight and fineness. . . ."Lease, Article II." FAY CORP. v. BAT HOLDINGS I INC., 651 F. Supp. 307, 308 (W.D. Wash. 1987). And;

"The court found the gold clause in the commercial lease to be enforceable. . . . Congress determined in 1977 that obligations entered into after 1977 would be enforceable. 31 U.S.C. section 5118(d)(2) (1983)." FAY CORP. v. FREDERICK & NELSON SEATTLE, INC., 896 F.2d 1227 (9th Cir. 1990). And;

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chex

HRJ 192 declared void in 1982!!

Congress Reinstates Gold Clauses for contracts!!

I do NOT need your stamp of approval period. (Emphasis added).

Here is some info that you will all enjoy reading:

"The holding of gold remained prohibited until 1973, when Congress repealed the 1934 ban on private ownership of gold (87 Stat. 352 (1973), as amended by 88 Stat. 445 (1974), but did not address the 1933 prohibition of gold clauses.

This omission was remedied in 1982, when the statute was adopted (31 U.S.C.A. 5118(d)(2) (1983), hereinafter "section 5118"). The language provided that obligations covered by gold clauses prior to 1977 are, as before, dischargeable dollar for dollar with United States currency. . . . Gold clauses are enforceable after October 27, 1977, pursuant to section 5118; . . .Therefore, the gold clause contained in the August 28, 1982 contract is enforceable.

The amount of rent owed under the gold clause and the date from which it should accumulate will be determined at trial. THEREFORE, plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED."

The FAY CORPORATION a Washington corporation, Plaintiff v. BAT HOLDINGS 1, INC., also known as Marshall Field & Co., a Delaware corporation; and Frederick & Nelson Seattle, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants. No. C86-542D. United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle, 646 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT 946, 948, 952, 953 (October 23, 1986). And;

"This court concluded that the effect of novation was to revive the original gold clause. Thus rent after August 28, 1982 is to be made pursuant to the original lease terms "in lawful gold coin of the United States of America of the present standard of weight and fineness. . . ."Lease, Article II." FAY CORP. v. BAT HOLDINGS I INC., 651 F. Supp. 307, 308 (W.D. Wash. 1987). And;

"The court found the gold clause in the commercial lease to be enforceable. . . . Congress determined in 1977 that obligations entered into after 1977 would be enforceable. 31 U.S.C. section 5118(d)(2) (1983)." FAY CORP. v. FREDERICK & NELSON SEATTLE, INC., 896 F.2d 1227 (9th Cir. 1990). And;

---

HJR-192 was not what was important.

Government's claimed power of confiscating property via eminent domain is what the issue truly is.

Executive orders such as 6102 and the The Gold Reserve Act of 1934 are also of greater importance than HJR-192.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shikamaru

HJR-192 was not what was important.

Government's claimed power of confiscating property via eminent domain is what the issue truly is.

Executive orders such as 6102 and the The Gold Reserve Act of 1934 are also of greater importance than HJR-192.

---

In 1934 according to the Gold Reserve Act the people were initiated into Federal Reserve banking.

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

Well, the fact remains that 300 million dollars worth of gold US minted coins were taken from the citizens in 1933-34, those coins were minted and issued to redeem the US notes used to finance the war of Federal aggression against then republics.

Those notes were redeemed and the coins placed back into circulation, after the war and gold and silver reached par value again. The exact same coins where taken back in 1933 and placed into a public trust.

I believe David has seen most if not all those coins on PUBLIC display in Denver, he can correct me if I am not correct.

The coins are held in trust and US notes were again issued for them and given to those people who turned them in. Those people like the people prior to the "Civil" war expected to be able to redeem said notes for newly minted coins AFTER the emergency of 1933 was over. That happened on a very small scale. The US gold and silver notes were then issued, mostly backed by gold or silver bullion, to save money on the coining process AND to comply with then and current law that limited US notes (backed directly by gold coins) to 300 million dollars in circulation per year.

The FRN WAS redeemable for a time directly into gold or silver coins (newly minted) or for gold or silver bullion. Mostly they were redeemed for US notes, backed by either forms of gold or silver at par value of the bullion.

There are still about 300 million in US notes being accounted for on the monthly treasury report "In circulation". What backs those notes (and our demand for redemption) are the original 300 million in gold coins to into the trust of the Treasury in 33/34, not any bullion, nor gold/silver certificates, nor ANY other property lienable by the US for payment of the national debt/federal reserve. These coins are separate from all other debt or currency issued by anyone! This distinction is important! The US notes issued for them or demanded redeemed via 12 USC 411 are also ddistinct and must be accounted for in some lawful way!

Who controls that trust and those public property coins today is the question and how do we report the fact that we (via our demand) are accessing those funds lawfully?

Clearly the IRS is not the way, there is someone at the treasury who needs notice of our demands, how much is being accessed and who is getting "paid" with said redeemed lawful money.

That is the only way our minority of "redeemed" will ever be recognized for our true lawful standing on the land.

This Treasury Vault is located on the SE Corner of the Golden Rectangle.


Attachment 1962


There is stronger evidence found at the Mason Museum on the NW Corner of that Rectangle regarding Colorado history, the State formation in fact is evolved around the first Governor writing script on the presumption the Union soldiers accepting it for pay and the merchants accepting it for supplies would be able to redeem the notes in gold at the Treasury.

In the wee hours as I enjoy working in the quiet of the witching hour I am reminded of a romance novel, I never even bothered noting the title or author that confirmed everything quite clearly. It was replete with conversations in the Oval Office between soon-to-be Governor GILPIN and President BUCHANAN but of course my presumption in hindsight is that the novel was written by a Mason who did his research at the same library. He apparently stumbled across the same archives and experience and interpretations of the massive information we call reality called upon him to relay his interpretation through that particular venue.

Presuming I am on to something here then, the gold in the video above represents the amount of gold behind the $300,000,000.00 in US notes minus the notes that have been destroyed. So adding up the coins' face value would likely come out somewhere far short of $300M.

Quote:

---

Clearly the IRS is not the way, there is someone at the treasury who needs notice of our demands, how much is being accessed and who is getting "paid" with said redeemed lawful money.

---

Thank you! That is the purpose of serving Jacob Joseph LEW (Secretary) as the US Governor for the IMF. This is definitely worth some discussion how to improve Notice.

I am still pushing the envelope. - And in the same forum, but under a different penumbra emanation. Notice the Title is under an open Header for filing into various courts for a Confession of Faith (§508 Mandatory Exception).

Quote:

---

}
}
}
}
___________________________}______________________ ____

Pragmatism

I present this Gospel of Pragmatism to the landscape of human consciousness with the growing conviction that Pragmatism is the first religious doctrine ever that is not a business plan. Pragmatism is quite the opposite of a business plan, defusing Christianity as a weapon and canceling any precept of guilt, that is to say abolishing any monetizing sin through priestcraft.

The Key

As I was studying a popular course...

[/B]

---

I thought the 300 million was backed by gold certificates, not coin. Am I mistaken?

You think on the 1040 the first $3K deductible is in lawful money?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith Alan

I thought the 300 million was backed by gold certificates, not coin. Am I mistaken?

---

Since at Title 31 USC §5115 it is specified that US notes cannot be used for a reserve currency I am supposing that there must be some actual gold or gold coin, whether or not they sell gold certificates on that fact.

Quote:

---

You think on the 1040 the first $3K deductible is in lawful money?

---

That is probably the coin deductible found in this article. I produced this video including the 1984 premise that was at $1000.

Quote:

---

If an investigation of bank records discloses an excess of $1000 in deposits in a single year, the IRS may accept this as prima facie evidence that the account holder uses private credit and is therefore a person obligated to make a return of income. Anyone who uses private credit -- e.g., bank accounts, credit cards, mortgages, etc. -- voluntarily plugs himself into the system and obligates himself to file. A taxpayer is allowed to claim a $1000 personal deduction when filing his return. The average taxpayer in the course of a year uses United States coins in vending machines, parking meters, small change, etc., and this public money must be deducted when computing the charge for using private credit.

---