Just A Review

[Keith Alan]

I've been very busy for these last few months, so I haven't taken the time to do much reading. It's been good though, because I find that many of the concepts talked about here have solidified in my mind, and I think I have a better understanding of demanding lawful money and the private/public credit system.

However, I'm worried I might have understood some things incorrectly, so I want to post about my understanding of a few things, just to see if I'm understanding correctly.

First concerning deposits. My understanding is that typically, deposits are bailments, with the bank actually taking possession and title of the funds deposited. Still, the bank owes the depositor the return of funds on demand, so essentially it amounts to extending credit to the bank, correct?

Non-endorsing a deposit changes the nature of the deposit. While still a bailment, the credit being extended is not Federal Reserve credit, but rather US credit, correct?

Which brings me to my second understanding. The Fed issues private credit in the form of Federal Reserve notes, and in money of account banking credit, correct?

The United States Treasury issues US notes, which represent United States credit, correct?

So in effect, there are two species of credit contained on one Federal Reserve note, depending on how the holder wishes to use them. It is normally presumed to be private credit, but making the demand converts it to public credit, correct?

So if a depositor makes his demand, he is depositing lawful money with the bank, which cannot be used for fractional reserve lending because it is credit foreign to the bank, correct?

And since it is not private credit, it is not income. This is to say that receiving income must be defined as the receiving of private credit. Receiving public credit is not income, but rather an exchange substance.

I hope I have these right, because if I do, I believe I have a good handle on the situation. Any controversies that might arise can be resolved by my understanding the relationships I have with the Fed, the Treasury, and their negotiable instruments that I might happen to hold. Any feedback you might have is greatly appreciated, so let me extend my heartfelt gratitude in advance: Thank you!

[Keith Alan]

Okay, I guess nobody wants to help me with understanding the remedy. That's fine, but maybe someone can comment on this:

Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.

If FRNs are advancements (ie credit) issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, then it is an agency of the US that is extending credit to banks through its agents.

This has led me to conclude that the Fed Reserve System is a business entity operated by Congress for the purpose of extending credit in hopes of realizing a gain.

Therefore, national and member banks are participating in the enterprise, re-lending US obligations on ventures of their own, hence income tax reporting requirements and taxes on corporate profit and/or losses.

Since only private credit is changing hands, and persons participating in these transactions are national and member banks, then redeeming the notes would result in no net gain since there is no interest charged or collected on receiving lawful money.

Does this sound like a reasonable conclusion?

[allodial]

I suspect the one redeeming the bill for value is removing the bill from being Private Federal Clearinghouse Credit to United States Public/Social Credit. Feel free to search books.google.com for information about clearinghouse certificates. Some of the pre-1913 clearinghouse certificates looked an awful lot like Federal Reserve Notes look today.

Its important to study the fundamentals. The central banks are clearing houses or 'clearing corporations'. AFAIK it is the Federal Reserve Board of Governors issues them *to* the banks and they do not issue Federal Reserve Notes themselves for CIRCULATION (although keep in mind that checks, money orders and the like could be construed to be a form of currency). A 'bank' is a 'store' or a 'resevoir' it is not a generator except perhaps by induction. A piggy bank doesn't generate coins, it is a place for storing them. The currency comes from the U.S. Department of the Treasury not from the Federal Reserve Bank. The Promissory Notes on mortgages are neither issued by the Federal Banks nor by the State Banks. Since banks pass checks and such between each other, they need a common place to settle accounting between each other. That is what the 12 Federal Reserve Banks facilitate. When a 'national' or state bank in Chicago needs to clear a check drawn on or payable through a bank in New York, it must AFAIK use the Federal Reserve System. If the check is local, the mail, a courier or a local (ACH) clearinghouse could be utilized.

To secure payment of ... lawful money. It was not law lawful money.

If you are a FRB member or agent, then you are member or agent of a federal clearinghouse or a federal clearing corporation. If you are dealing with an unredeemed clearinghouse certificate, you're dealing with "(FRB/Casino) House Credit" rather than public money. AFAIK, the Federal Reserve System doesn't make cars, clothes, mobile homes. The Federal Reserve System doesn't even print its own money/currency. The value doesn't come from the bank it goes into or through the bank. The banks are service providers (i.e. accounting, telegraphic, courier and legal services--that's 'bout it).

Also...




Imagine you have a wonderful, wealthy father who has hired a trustee to underwrite your endeavors and to give a guarantee to your payment obligations expressed in lawful money. However, Mr. Stranger crops up and offers you a guarantee too--at a steep price and in the terms of clearinghouse credits. The Mr. Stranger doesn't want to see you prospering and wants you to live a pitiful poor life or to die in a bad way. Naughty-naughty Mr. Stranger knows if you don't express the amount in lawful money, it never triggers the father's guarantee. He also knows and tries to keep it secret that until you redeem the clearinghouse credit for lawful money it wont trigger the father's guarantee. Mr. Stranger knows that you have choice and loves to see you exercise your free will ....


...in the stupidest way possible that helps Mr. Stranger greatly enrich himself. It might be important to note that HJR-192 mentioned dollars* not clearinghouse credits--oooooooooooooooooooooooohhhh sneeekayyyy. But aren't you glad at least someone has been paying attention?



Does the Bank of Canada print currency? No. Canadian Bank Note Company and BA International Inc. have been primarily invovled in that.

Does the Federal Reserve System issue or print currency? No. the U.S. Bureau of Engraving & Printing does.

Does the Reserve Bank of New Zealand print currency? No. "New Zealand’s polymer banknotes are produced by Note Print Australia Limited in Melbourne".

Does the Bank of Canada even make coins? No. The Royal Canadian Mint does.

However, banks do print, sell or exchange: checks, money orders, deposit slips or bank drafts.

P.S. Consider that the underwriting activity that a state bank or a federal bank might engage in might only ever be with respect to repossessed assets or with respect to abandoned assets. As in if a bank or a bank holding company [two different things] ever issued its own money it would likely only be underwritten by assets that it confiscated or abandoned assets (i.e. repossession, foreclosure, abandonment, 1099-A, plunder, overpayments, etc.--double dipping might however would be more along the lines of extreme usury and plunder). Apart from services provided, banks don't tend to originate anything of value.

[allodial]

Just for further clarification...



Per Virginia Code 8.8A-102.

[Jaro]

It's real simple, FRNs represent loan/credit that Congress borrowed from FedRes. Which is why they don't pay off debts, only discharge them, and make you liable for that loan, i.e. liable for interest payments, in form of income and sales taxation. In other words, FRNs are only PROMISES to pay.

Lawful money on the other hand are real money, meaning they have an intristic value, so they PAY OFF debts, so they don't come with any liability. The 'lawful' part simply means that this money is MINTED and their weight regulated by the gov't.

The problem is that in 1933, the federal gov't went partially bankrupt by demonetizing gold, and in 1972 it went completely bankrupt by demonetizing silver, so they have no lawful money to give you. That's also why they took US Notes out of circulation, since they were LM redeemable in silver until 1972. And since they no longer are redeemable in anything of value, they're not really lawful money. Now we could pretend that they're LM, but since we can pretend that redeemd FRNs are LM, there's really no need for US Notes. They're not lawful money, and any pretending can be done with FRNs as well.

But we still can demand redemption of FRNs in LM, which makes us AS IF we had lawful money, i.e. makes us entitled to have our debts PAID OFF and not just discharged, even though no one has any real money. But as men we're entitled to real money for real work, and not settle on promises to pay, although most do settle.

[allodial]

Pretty much. However, still, in the United States of America what is lawful money is still per fiat of Congress. Even if it were defined in the Constitution it is a fiat. A limitation on the United States or on the States is not a limitation on the sovereign. They could not lawfully remove the ability to do acquire property in allodium. Plain and simply comes down to sovereign prerogative. Also, discharge and pay are rather synonymous. To discharge a duty can mean to 'carry out a duty'.

[Anthony Joseph]

I suspect the one redeeming the bill for value is removing the bill from being Private Federal Clearinghouse Credit to United States Public/Social Credit. Feel free to search books.google.com for information about clearinghouse certificates. Some of the pre-1913 clearinghouse certificates looked an awful lot like Federal Reserve Notes look today.

Its important to study the fundamentals. The central banks are clearing houses or 'clearing corporations'. AFAIK it is the Federal Reserve Board of Governors issues them *to* the banks and they do not issue Federal Reserve Notes themselves for CIRCULATION (although keep in mind that checks, money orders and the like could be construed to be a form of currency). A 'bank' is a 'store' or a 'resevoir' it is not a generator except perhaps by induction. A piggy bank doesn't generate coins, it is a place for storing them. The currency comes from the U.S. Department of the Treasury not from the Federal Reserve Bank. The Promissory Notes on mortgages are neither issued by the Federal Banks nor by the State Banks. Since banks pass checks and such between each other, they need a common place to settle accounting between each other. That is what the 12 Federal Reserve Banks facilitate. When a 'national' or state bank in Chicago needs to clear a check drawn on or payable through a bank in New York, it must AFAIK use the Federal Reserve System. If the check is local, the mail, a courier or a local (ACH) clearinghouse could be utilized.





If you are a FRB member or agent, then you are member or agent of a federal clearinghouse or a federal clearing corporation. If you are dealing with an unredeemed clearinghouse certificate, you're dealing with "(FRB/Casino) House Credit" rather than public money. AFAIK, the Federal Reserve System doesn't make cars, clothes, mobile homes. The Federal Reserve System doesn't even print its own money/currency. The value doesn't come from the bank it goes into or through the bank. The banks are service providers (i.e. accounting, telegraphic, courier and legal services--that's 'bout it).

Also...




Imagine you have a wonderful, wealthy father who has hired a trustee to underwrite your endeavors and to give a guarantee to your payment obligations expressed in lawful money. However, Mr. Stranger crops up and offers you a guarantee too--at a steep price and in the terms of clearinghouse credits. The Mr. Stranger doesn't want to see you prospering and wants you to live a pitiful poor life or to die in a bad way. Naughty-naughty Mr. Stranger knows if you don't express the amount in lawful money, it never triggers the father's guarantee. He also knows and tries to keep it secret that until you redeem the clearinghouse credit for lawful money it wont trigger the father's guarantee. Mr. Stranger knows that you have choice and loves to see you exercise your free will ....


...in the stupidest way possible that helps Mr. Stranger greatly enrich himself. It might be important to note that HJR-192 mentioned dollars* not clearinghouse credits--oooooooooooooooooooooooohhhh sneeekayyyy. But aren't you glad someone at least was paying attention?



Does the Bank of Canada print currency? No. Canadian Bank Note Company and BA International Inc. have been primarily invovled in that.

Does the Federal Reserve System issue or print currency? No. the U.S. Bureau of Engraving & Printing does.

Does the Reserve Bank of New Zealand print currency? No. "New Zealand’s polymer banknotes are produced by Note Print Australia Limited in Melbourne".

Does the Bank of Canada even make coins? No. The Royal Canadian Mint does.

However, banks do print, sell or exchange: checks, money orders, deposit slips or bank drafts.

P.S. Consider that the underwriting activity that a state bank or a federal bank might engage in might only ever be with respect to repossessed assets or with respect to abandoned assets. As in if a bank or a bank holding company [two different things] ever issued its ow

Excellent analogies (FRNs as Casino chips & wealthy father's trust vs. 'Mr. Stranger').

The issues with this are as follows:

FRNs are like 'double sided Casino chips' (private credit FED seal and public money 1789 U.S. Treasury seal) in that if you wish use them outside of the 'casino', the fee for use is eliminated when you present the chip 'public side up'. This means that when clearly making a 'public side presentment' (demand for lawful money), no fees (taxes) are incurred and said presentment should be valued as a non-elastic/non-reserve 'money' payment. Said payment should reflect the '30:1' ratio of $1300/oz. gold at spot vs. $42.22/oz. gold earmarked by the Treasury/IMF internationally.

In other words, the 'chips' I use and present 'public side up' outside of the casino should buy $30 of 'house credit' goods (unredeemed FRNs) for $1 (redeemed lawful money). 'Mr. Stranger' is impeding that ability for the people at large. Also, Mr. Stranger continues to extort fees (taxes) from those who clearly present the 'chips' (FRNs) 'public side up'.

Where is 'Father's trustee' and why is trustee not fulfilling the obligation of properly administering and protecting the trust, and the 'heir', when the 'heir' clearly makes his/her 'public side up' demand?

[Chex]

Excellent analogy.....

The issues with this are as follows:

FRNs are like 'double sided Casino chips' (private credit FED seal and public money 1789 U.S. Treasury seal) in that if you wish use them outside of the 'casino', the fee for use is eliminated when you present the chip 'public side up'. This means that when clearly making a 'public side presentment' (demand for lawful money), no fees (taxes) are incurred and said presentment should be valued as a non-elastic/non-reserve 'money' payment. Said payment should reflect the '30:1' ratio of $1300/oz. gold at spot vs. $42.22/oz. gold earmarked by the Treasury/IMF internationally.

In other words, the 'chips' I use and present 'public side up' outside of the casino should buy $30 of 'house credit' goods (unredeemed FRNs) for $1 (redeemed lawful money). 'Mr. Stranger' is impeding that ability for the people at large. Also, Mr. Stranger continues to extort fees (taxes) from those who clearly present the 'chips' (FRNs) 'public side up'.

Where is 'Father's trustee' and why is trustee not fulfilling the obligation of properly administering and protecting the trust, and the 'heir', when the 'heir' clearly makes his/her 'public side up' demand?

Every picture tells a story don't it.

[allodial]

Well they are "Federal Reserve Notes". That is the first key. Another key is that checks printed by check printers do not make reference to lawful money however the "$" is allegedly a symbol for lawful money. What may also cause problems is that clearinghouse certificates could be under the National Banking Act be 'deemed' to be lawful money under certain circumstances (for certain reserve purposes?) and it might be so today and that might give rise to a kind of double talk. And that might explain why you could give a bank a PN in lawful money and they cut you a check in clearinghouse points.

I'd tend to say that the primary lawful money in circulation today in the United States of America are negotiable promissory notes denominated in "lawful money" and corporate bonds denominated in lawful money and their electronic equivalents. If checks are lawful money then checks, money orders and the like would be such--in any case it is likely that they make up the currency.

As for "Father's trustee"... have you ever considered the role that any of the following play in the monetary system or what their duties are and how they might relate to your prosperity:
[*] Secretary of United States Department of the Treasury
[*] any municipal, circuit or district court clerk
[*] the commissioner of Social Security
[*] the secretary of state of each U.S. state, district or territory
[*] any city or county clerk (not necessarily court clerks)
[*] the chief counsel or president of any state bank or U.S. bank.

IMHO, fixation on printed notes these days is a colorful distraction. Much is done via book entry and by transfers made electronically.

[Anthony Joseph]

Well they are "Federal Reserve Notes". That is the first key. Another key is that checks printed by check printers do not make reference to lawful money however the "$" is allegedly a symbol for lawful money. What may also cause problems is that clearinghouse certificates could be under the National Banking Act be 'deemed' to be lawful money under certain circumstances (for certain reserve purposes?) and it might be so today and that might give rise to a kind of double talk. And that might explain why you could give a bank a PN in lawful money and they cut you a check in clearinghouse points.

I'd tend to say that the primary lawful money in circulation today in the United States of America are negotiable promissory notes denominated in "lawful money" and corporate bonds denominated in lawful money and their electronic equivalents. If checks are lawful money then checks, money orders and the like would be such--in any case it is likely that they make up the currency.

As for "Father's trustee"... have you ever considered the role that any of the following play in the monetary system or what their duties are and how they might relate to your prosperity:[*] Secretary of United States Department of the Treasury[*] any municipal, circuit or district court clerk[*] the commissioner of Social Security[*] the secretary of state of each U.S. state, district or territory[*] any city or county clerk (not necessarily court clerks)[*] the chief counsel or president of any state bank or U.S. bank.

IMHO, fixation on printed notes these days is a colorful distraction. Much is done via book entry and by transfers made electronically.

Again, I agree.

The main distinction is whether the "lawful money' is elastic or inelastic. I add that distinction in my correspondences to your above list of potential "Father's trustees". However, said 'trustees' remain silent and continuously ignore the clear intents and requirements of the 'heir'; the man alive, who learned to stay away from the offer of "Mr. Stranger" and wishes to operate by the just and proper balances guaranteed by "Father's trust".

The men and women, who also act in public trust capacity, contacted by this 'heir':

Jacob J. LEW - U.S. Treasurer
Rosa G. RIOS - Treasurer of the United States of America
Thomas J. CURRY - U.S. Comptroller of the Currency
John F. KERRY - U.S. Secretary of State
Ken DETZNER - Florida Secretary of State
Jeff ATWATER - Florida Chief Financial Officer
Karen E. RUSHING - local court clerk

All of "Father's trustees" remain silent and in voluntary ignorance.

This is probably due to the fact that each of these men and women 'moonlight' for "Mr. Stranger" and prefer said 'moonlighting' over their 'day job'.