Remedy - lawful money solution

[itsmymoney]

FRNs are promissory notes to pay you in US COINs.
In a promissory note there are only two parties – the maker (debtor) and the payee (creditor).

The liability of the maker of a promissory note is primary and absolute.
Banks stored your gold and gave you a slip, there were many slips, not enough gold, and bank runs.
There used to be Gold coins, there is no gold coins, since the banks stole it, and your silver, you now get coins containing mostly copper.
Since that is now the case, take your FRN notes to the bank and see how many coins you can get before the bank runs out of "coins". I bet a bank run.
There used to be the law of redemption on the notes but no longer yet is still law.

Look familiar, 12 U.S. Code § 411 and
Federal Reserve Act Section 16
1. Issuance of Federal Reserve notes; nature of obligation; where redeemable 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 hereby 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.

So they have you using their promissory notes as money! Why are you using them?

Its like a mining operation, slaves do the work unknowingly; you bring it gold, then silver, then copper. then eventually your are no longer needed. Wicked.

So if you disagree with the current non-coinage methods that have been successful here (receiving partial or full refunds based on those methods), then you are implying that the IRS is ignoring these methods at the moment, but could very well pull a 'Pete Hendrickson' mandate to come down on these filings at some future time. As I have said in the past, it would not surprise me if that ever occurred. However, if that were true, I would think it would have started to occur already (IRS/Treasury push-back). Otherwise maybe the volume of RILM is so low that it is not a concern to them at this time. But again, why wouldn't they start hammering these filings regardless? If there is money to steal then they surely will do so. It is a bit of a mystery at this point. Perhaps the current methods are acceptable to the IRS in the overall intent and true spirit of "lawful money", as we know it to be intended (U.S. Notes/coinage).

Something else to ponder relative to your notation, "Look familiar..." i.e. the pseduo-USC-411-language you reference on the actual bill ("THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER...AND IS REDEEMABLE IN LAWFUL MONEY OR AT ANY FEDERAL RESERVE BANK")...

So the note is legal tender and not 'money' until redeemed. Thus we are given a choice according to that note's language, no?

"REDEEMABLE IN LAWFUL MONEY" ...

"AT THE UNITED STATES TREASURY" (their/your 'money' - no further obligation on the redemption directly from the Treasury)

OR

"AT ANY FEDERAL RESERVE BANK" (their 'money' - an obligation on the person redeeming their instrument of private credit; to
pay a 'fee' ('income' tax) for the privilege of using their 'money' via that instrument and thru the Treasury as 'middle man').

So yes, you have an argument/point that "lawful money" could be interpreted as 'FRS money', but we DO have a choice in how we redeem (see above). So far, it appears that the IRS/Treasury are honoring our check/deposit-slip redemption language relative to choice number one above (directly/solely with/from the Treasury). Why would one need to be specific about stating the 12 USC 411 redemption language on the instruments? BECAUSE the default redemption choice is thru the FRS, the notes bearing their stated instrument (FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE) at the top of the bill. Thus, it is the OTHER choice we are making with that specific language ("AT THE UNITED STATES TREASURY"). If the law was written to mean redeeming your pay literally "AT THE UNITED STATES TREASURY" in D.C, then perhaps we should all open accounts at the Treasury if that is even possible. However, I highly doubt that a restriction so severe was the intent when the law was written, to avoid using FRS money.

This is how I am seeing it. Just my observations.

P.S. addendum: this discussion is why I am contemplating using language such as: "Lawful money demanded solely with the U.S. Treasury per 12 USC 411 & full discharge demanded for all transactions per 95a(2)". I'm not sure I can be more specific as to the entity-choices designated in the USC 411 language (corresponding to the choices on the FRN's themselves) without adding "do not endorse private credit of the FRS".