Page 6 of 17 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 163

Thread: Redemption of Lawful Money at US Bank

  1. #51
    It is no accident that the United States is without a dollar unit coin. In recent years the Eisenhower dollar coin received widespread acceptance, but the Treasury minted them in limited number which encouraged hoarding. This same fate befell the Kennedy half dollars, which circulated as silver sandwiched clads between 1965-1969 and were hoarded for their intrinsic value and not spent. Next came the Susan B. Anthony dollar, an awkward coin which was instantly rejected as planned. The remaining unit is the privately issued Federal Reserve note unit dollar with no viable competitors. Back in 1935 the Fed had persuaded the Treasury to discontinue minting silver dollars because the public preferred them over dollar bills. That the public money system has become awkward, discouraging its use, is no accident. It was planned that way.

    A major purpose behind the 16th Amendment was to give Congress authority to enforce private law collections of revenue. Congress had the plenary power to collect income taxes arising from government granted privileges long before the 16th Amendment was ratified, and the amendment was unnecessary, except to give Congress the added power to enforce collections under private law: i.e., income from whatever source. So, the Fed got its amendment and its private income tax, which is a banker's dream but a nightmare for everyone else. Through the combined operation of the Fed and H. J.R. 192, the United States pays exorbitant interest whenever it uses its own money deposited with the Fed, and the people pay outrageous income taxes for the privilege of living and working in their own country, robbed of their wealth and separated from their rights, laboring under a tax system written by a cabal of loan shark bankers and rubber stamped by a spineless Congress.

    Congress has the power to abolish the Federal Reserve System and thus destroy the private credit system. However, the people have it within their power to strip the Fed of its powers, rescind private credit and get the bankers to pay off the National Debt should Congress fail to act. The key to all this is 12 USC 411, which declares that Federal Reserve notes shall be redeemed in lawful money at any Federal Reserve bank. Lawful money is defined as all the coins, notes, bills, bonds and securities of the United States: 'Julliard v. Greenman' 110 U.S. 421, 448 (1884); whereas public money is the lawful money declared by Congress as a legal tender for debts (31 USC 5103); 524 F.2d 629 (1974). anyone can present Federal Reserve notes to any Federal Reserve bank and demand redemption in public money -- i.e., legal tender United States notes and coins. A Federal Reserve note is a fixed obligation or evidence of indebtedness which pledges redemption (12 USC 411) in public money to the note holder.

    The Fed maintains a ready supply of United States notes in hundred dollar denominations for redemption purposes should it be required, and coins are available to satisfy claims for smaller amounts. However, should the general public decide to redeem large amounts of private credit for public money, a financial melt-down within the Fed would quickly occur. The process works like this. Suppose $1000 in Federal Reserve notes are presented for redemption in public money. To raise $1000 in public money the Fed must surrender U.S. Bonds in that amount to the Treasury in exchange for the public money demanded (assuming that the Fed had no public money on hand). In so doing $1000 of the National Debt would be paid off by the Fed and thus cancelled.

    Can you imagine the result if large amounts of Federal Reserve notes were redeemed on a regular, ongoing basis? Private credit would be withdrawn from circulation and replaced with public money, and with each turning of the screw the Fed would be obliged to pay off more of the National Debt. Should the Fed refuse to redeem its notes in public money, then the fiction that private credit is used voluntarily would become unsustainable. If the use of private credit becomes compulsory, then the obligation to make a return of income is voided. If the Fed is under no obligation to redeem its notes, then no one has an obligation to make a return of income. It is that simple! Federal Reserve notes are not money and cannot be tendered when money is demanded: 105 So. 305 (1925). Moreover, the Ninth Circuit rejected the argument that a $50 Federal Reserve note be redeemed in gold or silver coin after specie coinage had been rescinded but upheld the right of the note holder to redeem his note in current public money (31 USC 392; rev., 5103): 524 F.2d 629 (1974); 12 USC 411.

    It would be advantageous to close out all bank accounts, acquire a home safe, settle all debts in cash with public money and use U.S. postal money orders for remittances. Whenever a check is received, present it to the bank of issue and demand cash in public money. This will place banks in a vulnerable position, forcing them to draw off their assets. Through their insatiable greed, bankers have over extended, making banks quite illiquid. Should the people suddenly demand public money for their deposits and for checks received, many banks will collapse and be foreclosed by those demanding public money. Banks by their very nature are citadels of usury and sin, and the most patriotic service one could perform is to obligate bankers to redeem private credit. When the first Federal Reserve note is presented to the Fed for redemption, the process of ousting the private credit system will commence and will not end until the Fed and the banking system nurtured by it collapse. Coins comprise less than five percent of the currency, and current law limits the amount of United States notes in circulation to $300 million (31 USC 5115). The private credit system is exceedingly over extended compared with the supply of public money, and a small minority working in concert can easily collapse the private credit system and oust the Fed by demanding redemption of private credit. If the Fed disappeared tomorrow, income taxes on wages and salaries would vanish with it.

    Moreover, the States are precluded from taxing United States notes: 4 Wheat. 316. According to Bouvier, public money is the money which Congress can tax for public purposes mandated by the Constitution. Private credit when collected in revenue can fund programs and be spent for purposes not cognizable by the Constitution. We have in effect two competing governments: the United States Government and the Federal Government. The first is the government of the people, whereas the Federal Government is founded upon private law and funded by private credit. What we really have is private government. Federal agencies and activities funded by the private credit system include Social Security, bail out loans to bankers via the IMF, bail out loans to Chrysler, loans to students, FDIC, FBI, supporting the U.N., foreign aid, funding undeclared wars, etc., all of which would be unsustainable if funded by taxes raised pursuant to the Constitution.

    The personal income tax is not a true tax but rather an obligation or burden which is voluntarily assumed, since revenue is raised through voluntary contributions and can be spent for purposes unknown to the Constitution. Notice how the IRS declares in its publications that everyone is expected to contribute his fair share. True taxes must be spent for public purposes which the Constitution recognizes. Taxation for the purpose of giving or loaning money to private business enterprises and individuals is illegal: 15 AmRep 39; Cooley, 'Prin. Const. Law', ch. IV. Revenue derived from the federal income tax goes into a private slush fund raised from voluntary contributions, and Congress is not restricted by the Constitution when spending or disbursing the proceeds from this private fund. It is incorrect to say that the personal federal income tax is unconstitutional, since the tax code is private law and resides outside the Constitution. The Internal Revenue Code is non-constitutional because it enforces an obligation which is voluntarily incurred through an act of the individual who binds himself. Fighting the Internal Revenue Code on constitutional grounds is wasted energy.

    The way to bring it all down is to attack the Federal Reserve System and its banking cohorts by demanding that private credit be redeemed, or by convincing Congress to abolish the Fed.

    Never forget that private credit is funding the destruction of our country.

    Page 3 of 3
    Last edited by Chex; 01-04-12 at 11:45 PM.

  2. #52
    Great post!
    Thanks

  3. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Lawful View Post
    Great post!
    Thanks

    I have noted it is important to remember the 1984 context of that article.

  4. #54
    Sorry OT don’t mean to change this subject on you: you can always get back to it.

    You correct David, it’s all changed from 1984.

    Now here is something a little bit more up to speed.

    Kind of has reference to the lawful money we all want in exchange for FRN’s.

    All the hype about National Defense Authorization Act:
    http://www.digitalprecursor.org/entr...a-Battleground

    Most people are quoted saying:

    All the relief is what most people think is the answer: need to read 1031 first.
    Meaning: of this quoted passage is – ”they can but are not required to detain us citizens”

    From another blog or any other blog:

    First, read Section 1031 subparagraph (b) Covered Persons. If you meet that definition than you should be worried.

    Next, read Section 1031 subparagraph (e) Authorities. It's very clear that this section relating to the detention of US citizens does not "affect existing law or authorities". Let me explain that to you. That means that your rights under the law as a US citizen can not be circumvented by this section.

    Last, read Section 1032 Requirement For Military Custody subparagraph (b) (1) United States Citizens - "The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."

    Now read The Fourteenth Amendment: (maybe Wikipedia). They didn’t write this for “that blacks could not be citizens of the United States” it’s a contract that they (blacks) also pay the “use” of private credit.

    If they do pass this bill onto the 14th “person” my question is what or whose identification are the “residents” need to carry now?
    I don’t think the state id is going to be enough.

    Here’s the bill:
    The bill http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:s.01867:

    Let’s dig a little deeper on the Amendments For S.1867

    The Cosponsors: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...2:SP01126:@@@P

    Number 62: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...emp/~bdaYdRJ:1[1-381](Amendments_For_S.1867)&./temp/~bdPe5G

    TEXT OF AMENDMENTS:
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...W3YQF:e499778:

    SEC. 1099. ATTEMPT TO EVADE OR DEFEAT TAX.

    SEC. 1099. ATTEMPT TO EVADE OR DEFEAT TAX.
    Section 7201 of the Internal Revenue Code is amended--
    (1) by striking ``$100,000'' and inserting ``$500,000''; and
    (2) by striking ``$500,000'' and inserting ``$2,500,000''.

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...W3YQF:e499778:

    Thank you Dianne "public"

    If you "look" Low and behold you find there are more “rules” that are ready to be implemented for you're 14th amendment “person”:

    Better have those 1040’s in proper order for that 1040 statue.

    Sure: All the relief is what most people think is the answer “us citizens.”

  5. #55
    I would like to point out that I have not received a response to my last post, especially the following:

    I don't see any of my FRN bills labeled "US Treasury note." I think what I need to find out is what are the necessary elements that legally make something a note.

    When I take a check to a bank and sign it in order to cash it, I thought I was signing to transfer payment to my account, not to guarantee the check. How does signing the check on the back obligate me to anything except to pay a bounced check fee if it bounces?

    Obligation:
    2 : an inscription (as a signature or notation) on a document or instrument
    esp
    : an inscription usu. on the back of a negotiable instrument that transfers or guarantees the instrument

  6. #56
    Since this remedy seems to be something which could bring down the Fed and the IRS, I wonder why there is not more care taken to explain it to someone who could potentially spread it broadly...

  7. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by freedave View Post
    Thank you again, Martin.

    I see all the things you mention on the $5 and $20 bills I have, except for the line you show, which I do see on the $100 bill I have.

    I don't see any of the bills labeled "US Treasury note." I think what I need to find out is what are the necessary elements that legally make something a note.

    When I take a check to a bank and sign it in order to cash it, I thought I was signing to transfer payment to my account, not to guarantee the check. How does signing the check on the back obligate me to anything except to pay a bounced check fee if it bounces?

    Obligation:
    2 : an inscription (as a signature or notation) on a document or instrument
    esp
    : an inscription usu. on the back of a negotiable instrument that transfers or guarantees the instrument

    I am in favor of stopping the fractional reserve creation of currency, paying down the national debt, living a life that does not harm others and eliminating the debt-money system.

    I am trying to learn, understand and evaluate these principles and the remedy.
    It is obviously a note signed by the Secretary and the Treasurer. It is regulated and issued by the Federal Reserve unless you demand the cash in lawful money.

    Indeed it is a mystery how this remedy seems so obvious as to escape most people. There are a myriad of explanations though. I perceive carefully regulated release valve systems for a highly compressed information infrastucture. In other words if everybody saw it the Fed would already be abolished.

  8. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    It is obviously a note signed by the Secretary and the Treasurer. It is regulated and issued by the Federal Reserve unless you demand the cash in lawful money.

    Indeed it is a mystery how this remedy seems so obvious as to escape most people. There are a myriad of explanations though. I perceive carefully regulated release valve systems for a highly compressed information infrastucture. In other words if everybody saw it the Fed would already be abolished.
    Yes, I see that it is a note signed by the Secretary and the Treasurer, but it says, "Federal Reserve Note." It is not clear to me that by "non-endorsing" a check, the Federal Reserve Notes given in return for the check become lawful money. How does that work and what is the evidence for it?

  9. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by freedave View Post
    Yes, I see that it is a note signed by the Secretary and the Treasurer, but it says, "Federal Reserve Note." It is not clear to me that by "non-endorsing" a check, the Federal Reserve Notes given in return for the check become lawful money. How does that work and what is the evidence for it?
    Dave, The note is of NO SIGNIFICANCE. It could say The Federal Reserve Monopoly on the note. It doesn't matter. What matters is your non-endorsement. When you sign the check normally without the redemption you are bonding your substance to the check and the money that is given to you. If you receive a check more than 600 dollars and you don't redeem it, you are liable for the duty or fee of it's use (taxation). Since lawful money is legislated into existence by an act of congress it falls outside the scope of direct taxation. Because the government tried taxing lawful money and the supreme court told them that it was unconstitutional as all direct unapportioned taxes are. HOWEVER if you endorse PRIVATE CREDIT you are agreeing to a contract and you are liable for the fee's of it's use. Thats why tax protestors get into trouble is they don't realize they are endorsing private credit and are liable for it's use. The constitution gives us unlimited right to contract. It is up to us to determine what contracts are beneficial and which ones are not.

    Hopefully that makes sense and you're able to get a clearer picture of why the note they give you is of no importance. It's your demand in lawful money that is of substance.
    Last edited by Ares; 01-18-12 at 04:48 AM.

  10. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Ares View Post
    Dave, The note is of NO SIGNIFICANCE. It could say The Federal Reserve Monopoly on the note. It doesn't matter. What matters is your non-endorsement. When you sign the check normally without the redemption you are bonding your substance to the check and the money that is given to you. If you receive a check more than 600 dollars and you don't redeem it, you are liable for the duty or fee of it's use (taxation). Since lawful money is legislated into existence by an act of congress it falls outside the scope of direct taxation. Because the government tried taxing lawful money and the supreme court told them that it was unconstitutional as all direct unapportioned taxes are. HOWEVER if you endorse PRIVATE CREDIT you are agreeing to a contract and you are liable for the fee's of it's use. Thats why tax protestors get into trouble is they don't realize they are endorsing private credit and are liable for it's use. The constitution gives us unlimited right to contract. It is up to us to determine what contracts are beneficial and which ones are not.

    Hopefully that makes sense and you're able to get a clearer picture of why the note they give you is of no importance. It's your demand in lawful money that is of substance.
    Thank you for responding, Ares.

    What does "bonding your substance" mean?

    Where is it stated that I would be liable for a duty or fee of for use of FRNs if I do not redeem them for lawful money?

    Where is it stated that if I endorse private credit I am agreeing to a contract and am liable for fees for its use?

    And if the contract is not disclosed, how could it be a valid contract?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •