Clarity please

[shikamaru]

Shik, re-read pages 6 and 7 of this doc: Lawful Money

I think there may be a distinction between "lawful money" and "lawful money of the U.S." That distinction being who issues it. Both may be lawful (authorized by law) but one is issued by a private bank and the other by the Treasury. I don't know for sure, but it seems to fit. At any rate does adding "of the U.S." make it any less effective?

Bank credit becomes legal tender when mandated by a government to be accepted for payment of debt by creditors.
Legal tender laws are an obligation on creditors, not debtors.

Lawful money has a wider significance than legal tender according to Shoonra the Useful .

[Keith Alan]

Bank credit becomes legal tender when mandated by a government to be accepted for payment of debt by creditors.
Legal tender laws are an obligation on creditors, not debtors.

Lawful money has a wider significance than legal tender according to Shoonra the Useful .

And creditors, having been obliged to receive legal tender, can then find remedy by demanding lawful money at any Federal Reserve bank. That much seems clear.

[David Merrill]

And creditors, having been obliged to receive legal tender, can then find remedy by demanding lawful money at any Federal Reserve bank. That much seems clear.

That sheds some great light, thank you.



Endorsers receive the benefit of being a creditor but never collect on the benefit (consideration) thus rendering the contract "naked".

[Keith Alan]

Yes I suppose it does strengthen the argument for demanding lawful money. The more I learn about this, the more I'm stymied by government's apparently deliberate obfuscation of what otherwise should be a clear and simple procedure.

They hide the remedy, withold US notes from circulation, and require unreasonable conditions to exercise what plainly is a civil right.

[David Merrill]

Yes I suppose it does strengthen the argument for demanding lawful money. The more I learn about this, the more I'm stymied by government's apparently deliberate obfuscation of what otherwise should be a clear and simple procedure.

They hide the remedy, withold US notes from circulation, and require unreasonable conditions to exercise what plainly is a civil right.

I think the government has been by and large replaced by a central banking cartel, a public trust, named the Federal Reserve System. It is as though Congress has become a subservient agent of the Fed.

[Keith Alan]

I think the government has been by and large replaced by a central banking cartel, a public trust, named the Federal Reserve System. It is as though Congress has become a subservient agent of the Fed.

That appears to be the case. It does literally look like the US went into receivership to the Fed, and is now working for the Fed collecting revenues.

[David Merrill]

Yes I suppose it does strengthen the argument for demanding lawful money. The more I learn about this, the more I'm stymied by government's apparently deliberate obfuscation of what otherwise should be a clear and simple procedure.

They hide the remedy, withold US notes from circulation, and require unreasonable conditions to exercise what plainly is a civil right.

It does literally look like the US went into receivership to the Fed, and is now working for the Fed collecting revenues.

That is probably the best mental model. Thanks!

To the dishonesty - I think it is our fault that we do not know how to access the law. I have the federal repository available and have learned a lot there. The real dishonesty would seem to be keeping the US notes pegged to a reserve currency when the US notes cannot be used for a reserve currency. Look a the statute and notes. They did this by bundling US notes into US currency notes, a larger package of lawful moneys.

(a) The Secretary of the Treasury may issue United States currency notes. The notes—

(1) are payable to bearer; and
(2) shall be in a form and in denominations of at least one dollar that the Secretary prescribes.

(b) The amount of United States currency notes outstanding and in circulation—

(1) may not be more than $300,000,000; and
(2) may not be held or used for a reserve.

In the section, the words “United States currency notes” are substituted for “United States notes” for clarity and consistency in the revised title.

[Keith Alan]

It does literally look like the US went into receivership to the Fed, and is now working for the Fed collecting revenues.

That is probably the best mental model. Thanks!

To the dishonesty - I think it is our fault that we do not know how to access the law. I have the federal repository available and have learned a lot there. The real dishonesty would seem to be keeping the US notes pegged to a reserve currency when the US notes cannot be used for a reserve currency. Look a the statute and notes. They did this by bundling US notes into US currency notes, a larger package of lawful moneys.

I've thought about this too, but when you demand redemption in lawful money today, perhaps you are receiving an entirely different kind of currency. It still looks like an FRN, but you're liening the Treasury's seal and signatures, not the Fed's credit. I'm kind of thinking out loud here, but clearly you're not receiving a US note.

Now if that's the case, what is it? It's not hard money, because it's pegged to a reserve currency. It must be another form of credit, but one where the liability for it is with the US, and not the holder.

PS - It just occurred to me: lawful money not in the form of US notes or other lawful money must be the fruit of a constructive trust. You're creating it by operation of law.

[Working Dog]

A thread of this nature always makes this definition from Webster's 1828 dictionary flash in my mind.

1828 Definition


FRAUD, n. [L. fraus.]


Deceit; deception; trick; artifice by which the right or interest of another is injured; a stratagem intended to obtain some undue advantage; an attempt to gain or the obtaining of an advantage over another by imposition or immoral means, particularly deception in contracts, or bargain and sale, either by stating falsehoods, or suppressing truth.


The last words - suppressing truth - seems to be what we are being exposed to. Congress started suppressing truth a long time ago. I believe truth is usually found at the beginning.

[David Merrill]

I've thought about this too, but when you demand redemption in lawful money today, perhaps you are receiving an entirely different kind of currency. It still looks like an FRN, but you're liening the Treasury's seal and signatures, not the Fed's credit. I'm kind of thinking out loud here, but clearly you're not receiving a US note.

Now if that's the case, what is it? It's not hard money, because it's pegged to a reserve currency. It must be another form of credit, but one where the liability for it is with the US, and not the holder.

PS - It just occurred to me: lawful money not in the form of US notes or other lawful money must be the fruit of a constructive trust. You're creating it by operation of law.

Federal Reserve Notes are also obligations of the United States. See the second sentence of §411. Therefore I think you are saying the same thing a different way. Pegging US notes to FRNs by bundling them into United States currency notes has never made sense in honor to me. I believe that they had to do that to call Title 31 positive law. But pegging a currency to a reserve currency that cannot be used for a reserve currency has never added up to me. I think that is where Congress went criminal syndicalism right there.

I would certainly appreciate anybody who can explain it so that it makes honest sense.

The last words - suppressing truth - seems to be what we are being exposed to. Congress started suppressing truth a long time ago. I believe truth is usually found at the beginning.

What he said!