Very interesting development regarding online payment from lawful money account

[mikecz]

Thank you!!! Wonderful.

I had this crazy idea on the way home. Imagine we get two amicable parties to sue each other to formally have a case law example? This could be set up in a number of ways, a contract of sorts, but most importantly, the language of the suit could be designed to force a clear definition of lawful money from the court.

This isn't perfect and can be refined, but just an example here.

Say I contract with another party for a good, lets just say something cheap like a table, and require payment only in the form of lawful money of the united states. The person buying the table offers FRNs and I refuse the payment, as I claim it is not lawful money. I'm trying to think how to frame this so there is no wiggle room for the courts. I suppose FRNs are legal tender and must be accepted for payment, but, as stated in some other cases, like at restaurants, legal tender must be accepted, but for things like convenience stores, or vending machines, certain types can be excluded, as it is a private contract. We, the two parties, could disagree on what the definition of lawful money of the united states in the contract (which would be in writing). It could start at the small claims level (its only $81), though we might not get a completely lawful result, I think it might be a stepping stone for an appeal, etc.

One better would be an argument claiming a difference in value. Something like, I've found FRNs to have depreciated rapidly in value, and demand payment in lawful money. Currently lawful money was last pegged at 42.22 per ounce gold, therefore my demand is either payment in lawful money, or a conversion of said value in FRNs...

Just thinking out loud here.

[Michael Joseph]

USA v. Thomas 319 F.3d 640

Paper currency, in the form of the Federal Reserve Note, is defined as an “obligation[ ] of the United States” that may be “redeemed in lawful money on demand.” 12 U.S.C. § 411 (2002). These bills are not “money” per se...

The last part of that quote from USA v. Luther THOMAS is interesting. See the distinction FRNS are not Money. So then 12USC411 makes it clear they can be Redeemed ON DEMAND in Lawful MONEY. So the operation of Law requires a CHOICE.

Balaam cannot curse you. You can submit to Tribute or you can choose to make a Demand. In you lies the Redemption of the Debt. Has to be because as an operation of law the Redemption requires a Demand be it Oral or Expressly written. If I was engaged in banking I would prefer the latter, then there are no presumptions to overcome. However, the Right to issue FRNS is in the Federal Reserve Board by way of Contract with the Congress; the Obligation for said Notes lies within the United States by formal agreement codified at Title 12 USC 411. Or if you desire the Congressional Record which is THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA in Congress Assembled - Reference the Federal Reserve Act.

[Michael Joseph]

USA v. Thomas 319 F.3d 640

Paper currency, in the form of the Federal Reserve Note, is defined as an “obligation[ ] of the United States” that may be “redeemed in lawful money on demand.” 12 U.S.C. § 411 (2002). These bills are not “money” per se...

Now where it gets real interesting - at least to me - is WHY does the Obligation reside in the United States and NOT in the United States of America? In my opinion, this is because the Sovereigns forming the Corporate Body known as the United States pledged as Surety their own Estates, Honor and Lives - as Surety for the debts of the United States of America. Or as Washington called them the [Dis] United States of America. So then the debtor is slave to the lender. And the Obligation and therefore the Rights that derive from those Obligations are therefore IN the United States.

[LearnTheLaw]

The last part of that quote from USA v. Luther THOMAS is interesting. See the distinction FRNS are not Money. So then 12USC411 makes it clear they can be Redeemed ON DEMAND in Lawful MONEY. So the operation of Law requires a CHOICE.

Balaam cannot curse you. You can submit to Tribute or you can choose to make a Demand. In you lies the Redemption of the Debt. Has to be because as an operation of law the Redemption requires a Demand be it Oral or Expressly written. If I was engaged in banking I would prefer the latter, then there are no presumptions to overcome. However, the Right to issue FRNS is in the Federal Reserve Board by way of Contract with the Congress; the Obligation for said Notes lies within the United States by formal agreement codified at Title 12 USC 411. Or if you desire the Congressional Record which is THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA in Congress Assembled - Reference the Federal Reserve Act.

maybe this will shed a little more light on the matter?


Westfall vs. Braley, 10 Ohio 188, 75 Am. Dec. 509:

“Bank notes are the representative of money, and circulate as such,
only by the general consent and usage of the community. But this
consent and usage are based upon the convertibility of such notes
into coin, at the pleasure of the holder, upon their presentation to
the bank for redemption. This is the vital principle which sustains
their character as money. So long as they are in fact what they
purport to be, payable on demand, common consent gives them the
ordinary attributes of money. But upon failure of the bank by which
they are issued, when its doors are closed, and its inability to
redeem its bills is openly avowed, they instantly lose the character of money,
their circulation as currency ceases with the usage and consent upon
which it rested, and the notes become the mere dishonored and
depreciated evidences of debt . . . It is only upon this idea that they
can honestly be tendered as money, and when accepted as such,
under the same supposition, the mutual mistake of facts should no
more be permitted to benefit one party, or prejudice the other, than
if the notes had been spurious, or payment had been made in base
or adulterated coin."

[Chex]

These banknotes were a form of representative money which could be converted into gold or silver by application at the bank. Since banks issued notes far in excess of the gold and silver they kept on deposit, sudden loss of public confidence in a bank could precipitate mass redemption of banknotes and result in bankruptcy.

The use of bank notes issued by private commercial banks as legal tender has gradually been replaced by the issuance of bank notes authorized and controlled by national governments. The Bank of England was granted sole rights to issue banknotes in England after 1694. In the USA, the Federal Reserve Bank was granted similar rights after its establishment in 1913. Until recently, these government-authorized currencies were forms of representative money, since they were partially backed by gold or silver and were theoretically convertible into gold or silver.

Definition of 'Lawful Money'
Any form of currency issued by the United States Treasury and not the Federal Reserve System, including gold and silver coins, Treasury notes, and Treasury bonds. Lawful money stands in contrast to fiat money, to which the government assigns value although it has no intrinsic value of its own and is not backed by reserves. Fiat money includes legal tender such as paper money, checks, drafts and bank notes.

Also known as "specie", which means "in actual form."

Investopedia explains 'Lawful Money'

Oddly enough, the dollar bills that we carry around in our wallets are not considered lawful money. The notation on the bottom of a U.S. dollar bill reads "Legal Tender for All Debts, Public and Private", and is issued by the U.S. Federal Reserve, not the U.S. Treasury. Legal tender can be exchanged for an equivalent amount of lawful money, but effects such as inflation can change the value of fiat money. Lawful money is said to be the most direct form of ownership, but for purposes of practicality it has little use in direct transactions between parties anymore.

Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/...#ixzz2LIHcDxpT

[mikecz]

David maybe you can answer this...

What is the difference between this notation..

DEPOSITED FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
OR EXCHANGED FOR
NON-REDEEMABLE FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES

and...

REDEEMED IN LAWFUL MONEY
PURSUANT TO TITLE 12 USC 411

One seems to require Fed Reserve notes, the other...lawful money. Both have posts saying they aren't taxable. Not sure...

[David Merrill]

Non-redeemable Federal Reserve notes are US notes in the form of Fed notes. They cannot be redeemed in any higher form of currency. Federal Reserve notes can be redeemed in lawful money, according to Congress and the courts.

[mikecz]

Non-redeemable Federal Reserve notes are US notes in the form of Fed notes. They cannot be redeemed in any higher form of currency. Federal Reserve notes can be redeemed in lawful money, according to Congress and the courts.

Ok,

I have a stamp here with the language of 12 USC 411, and just want to make sure we are accomplishing the same end. Basically we are saying the same thing but in different ways.


But this guys argument below is a little different. The point I don't get "a barter transaction of two different kinds of things being traded even-up for equal value are not taxable, there was no sale or financial gain just a private trade." "No one gets paid for anything with anything of valuable substance.

This guys argument...

"This is all based upon what is lawful money of value and HJR-192 (House Joint Resolution-192, June 5, 1933) , that none is in circulation for private use by the public. There are no lawful dollars out there only credit and debt ledger entrees, and no one gets paid for anything with anything of valuable substance. The IRS can’t tax credit, debt, or barter. The Congress licensed the use of FRNs to be used as money, as a medium or exchange for discharge of public and private debt into the US bankruptcy. At that point FRNs became contraband and that gives the BATF and the IRS jurisdiction over its use and transfer. Just like trafficking in alcohol, guns, drugs, or tobacoo , or other substances subject to excise taxes.

There are many types of commercial paper that properly prepared can discharge debt other than FRNs but few know how to use them. Using FRNs is licensed money laundering, plain and simple.

When I get a check, it says “dollars” on the front. If I endorse it openly, I just testified I received dollars of valuable substance, even though there are none. When I stamp or write:

DEPOSITED FOR CredIT ON ACCOUNT
OR EXCHANGED FOR
NON-redEEMABLE FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES

I just corrected the error on the front and converted the check into a bill of exchange. In other words: a barter transaction of two different kinds of things being traded even-up for equal value are not taxable, there was no sale or financial gain just a private trade. "

He states his stamp is saying he isn't getting anything of valuable substance. It's the "illegal" valuable substance that is taxable. The argument I've formed from the website is quite different, lawful money isn't taxable because it isn't private credit. Maybe I'm going in circles here, but I'm not quite getting them two notations stating the same thing...

[shikamaru]

maybe this will shed a little more light on the matter?


Westfall vs. Braley, 10 Ohio 188, 75 Am. Dec. 509:

“Bank notes are the representative of money, and circulate as such,
only by the general consent and usage of the community. But this
consent and usage are based upon the convertibility of such notes
into coin, at the pleasure of the holder, upon their presentation to
the bank for redemption. This is the vital principle which sustains
their character as money. So long as they are in fact what they
purport to be, payable on demand, common consent gives them the
ordinary attributes of money. But upon failure of the bank by which
they are issued, when its doors are closed, and its inability to
redeem its bills is openly avowed, they instantly lose the character of money,
their circulation as currency ceases with the usage and consent upon
which it rested, and the notes become the mere dishonored and
depreciated evidences of debt . . . It is only upon this idea that they
can honestly be tendered as money, and when accepted as such,
under the same supposition, the mutual mistake of facts should no
more be permitted to benefit one party, or prejudice the other, than
if the notes had been spurious, or payment had been made in base
or adulterated coin."

Holy crap!
Thank-you for this.

[David Merrill]

That makes me wonder if there is some kind of 100-year expiration of charter, maybe from the Bible somewhere?

Could it be that the Fed will be shutting its doors this Christmas?