In my pursuit of simpler explanations I find the fact that the Fed was designed in 1913 to be abolished by its own charter expiration (1933). That seems to be an easy way to explain it.
Now I cannot explain how since the only thing keeping the Fed going has been endorsement from people who hate the Fed - that the Fed has lasted this long!
People don't make the connection about the foundational nature of the "money" they are using.Originally Posted by David Merrill
Read: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/money-...omment-2362949
Note this paragraph: "If you could print a currency at no cost, that had no intrinsic value, and get the legal system to recognize it as the only legally permissibly 'tender' to satisfy all debt, public and private, would you print as much as you could, loan it out to as many entities and people as you could, and sit back, not caring whether 90% or 9% of the loans were repaid, since it cost you nothing to produce the loan, meaning that you can only gain assets (securitized) and indebt institutions (create indebted parties that you can then garnish), and literally lose not one atom of anything of inherent value?"
FRN's were given "legal tender" status in 1933. Between then and 1971 all other forms of "money" were eliminated from circulation except FRN's and current coin. True the statutes still exist for USN's but most people have no idea what they are, let alone ever seen one.
From the horse's mouth
US Treasury
Legal Tender Status
I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal?
The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.
More interesting information from the horse's mouth:
Let me ask: is this why banks are so interested in getting people to borrow from them?
US Treasury
What are Federal Reserve notes and how are they different from United States notes?
Federal Reserve notes are legal tender currency notes. The twelve Federal Reserve Banks issue them into circulation pursuant to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. A commercial bank belonging to the Federal Reserve System can obtain Federal Reserve notes from the Federal Reserve Bank in its district whenever it wishes. It must pay for them in full, dollar for dollar, by drawing down its account with its district Federal Reserve Bank.
Federal Reserve Banks obtain the notes from our Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP). It pays the BEP for the cost of producing the notes, which then become liabilities of the Federal Reserve Banks, and obligations of the United States Government.
Congress has specified that a Federal Reserve Bank must hold collateral equal in value to the Federal Reserve notes that the Bank receives. This collateral is chiefly gold certificates and United States securities. This provides backing for the note issue. The idea was that if the Congress dissolved the Federal Reserve System, the United States would take over the notes (liabilities). This would meet the requirements of Section 411, but the government would also take over the assets, which would be of equal value. Federal Reserve notes represent a first lien on all the assets of the Federal Reserve Banks, and on the collateral specifically held against them.
Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything. This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy. In another sense, because they are legal tender, Federal Reserve notes are "backed" by all the goods and services in the economy.
Is a lien on your personal assets from a bank collateral for the FRB as a part and parcel of its overall assets?
If not the property, than their interest in the property?
Last edited by shikamaru; 06-23-13 at 11:19 AM.
I'm trying to find this via some official source or document? Could you help me with the assertion above?
Money is gold, silver, and copper coin. Specie.
"Money" would be USNs, gold certificates, silver certificates, and the like.
I think I've found this one: The Legal Tender Act of 1862.
It is supported by deduction with the amendment to Title 12 USC §411. Look at the Notes.
1934—Act Jan. 30, 1934, struck out from last sentence provision permitting redemption in gold.
I can likely come up with better and more direct citations by looking. Thanks for asking.
It is a presumed contract that depends for its existence on the "taxpayer" being unaware of the contract (or in any case, how the contract was formed). I understand some suitors have made retroactive claims that no tax liability was incurred even prior to their knowledge of and use of the remedy in 12 USC S. 411 due to fraud by omission--and that this has reportedly become a less successful strategy over time.
IMHO, the fraud by omission assertion is likely to be ignored by IRS because IRS attorneys know that asserting fraud places the burden of proof upon the one making the assertion, and that this would be difficult to prove in court, while also somewhat changing the subject away from remedy. In other words, a presumed taxpayer defendant who relies on fraud by omission to defend against an obligation that was incurred (prior to demanding lawful money) may find his defense quickly ruled against, merely because he made a very difficult to prove assertion and could not meet the burden of proof for fraud. IRS could get a dismissal of such a claim without having to get into a discussion of lawful money. This may be why they are starting to ignore such assertions.
A stronger position is probably to assert that no contract was formed in the first place, using one or more of the affirmative defenses to performance of a contract described in the Restatements in the Uniform Commercial Code, e.g. no meeting of the minds, no intent to be bound, mistake of law, mistake of fact, failure of consideration, unconscionable contract (who would agree to convert his right to labor and earn a living into a taxable privilege, absent consideration?), none of which require one to prove fraudulent intent by any one.
Also, the U.S. Supreme Court stated in Brady v. United States (1970) that waivers of constitutional rights must be voluntary, knowing and intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the likely consequences.
This seems to me a much stronger position for getting IRS to back off liabilities incurred prior to discovering remedy than asserting "fraud by omission".
Having said that, perhaps a case might still be made (if necessary) for misrepresentation, if not fraud. In Rohwer and Skrocki's Contracts in a Nutshell,. p. 291 it states: "conduct designed to prevent or likely to prevent another from learning a fact is equivalent to an assertion that the fact does not exist."
Consider the following conduct and how it may have prevented you from learning about remedy sooner : removal (in 1964) from the FRN the statement that the note may be redeemed for lawful money? Or the Treasury failing to circulate U.S Notes for the past 42 years? These facts could be used in line with the claim that one would have demanded redemption from the first paycheck ever, if one had known the option existed.
Last edited by ManOntheLand; 06-23-13 at 08:45 PM.
Consider if I hold a Certificate saying that I can redeem said Certificate for property - then isn't that Certificate an INTEREST in the property? And since the property is clearly being held in trust - if it wasn't then you would not be carrying certificates - then the Trustee would have to give the interest in the property OR the property upon demand of the Certificate Bearer.
This was easily seen when the property was gold, silver or any TANGIBLE form of property. But what if the Property is INTANGIBLE. What if the REDEMPTION has to do with PROMISES held in TRUST. Isn't a Promise an EQUITABLE interest? Of course it is!
If I promise you I will do something, then you have equity coming to you according to my promise. I have a duty to perform upon my promise.
Notes are evidence of TRUST. If the Property is Lawful Money [monetary issue with certain obligations and therefore certain rights] then I must make a demand for it as before. The operation of law is the same - the holder of the certificate MUST make a demand.
The blessing is in the hand of the doer. Faith absent deeds is dead.
Lawful Money Trust Website
Divine Mind Community Call - Sundays 8pm EST
ONE man or woman can make a difference!
HJR-192 page 112/113
See page 9 of this pdf for a scan of the bill: http://freedom-school.com/money/fede...gal-tender.pdf
I am not sure if "money" is actually defined anywhere in U.S. law other than by giving examples, but "dollar" is certainly defined in U.S. law.
FRN's use the term "dollar" on them, yet since FRN's became no longer redeemable in gold, the Federal Reserve has zero connection to the public law definition of "dollar". The Federal Reserve is clearly operating under a different definition of the term "dollar" (private law or fiction of law definition).
This private law definition of "dollar" seems to be "one dollar United States note", since this seems to be all you are entitled to get from the Fed in exchange for a dollar FRN.
FRN's can no longer be redeemed for gold as of 1933, but the dollar itself continues to this day to be defined in public law as a given weight in gold. Therefore we have currency, we have lawful money, we have legal tender, we have notes, we even have coins, but none of them can be "dollars" according to the law of the land unless they are redeemable for a given weight of gold. Making it clear that Federal reserve Notes cannot possibly be lawful money according to public law.
The 1792 Coinage Act (amended in 1900 and still in effect today), states that a dollar is 25.8 grains or 1/20 of an oz of gold. The closest you could come to getting a dollar from Fed is to receive a U.S. Note, making it pretty clear that this is their private law definition of a "dollar".
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote