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.
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.
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".
This is the real point about the Diminished Money Counterclaim thread. Thank you for such a delightful connection point - your post!
Money is defined in Blacks. Money does not embrace notes ...
The 1792 Coinage Act has NOT been amended. Sections 1-19 remain intact, unaltered, and have not been repealed. Section 20 of the act was moved to Revised Statute 3563 and is still in effect as well. Here are 2 court cases and one law review that reference that section as being intact and relevant today. http://www.mediafire.com/?36pin4jslin7rzq http://www.mediafire.com/?mzj14hxueejyh9o http://www.mediafire.com/?gg3vsfmyoab18sj In addition, in Johnson's speech on the implementation of the 1965 Coinage Act, he cleverly states that this act "supercedes" the 1792 Coinage Act. There is no term "supercede" to be found in Bouvier's or Blacks that I've found. So I went to Websters and one of the definitions of "supercede" is USURP. Fitting, ey? You cannot repeal by omission or by usurpation. Therefore, the 1792 Coinage Act is good law today. The last link above states as much.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote