Please give further evidence that will support or debunk, thus giving validity, either way. Paragraph 12 as seen at http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/...38/182/211365/ in the US v Rickman 638 F.2d 182 case states,

"Defendant argues that the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, § 8, United States Constitution. We have held to the contrary. United States v. Ware, 10 Cir., 608 F.2d 400, 402-403. We find no validity in the distinction which defendant draws between "lawful money" and "legal tender." Money is a medium of exchange. Legal tender is money which the law requires a creditor to receive in payment of an obligation. The aggregate of the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution includes broad and comprehensive authority over revenue, finance, and currency. Norman v. B. & O. R. Co., 294 U.S. 240, 55 S.Ct. 407, 79 L.Ed. 885. In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money. Defendant received Federal Reserve Notes when he cashed his pay checks and used those notes to pay his personal expenses. He obtained and used lawful money."


Please answer the following from the quote above:

1. How can "we" (assuming judiciary until informed otherwise) hold to the contrary that FRN which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, § 8, United States Constitution, when 12 USC 411 states, "They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...," thus clearly making a distinction that Federal reserve notes CANNOT be deemed "lawful money" in and of themselves without further specification or promulgated stipulation thus converting them to lawful money?

2. They further state "lawful money" and "legal tender" are the same by stating, "no validity in the distinction which defendant draws." Where does Congress states these are one in the same allowing for such a ruling?

3. I find this contradictory. Above is stated, "Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money. Defendant received Federal Reserve Notes when he cashed his pay checks and used those notes to pay his personal expenses. He obtained and used lawful money."

a. If Congress intended for legal tender and lawful money to be the same, why wouldn't they state, "Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in legal tender?" OR lawful money redeemable in lawful money?

b. How can Congress declare FRN are legal tender redeemable (a buying back, repurchase of notes by paying their value to their holders, title of property restored free and clear) in lawful money - they obvious recognize FRN as notes and evidence of debt, and therefore lawful money cannot be debt.) in lawful money AND then this court state that, "he obtained and used lawful money?" Their statement can only be interpreted that he obtained lawful money and used lawful money. What does the court know that I don't as evidence that he "obtained" lawful money? Point me to the actual evidence please (not theories).

4. Being that FRN are issued only "for the purpose of making advances," for what are these advances made? I have heard over and over that these advances are the result of the commercial energy of the living man and that one's indorsement is the commitment of that commercial energy. Is this true or is there some other basis upon which the United States has acquired credit with which it can obtain advances? (citations if possible)

5. If #4 is true, how does my living indorsement of the strawman's or alter-ego's "employment" check constitute obtaining lawful money as stated by the court?