Make Demand At Treasury

[doug555]

Before you get too far along with your concept of reducing the (Federal Reserve) debt, let's look at how the banking system views your transaction. Suppose your employer (?) sends you a paycheck (actually sends a computer file from payroll to the bank, instructing them to credit your account). The "money" exists only as a computer balance in the employer's bank account. Since you noticed the bank that you want to redeem lawful money, the bank must credit your account with LM, ie, it must not add your new balance to their 'reserve balance' which they report weekly to the FR, and upon which they can advance fractional reserve lending to others. Your balance exists as LM, but there are no actual dollars involved. Now suppose you buy a car, pay the dealership $30k in LM; your LM balance is reduced by $30k. The dealership deposits your check in their Federal Reserve account, having endorsed the credit. Presto! the LM is now back to being 'fiat money,' now endorsed by the dealership. No new debt was accepted by you, so the FR debt was not reduced, it was just not enlarged by your non-endorsement. But as soon as you circulate (spend) your LM, it goes right back to being legal tender, and now can be used to increase fractional reserve lending (thus increasing the debt). If everyone would demand lawful money, the bank's fractional reserve lending balance would be driven to zero, and they could not increase the debt by creating more unbacked fiduciary media, but as long as the total users of LM remain trivial, there is no effect on the national (Federal Reserve) debt. Note also that the FR is creating over $1 trillion in new unbacked fiduciary media this year, by their program of buying $40 billion per month of bad MBS (Mortgage Backed Securities) paper from the banks and from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and $45 billion per month of new Treasury bonds (interest bearing debt notes). [see this link: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...improves.html] The 'money' the Fed creates when it buys the newly-issued Treasury bonds is actually just computer entries in the government accounts at various FR banks; these 'credits' are then transferred to SNAP cards, SS checks, and other government giveaway programs, and shows up as credits in those voter's bank accounts, thus increasing the reserve balance at those banks, thus allowing more creation of unbacked fiduciary media by those banks.

So the effect of demanding lawful money on reducing the national debt is trivial. The more important feature is the concept of removing your assets from admiralty to common law, and taking it outside the purview of Title 26, thus avoiding the irrecusable obligation to pay income taxes on the excised privilege of dealing in FR credit (which is an admission that you are bankrupt, and are not discharging the debt, merely promising to pay at some future date). By using LM, you are actually discharging your debt, paying in sound money, backed by silver (which has intrinsic value) not tendering elastic currency debt notes, which are promises to pay, not backed by anything but your future labor.

I agree that the effect of demanding lawful money for all transactions is MUCH greater at a PERSONAL level than the effect at the national debt level, due to few people doing it at this time.

However, the MAIN point I am trying to make, and which your LM/FRN transaction scenarios above support, is that both the FRN-based Debt and the USN-based Reduction are TRANSACTION-BASED! This is WHY the 1040 Supporting Schedule for Lawful Money Demand Reduction has to include the Withholding transactions - to reverse these corresponding unauthorized and un-bonded debt transactions.

I believe that these Withholding transactions transfer amounts to other Federal and State government agencies that are presuming these amounts to be FRN-based Debt funds, which are deposited in a bank and are included in their "reserve" amounts since they may have no notice (plausible deniability) to the contrary if the government agencies have not performed their fiduciary duty under the Principal-Agent Doctrine to pass along the substantive record one has made with one's local Federal Reserve member bank.

Therefore, the Form 1040 may be the only instrument that "catches" these "Mis-Takes" and enables the government agencies to correct their books and records and ledgers and truly settle (PAY) the corresponding obligations with the "For-Given" credit of the people held in trust for this purpose, and also then reverse the prime and derivative debts and their multiplied "ripples" as the diagram in this 'How Banks Work' article clearly illustrates.

NOTE: This diagram suggests that the effect on the national debt may not be so "trivial" after all. Such a lawful money reduction procedure, if done by everyone, would certainly improve our economy and national security!

[Freed Gerdes]

You are quite correct about the GROSS pay/withheld issue, Doug. And I agree that the legal issues are transaction based. And I concur that the Federal Reserve and its subsidiary corporations (IRS) presume that all transactions are conducted in their debt money (but a rebuttable presumption). I am retired and do not get paychecks with taxes already withheld, so had not considered that issue. The paycheck you deposit (in LM) is already reduced by the amounts withheld. However, if you redeem all your (now reduced) income in LM, you can ask for a full refund of all income taxes paid. Whether the IRS then unwinds these previously credited transactions I know not, but based on their disregard of other legal issues, I would guess they ignore them. I believe that all money collected by the IRS for the Federal Reserve is delivered to the IMF.

It is clear to me that the banksters intended ab initio to bankrupt the government and all businesses, as debt loaned at interest, and not invested in productive enterprises that earn a sufficient return to pay the interest, can have no other outcome. [the debtor is servant to the lender; by keeping everyone in debt, the banksters can live by the work of other's hands] Borrowing trillions to spend on social programs, which generate no return, makes this conclusion a slam dunk.

I suspect that the only record that is corrected is the total amount of FRN credit that you used, which is then the subject of income tax, and SS tax. (The IRS keeps a permanent record of your reported transactions in FRN's for your entire life, or until you opt out of Title 26.)

[Freed Gerdes]

How can LM - the way it currently manifests - be backed by silver? And how is LM not fractionalized, seeing that it is the resulting trust created by demanding redemption of fractionalized FRNs?

Lawful money is/was issued by the US Treasury, and was limited to $300 million because that was the amount of silver available at the time. It is public money, can only be issued by the Treasury, and cannot be over-issued beyond the $300 million of silver backing it. And it cannot be counted as reserves for fractional reserve lending. FRN's are private money, issued by the Federal Reserve. Their rules allow their member banks to lend more money out than they have in deposits. This is fractional reserve banking; it is fraud, and it results in inflating the money supply, thus diluting its value (same as counterfeiting). Title 12, which created the right of the Fed to issue private debt money, could not force citizens to use it, thus incurring the obligation to pay taxes (the interest on the private debt), as people have a right to contract, and to refuse to contract, with whomever they choose. So Title 12 had to allow an exit from the private money debt scheme: demand public money, which cannot be taxed by the IRS (it can only be taxed by Congress, following the rules for taxation found in the Constitution). And it cannot be used as reserves for fractional reserve lending, because that is a private scheme, carried out by a corporation (the Fed). Such lending would be un-Constitutional if conducted by the Treasury; thus public money cannot be used in the private scheme.

[Keith Alan]

Lawful money is/was issued by the US Treasury, and was limited to $300 million because that was the amount of silver available at the time. It is public money, can only be issued by the Treasury, and cannot be over-issued beyond the $300 million of silver backing it. And it cannot be counted as reserves for fractional reserve lending. FRN's are private money, issued by the Federal Reserve. Their rules allow their member banks to lend more money out than they have in deposits. This is fractional reserve banking; it is fraud, and it results in inflating the money supply, thus diluting its value (same as counterfeiting). Title 12, which created the right of the Fed to issue private debt money, could not force citizens to use it, thus incurring the obligation to pay taxes (the interest on the private debt), as people have a right to contract, and to refuse to contract, with whomever they choose. So Title 12 had to allow an exit from the private money debt scheme: demand public money, which cannot be taxed by the IRS (it can only be taxed by Congress, following the rules for taxation found in the Constitution). And it cannot be used as reserves for fractional reserve lending, because that is a private scheme, carried out by a corporation (the Fed). Such lending would be un-Constitutional if conducted by the Treasury; thus public money cannot be used in the private scheme.

Yes, but there are potentially trillions of lawful money dollars in circulation. Since FRNs are fractionalized, so is lawful money. I'm also fairly sure that all silver for backing is linked to US notes, and not the lawful money people are demanding today.

[Freed Gerdes]

You are wrong about there being trillions of lawful money in circulation. Per my prior discussion of the banking industry's approach, there are almost no dollars of lawful money in circulation. When you write a demand on a check for deposit, the bank credits your account; no dollars are involved. When you write a check on your lawful money account, the recipient endorses the check, and the 'dollars' involved revert to FRN's. What the silver held by the Treasury backs is now irrelevant, as the option to redeem in specie has long been vacated. But the key feature of lawful money is that it cannot be 'fractionalized;' it cannot be used for fractional reserve lending, and it cannot be issued without backing, of which the Treasury has none. So the amount of lawful money 'in circulation' is limited to $300 million. And since now when you demand to redeem lawful money as cash, the FR bank will give you FRN's (which you can stamp as lawful money if you like). Even the stamped cash notes, when deposited at a FR bank, revert to FRN's, since the person depositing did not know to express his demand, and the bank teller will ignore the stamp. (BofA says in their account agreement that they will ignore any writing on the back of your check!) Since lawful money now trades at par with FRN's, which are being counterfeited at an alarming pace (20+% per year during the last 5 years), the intrinsic 'value' of lawful money has been eliminated, so its only value now is that the demand for it takes your transaction out of the purview of Title 26. And I believe that lawful money is required to do business with the District Courts of the United States (Article III courts).

Others have said that when you endorse FRN's, you make the debt notes lawful money. Based on the distinction of inelastic public money vs elastic private money, this is clearly not possible. When you endorse FRN's, they remain legal tender, but they are still debt notes, not money. As debt notes, they cannot pay off debt, as they themselves are debt. Only lawful money can actually discharge a debt.

Finally, the lawful money people are demanding today are US Notes. The fact that the Treasury has not re-issued any such notes since 1971, and the FR makes no effort to have said notes available for people who demand them is just an indication that the Treasury/Federal Reserve syndicate is trying to blur the distinction in the public mind, in hopes that everyone will forget that Constitutional money still exists in the US, just as they are trying to make people forget that they have common law rights. All part of the continuous propaganda to further enslave the populace.

[Keith Alan]

You are wrong about there being trillions of lawful money in circulation. Per my prior discussion of the banking industry's approach, there are almost no dollars of lawful money in circulation. When you write a demand on a check for deposit, the bank credits your account; no dollars are involved. When you write a check on your lawful money account, the recipient endorses the check, and the 'dollars' involved revert to FRN's. What the silver held by the Treasury backs is now irrelevant, as the option to redeem in specie has long been vacated. But the key feature of lawful money is that it cannot be 'fractionalized;' it cannot be used for fractional reserve lending, and it cannot be issued without backing, of which the Treasury has none. So the amount of lawful money 'in circulation' is limited to $300 million. And since now when you demand to redeem lawful money as cash, the FR bank will give you FRN's (which you can stamp as lawful money if you like). Even the stamped cash notes, when deposited at a FR bank, revert to FRN's, since the person depositing did not know to express his demand, and the bank teller will ignore the stamp. (BofA says in their account agreement that they will ignore any writing on the back of your check!) Since lawful money now trades at par with FRN's, which are being counterfeited at an alarming pace (20+% per year during the last 5 years), the intrinsic 'value' of lawful money has been eliminated, so its only value now is that the demand for it takes your transaction out of the purview of Title 26. And I believe that lawful money is required to do business with the District Courts of the United States (Article III courts).

Others have said that when you endorse FRN's, you make the debt notes lawful money. Based on the distinction of inelastic public money vs elastic private money, this is clearly not possible. When you endorse FRN's, they remain legal tender, but they are still debt notes, not money. As debt notes, they cannot pay off debt, as they themselves are debt. Only lawful money can actually discharge a debt.

Finally, the lawful money people are demanding today are US Notes. The fact that the Treasury has not re-issued any such notes since 1971, and the FR makes no effort to have said notes available for people who demand them is just an indication that the Treasury/Federal Reserve syndicate is trying to blur the distinction in the public mind, in hopes that everyone will forget that Constitutional money still exists in the US, just as they are trying to make people forget that they have common law rights. All part of the continuous propaganda to further enslave the populace.

Potentially in circulation. And I don't share the view that the Fed is an evil entity.

[Brian]

Freed, Why not just demand these and forget all the metaphysical things?

http://seattletimes.com/ABPub/2011/11/05/2016699255.jpg

Oh and I should add...didn't the Federal Reserve bitch and complain that they had too many of them and had to build all kinds of new storage space for them. Why not relieve them of some of that burden and distribute them to the local banks?

[gdude]

And I don't share the view that the Fed is an evil entity.

[Brian]

THIS ^^
The Fed is the Genesis of the cancer that is very much destroying this country. The nature of the money was hijacked and all other (common law) forms suppressed or driven out of circulation.

The bankers know damn well the implications if the intended original monetary system was allowed to flourish:

"1865 London Times editorial directed against Lincoln's debt-free Greenbacks:

If that mischievous financial policy which had its origin in the North American Republic during the late war in that country, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without debt. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world. The brains and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe."

[Keith Alan]

Potentially in circulation. And I don't share the view that the Fed is an evil entity.

I want to be polite, and respond out of respect, but I'm pereceiving anger on your part. Or maybe frustration. At any rate, I'm not here to call into question anyone's world view. I firmly believe everyone has the God given ability to reason, and people often reach different conclusions from the same data points. My conclusions are simply different than yours.

If you like, I would be happy to discuss my views on the subject, but I think another thread would be a more appropriate place.

[Chex]

Freed Gerdes posts; You are wrong about there being trillions of lawful money in circulation. Per my prior discussion of the banking industry's approach, there are almost no dollars of lawful money in circulation. money is required to do business with the District Courts of the United States (Article III courts).

Finally, the lawful money people are demanding today are US Notes. The fact that the Treasury has not re-issued any such notes since 1971, and the FR makes no effort to have said notes available for people who demand them is just an indication that the Treasury/Federal Reserve syndicate is trying to blur the distinction in the public mind,........

Because United States Notes serve no function that is not already adequately served by Federal Reserve Notes Legal Tender Status http://www.richmondfed.org/faqs/currency/

Published: December 8, 1865: http://www.nytimes.com/1865/12/08/ne...pagewanted=all

Withdrawal Of Circulation

Should a bank reduce its circulation, either by depositing lawful money or by permitting notes to be redeemed by the Treasurer and destroyed and asking for no new notes to take their place, the amount of the 5 per cent fund may be correspondingly reduced. In such case the Treasurer will, upon receiving the proper advice, surrender any excess in the 5 per cent fund that may result from such destruction or reduction of notes; but he will not so release a portion of the 5 per cent fund until the details of the reduction of circulation are completed by depositing lawful money and withdrawing the bonds.

The bank must pay the charges for transportation and the cost for assorting redeemed notes. At the end of each fiscal year, account having been kept of its expenses by the National Bank Redemption Agency, the several banks are assessed in proportion to the amount of their notes redeemed, and this sum is then charged to their 5 per cent funds respectively. If a bank deposits lawful money for the retirement of its circulation, it is assessed at the time it makes such deposit for the cost of transporting and redeeming the notes then outstanding, the assessment being equal to the average cost of the redemption of national bank notes during the preceding year. The rate charged to the national banks in 1915-1916 for redemption expenses was $.817229 per $1,000 redeemed.

Any bank desiring to withdraw all of its circulation, or any part of it, may do so by depositing with the Treasurer of the United States lawful money to an amount equal to the notes it wishes to retire. The Treasurer will then reassign the bonds to the bank which is withdrawing circulation, and will destroy the redeemed circulation. The retirement of circulation by depositing lawful money is limited to $9,000,000 in any one calendar month.2 In certain cases, however, this limitation does not apply: (1) when a bank reduces its capital stock to an amount below its outstanding circulation; (2) when a bank retires its circulation by surrendering the notes for cancellation without reissue, as in this case no deposit of lawful money is required; (3) when bonds are called for redemption by the Secretary of the Treasury and circulating notes are withdrawn in consequence thereof. The purpose of limitation on the rate of retirement of national bank notes is to prevent too sudden reduction in the volume of currency, with its train of undesirable consequences.
2 See Acts Of July 12, 1882, March 4, 1907, And May 30, 1908.

Dear Mr. XXXXX X. XXXXX: "The terms 'lawful money' or 'lawful money of the United States' shall be construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States." {Title 12 United States Code, Section 152] Can a note that PROMISES to PAY ' LAWFUL MONEY' be the "Lawful money'? Legal Information Institute http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/151

[Keith Alan]

Dear Mr. XXXXX X. XXXXX: "The terms 'lawful money' or 'lawful money of the United States' shall be construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States." {Title 12 United States Code, Section 152] Can a note that PROMISES to PAY ' LAWFUL MONEY' be the "Lawful money'? Legal Information Institute http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/151

This brings up a very pertinent question. Section 152 has been repealed. Also, later editions of US notes bear the condition: This note is legal tender, good for all debts, public and private.

When demand for lawful money is made, what is the thing (of the resulting trust) received?

Clearly not US notes, since there are none available, and they are limited by statute to $300 million, and they are legal tender.
Clearly not the lawful money of account of the United States, since gold or silver coin is not available.
Clearly not legal tender, since legal tender is being redeemed for lawful money.

PS - Whatever the thing is, it must be as good as gold.

[doug555]

This brings up a very pertinent question. Section 152 has been repealed. Also, later editions of US notes bear the condition: This note is legal tender, good for all debts, public and private.

When demand for lawful money is made, what is the thing (of the resulting trust) received?

Clearly not US notes, since there are none available, and they are limited by statute to $300 million, and they are legal tender.
Clearly not the lawful money of account of the United States, since gold or silver coin is not available.
Clearly not legal tender, since legal tender is being redeemed for lawful money.

PS - Whatever the thing is, it must be as good as gold.

Lawful Money is Equitable Title to Labor-Credit Asset.

And, YES, it is as good as GOLD...

[Keith Alan]

Withdrawal Of Circulation

Should a bank reduce its circulation, either by depositing lawful money or by permitting notes to be redeemed by the Treasurer and destroyed and asking for no new notes to take their place, the amount of the 5 per cent fund may be correspondingly reduced. In such case the Treasurer will, upon receiving the proper advice, surrender any excess in the 5 per cent fund that may result from such destruction or reduction of notes; but he will not so release a portion of the 5 per cent fund until the details of the reduction of circulation are completed by depositing lawful money and withdrawing the bonds.

The bank must pay the charges for transportation and the cost for assorting redeemed notes. At the end of each fiscal year, account having been kept of its expenses by the National Bank Redemption Agency, the several banks are assessed in proportion to the amount of their notes redeemed, and this sum is then charged to their 5 per cent funds respectively. If a bank deposits lawful money for the retirement of its circulation, it is assessed at the time it makes such deposit for the cost of transporting and redeeming the notes then outstanding, the assessment being equal to the average cost of the redemption of national bank notes during the preceding year. The rate charged to the national banks in 1915-1916 for redemption expenses was $.817229 per $1,000 redeemed.

Any bank desiring to withdraw all of its circulation, or any part of it, may do so by depositing with the Treasurer of the United States lawful money to an amount equal to the notes it wishes to retire. The Treasurer will then reassign the bonds to the bank which is withdrawing circulation, and will destroy the redeemed circulation. The retirement of circulation by depositing lawful money is limited to $9,000,000 in any one calendar month.2 In certain cases, however, this limitation does not apply: (1) when a bank reduces its capital stock to an amount below its outstanding circulation; (2) when a bank retires its circulation by surrendering the notes for cancellation without reissue, as in this case no deposit of lawful money is required; (3) when bonds are called for redemption by the Secretary of the Treasury and circulating notes are withdrawn in consequence thereof. The purpose of limitation on the rate of retirement of national bank notes is to prevent too sudden reduction in the volume of currency, with its train of undesirable consequences.
2 See Acts Of July 12, 1882, March 4, 1907, And May 30, 1908.

There's quite a lot here to digest, but it appears to me to be a process where - at a time in the past - banks were able to retire their outstanding obligations by depositing lawful money with the Treasurer (interesting, not the Sec'y of Treasury) according to a corresponding rate of exchange.

Also, the Secretary of the Treasury had the option to call in the bonds and make demand. I find this extremely interesting, in that it appears to indicate the Sec'y might retain the option to invoke 12 USC 411 at any time.

Now then, how I see all this pertaining to making demand for lawful money on a 1040 return is this way: when a taxpayer presents his return to the Treasury, and demands lawful money redemption thereon, the effect is to withdraw FRNs he holds from circulation, effectively assuming the role as creditor. His demand must be interpreted as instructions to the Sec'y to call in the bonds.

If this indeed is the case, and the taxpayer's role as debtor is flipped to that of being creditor, well, I find that astounding! Isn't he forgiving the obligations of the United States corporate? Doesn't that indicate the existence of an unincorporated association, which I will call the united States of America?

[Chex]

Nice doug555

Sound crazy? It is. http://adask.wordpress.com/2011/02/2...er-fools-frns/http://www.landreport.com/americas-1...st-landowners/