Treasury Letter from 1984

[David Merrill]

I do not recall sharing this letter here.






Update: The comic book from the NY Fed bank is not the attached pamphlet mentioned at the end of the 1981 Letter. I added that for explanation. - Just so you know...

[mikecz]

I do not recall sharing this letter here.

Referring to bank notes..

"There was nothing illegal about using them, but on the other hand no law required anyone to accept them. Therefore they were not considered "lawful money." The term "lawful money" was reserved for money which the law did require people to accept, i.e., legal tender money."

"In 1933, Federal Reserve notes were made legal tender. See 31 USC 392, which was adopted in 1965 to replace 31 USC 462, enacted in 1933. Since that time Federal Reserve notes, as well as all other United States currency and coins, have been "lawful money".



So after reading this, I've come to the conclusion 12 USC 411 was really only applicable until 1933, when Federal reserve notes became legal tender. After that time, the FRNs became lawful money (legal tender which had to be accepted as payment). This doesn't take away the fact that they aren't money, they are credit. Notes to which excise and duties can be attached, the letter just brings a few things to light. At least if I'm reading it correctly.

[Keyser Soze]

Notice the use of "lawful money" vs. lawful money

[Brian]

The local bank is my agent.
The Federal Reserve is the government's agent.
I ask for "money" issued directly by the government (coin or USN's)
I demand it on my paycheck
My agent gets together with the governments agent, The Fed delivers coin to my bank. The bank gives me coin, the check is debited from the account holders (employer) account via the clearing house system.
The Fed now has a deficiency in coin.
The Fed forwards credit to the Treasury, The mint delivers more coin to the Fed and the loop is closed.

The mint creates dollar coins for approx 30cents a piece. The Fed pays for them Dollar for Dollar.
The mint gets approx 70 cents of seignorage (profit) for each coin it delivers to the Fed.
This profit can then pay down the debt (extinguish bonds) or be used for more gov spending.

[Keith Alan]

The local bank is my agent.
The Federal Reserve is the government's agent.
I ask for "money" issued directly by the government (coin or USN's)
I demand it on my paycheck
My agent gets together with the governments agent, The Fed delivers coin to my bank. The bank gives me coin, the check is debited from the account holders (employer) account via the clearing house system.
The Fed now has a deficiency in coin.
The Fed forwards credit to the Treasury, The mint delivers more coin to the Fed and the loop is closed.

The mint creates dollar coins for approx 30cents a piece. The Fed pays for them Dollar for Dollar.
The mint gets approx 70 cents of seignorage (profit) for each coin it delivers to the Fed.
This profit can then pay down the debt (extinguish bonds) or be used for more gov spending.

How simple is that? I like it.

[David Merrill]

Interestingly both documents are from 1984!

[Brian]

How simple is that? I like it.

Thank you, I have been racking my head for years trying to boil all of this stuff down to something a lay person can understand. The beauty of this is we win and the gov wins. They get the seignorage for their purposes. I get my property right in my own labor back for my use, and if you choose coin the bank can still fractionally lend on it. Everyone gets a piece of the action. It will reconnect the grounding wire to the system. With nothing but bank credit in circulation the interest creates an impossible situation. It can't ever be paid back. With an effective way to generate and distribute debt free money now that impossible system becomes possible again.

[Sovereignty]

The local bank is my agent.
The Federal Reserve is the government's agent.
I ask for "money" issued directly by the government (coin or USN's)
I demand it on my paycheck
My agent gets together with the governments agent, The Fed delivers coin to my bank. The bank gives me coin, the check is debited from the account holders (employer) account via the clearing house system.
The Fed now has a deficiency in coin.
The Fed forwards credit to the Treasury, The mint delivers more coin to the Fed and the loop is closed.

The mint creates dollar coins for approx 30cents a piece. The Fed pays for them Dollar for Dollar.
The mint gets approx 70 cents of seignorage (profit) for each coin it delivers to the Fed.
This profit can then pay down the debt (extinguish bonds) or be used for more gov spending.

Is this because 'public debt' (US notes and coin) carries no income tax fee for the privilege of using it?

[Brian]

Is this because 'public debt' (US notes and coin) carries no income tax fee for the privilege of using it?

It is deeper than just that. One of the primary reasons for an income tax is to limit the expansion of the circulating money supply. The Fed and the banks can create credit. This credit circulates as though it is money. Congress does not directly control this new "money" issuance. In order to control the total money supply they created the income tax to pull in some of this credit from circulation. Think about it. Congress spends whatever it wants and issues more bonds to cover the difference. They really don't need the tax revenue, they have the power to create money. States and localities need taxes as they cannot create money (except gold and silver).

The key court decision that solidified my knowledge of this is Veazie Bank v. Fenno 1869.

https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/75/75.US.533.html

Read it again and again until you see it. Especially pay attention towards the end just before the dissenting opinion.

They use the Springer Case (1880) to justify their income tax on us. Springer is confusing, ambiguous, and a two part decision. The Springer decision dealing with wages was backed up by Veazie that came before it (Mr. Springer must have been paid with bank credit but I have not found where this is specifically called out in the court decision, I need what was presented to the court to figure that one out). However the Springer decision on dividends and profits was later challenged in Pollock and deemed unconstitutional. This was reversed with the 16th amendment.

Enter the Federal Reserve and we are all getting paid in bank credit......until you figure out the deception.

[Michael Joseph]

Notice the use of "lawful money" vs. lawful money

lawful to use as a legal tender would therefore be lawful money where lawful is an adjective.

Otherwise FRN's may be redeemed into Lawful Money on demand shows Lawful Money to be a compound noun. Any slick will try to twist the framework of the argument - like this: "It's lawful to use federal reserve notes today in our economy".

Finding 12 USC 411 is still on the books - then FRN's can be redeemed. End of story. And if they can be redeemed into something else, then they are not that special "something else". And no amount of obfuscation by the nachash can close the eyes of the wise.


A demand for "Lawful Money" is a claim for fair balances. An attempt to restore equity. Since the debtor is slave to the lender what of law and equity of a slave. Therefore the slave - serf is always 12(b)(6) - ed

[allodial]

I'm not sure how more well it can be hidden in plain site. The drawee on most any payroll check is the address. If you comprehend how checks (sic drafts) are laid out from a commercial law or customary perspective the "to" or "on" or "against" position is where the address usually is on a paycheck. The drawer/drawers is/are usually at the top. The drawee is usually a bank. And if in the district.....



An enticing invitation to endorse private credit or...to accept it as the drawee? Remember, with a payroll check every two weeks or so some kind of report goes out to the IRS and the SSA to make sure the instrument will be a perfect match to the bi-weekly reports to the IRS and the SSA.

...lawful money

What is lawful or legal in a Federal Reserve district might be neither lawful nor legal elsewhere. The jurisdictional game is probably more sneakily hiding in the details.

[djlamb]

Wow. This thread is awesome. Allodial, what you just shared is something I am dealing with, right now. Everything is direct deposit where I "work". Since the EMPLOYER (university) is FEDERALLY funded (in some kind of capacity), I just assumed the school has its contracts with the govt.

Now, I just have to figure out exactly how to lawfully refuse THEIR invitation. I am still going through all of the info y'all are sharing here (in the forum), while also digesting it fully (I am astounded how you can take apart stuff, like this letter, and point out what certain words/terms REALLY mean - I am actually curious as to where I can learn that language). I have read enough that I will be giving NOTICE AND DEMAND to "my" bank by the end of December and getting a stamp. What I would like to figure out is what I have to do, as far as proper notice to "my" EMPLOYER.

As I had shared in the "Introductions" thread(s), my ignorance has guided me down the wrong path. I neglected to file an income tax return last year, because of the erroneous assumption that my labor was not taxable (yada yada yada) and that the IRS can send me what they think I owe THEM (in invoice / bill). I am correcting that and will not only file the return (unfortunately late, so I will probably get penalized) but also file for 2014. Though I was familiar with lawful money, I was "doing it wrong" (simply writing on the back of checks - REDEEM IN REAL LAWFUL MONEY ONLY. NO FEDERAL RESERVES NOTES - yeah, pretty dumb of me).

Now that I am amongst fellow beings who know what is really factual truth (not misinformation, which I was getting in other groups), I am confident and willing to resolve my dumb mistakes. I appreciate it. ~ DJ Lamb

[doug555]

Wow. This thread is awesome. Allodial, what you just shared is something I am dealing with, right now. Everything is direct deposit where I "work". Since the EMPLOYER (university) is FEDERALLY funded (in some kind of capacity), I just assumed the school has its contracts with the govt.

Now, I just have to figure out exactly how to lawfully refuse THEIR invitation. I am still going through all of the info y'all are sharing here (in the forum), while also digesting it fully (I am astounded how you can take apart stuff, like this letter, and point out what certain words/terms REALLY mean - I am actually curious as to where I can learn that language). I have read enough that I will be giving NOTICE AND DEMAND to "my" bank by the end of December and getting a stamp. What I would like to figure out is what I have to do, as far as proper notice to "my" EMPLOYER.

As I had shared in the "Introductions" thread(s), my ignorance has guided me down the wrong path. I neglected to file an income tax return last year, because of the erroneous assumption that my labor was not taxable (yada yada yada) and that the IRS can send me what they think I owe THEM (in invoice / bill). I am correcting that and will not only file the return (unfortunately late, so I will probably get penalized) but also file for 2014. Though I was familiar with lawful money, I was "doing it wrong" (simply writing on the back of checks - REDEEM IN REAL LAWFUL MONEY ONLY. NO FEDERAL RESERVES NOTES - yeah, pretty dumb of me).

Now that I am amongst fellow beings who know what is really factual truth (not misinformation, which I was getting in other groups), I am confident and willing to resolve my dumb mistakes. I appreciate it. ~ DJ Lamb

Here is what I have done, and it avoids "upsetting" the Banks and Employers. This has worked for 3 years.

lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411 and 95a(2)

See below example of a Deposit Slip. I also handwrite (more powerful than stamps) this demand under may name and address on all my checks. This creates a "preponderance of evidence". I do not do restrictive endorsements on any of their checks. I believe the back side of all checks are on their private side.... in their realm.




Your job is only to make a substantive record of the demand. That is all 12 USC 411 requires. Do NOT interfere with the banks' or the employers' realm and duties.

IMO, as long as you have NON-HEARSAY EVIDENCE (FRE 803,#6.B), recorded by the bank in their normal course of business, you are all set for proving your demands for lawful money for all transactions.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803

Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay

The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness:
...

(6) Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity. (B) the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or calling, whether or not for profit;

(C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity;

(D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified witness, or by a certification that complies with Rule 902(11) or (12) or with a statute permitting certification; and

(E) neither the opponent does not show that the source of information nor or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness.

[itsmymoney]

Doug555,

Like djlamb, I am considering filing 1040 for first time in 4 years. I have been restricting my signature and Redeeming in Lawful Money (RILF) on my paychecks/deposit slips since January 2013, however I have not added the '95a(2)' language (only 12 USC 411). Around that time I sent a Notice and Demand to the US Treasury in DC, however I have not done so with my local bank. I would be shocked if there is NO ONE at my local bank who is not 'in the know' about Redeeming in Lawful Money, but this is possible. In other words, in reviewing the restricted signature with the novation of 12 USC 411 wouldn't the question be raised internally at that bank such as, 'what is this language on the back of these checks?'. Another caveat is that I was very strict in also stamping ATM withdrawals and POS purchases for a long time, but not as much in the past 2 months - intermittently doing so.

Questions:

1) How much does not sending 'Notice and Demand' to my local bank 'hurt me'? As stated, Treasury was notified (recorded it in local Recorder's office), and I have been 100% consistent in novating all deposits into my local bank account. I have all those checks/deposit slips saved as evidence.

2) Once the deposits were RILF into my account, is it absolutely necessary to RILF for every withdrawal from that account?

3) I have been SEVERELY punished in 6702 penalties by Auntie for 2008 for my CTC filing for that year. I feel I will come under greater scrutiny from Auntie if filing 1040 with an offset for RILF. In other words, 'Oh, this guy is trying to "evade his taxes" again. Let's go after him'. Would anyone agree that I am at greater risk for issues with Auntie?

4) From the info I have provided, what do I need to do going forward?


Thank you all for this great site and these Forums.

Sincerely,

IMM

[doug555]

Doug555,

Like djlamb, I am considering filing 1040 for first time in 4 years. I have been restricting my signature and Redeeming in Lawful Money (RILF) on my paychecks/deposit slips since January 2013, however I have not added the '95a(2)' language (only 12 USC 411). Around that time I sent a Notice and Demand to the US Treasury in DC, however I have not done so with my local bank. I would be shocked if there is NO ONE at my local bank who is not 'in the know' about Redeeming in Lawful Money, but this is possible. In other words, in reviewing the restricted signature with the novation of 12 USC 411 wouldn't the question be raised internally at that bank such as, 'what is this language on the back of these checks?'. Another caveat is that I was very strict in also stamping ATM withdrawals and POS purchases for a long time, but not as much in the past 2 months - intermittently doing so.

Questions:

1) How much does not sending 'Notice and Demand' to my local bank 'hurt me'? As stated, Treasury was notified (recorded it in local Recorder's office), and I have been 100% consistent in novating all deposits into my local bank account. I have all those checks/deposit slips saved as evidence.

I have saved my PDF records on a Google Drive, and reference that location on my 1040 so they can easily verify my banking demands. Not sending the N&D should not hurt you. IMO, it does not constitute non-hearsay evidence anyways.

2) Once the deposits were RILF into my account, is it absolutely necessary to RILF for every withdrawal from that account?

No. I just do it for "preponderance of evidence" tactic.


3) I have been SEVERELY punished in 6702 penalties by Auntie for 2008 for my CTC filing for that year. I feel I will come under greater scrutiny from Auntie if filing 1040 with an offset for RILF. In other words, 'Oh, this guy is trying to "evade his taxes" again. Let's go after him'. Would anyone agree that I am at greater risk for issues with Auntie?

I was also penalized over past years non/filings. I had to file for all past years and was forced to tender FRNs to "pay" all of that off by establishing an installment plan with the IRS. During that time, I did file 1040s with the lawful money deduction on line 21, and it was honored without repercussions.


4) From the info I have provided, what do I need to do going forward?

I would set up an installment plan with IRS ASAP to pay off past taxes due. I also tendered several "indorsed bills" but they were never honored... but they also were never returned. Perhaps the http://usufructremedy.blogspot.com/ approach is worth a try to truly PAY these obligations that are legitimate since you did endorse and use FRNs and thereby incurred their "usage fee" known as the Income Tax.

Then study my website at: http://1040relief.blogspot.com/ and the 1040 Help comprehensive post here on StSC.

However, there may be BIG CHANGES occurring that will solve your IRS problems - see http://nesaranews.blogspot.com/2014/...s-now-100.html

Thank you all for this great site and these Forums.

Sincerely,

IMM

See highlighted replies above...