Treasury Letter from 1984

[doug555]

IMM: That Hearsay Rule 803 (the 'not logic' behind it) is really confusing. Gee, go figure. Regardless, after re-reading my letter to the Treasury, there is no mention of 'All transactions' or 'All payments' made to me. It's more of, all 'Net Pay events' are to be redeemed in Lawful Money'. So that appears to be my first mistake of which I believe I can modify with another Demand letter stating the proper Demand language (whatever that may be - need to research examples to get it right - if you have links from other posts handy I'm all ears/eyes). So given this conundrum that it may be a slippery slope to ask for ALL FITW to be refunded w/o originally demanding ALL Gross Pay be RILM, I'm thinking I still may be able to claim a RILM reduction on the NET deposits. Do you agree? Bottom line: I don't want to ask for something that I can't feel comfortable backing up with almost empirical evidence. I've already been torched big-time by 'them'.

The FRE Hearsay Exception Rule 803(6)(B) is critical to record formation for defending one's position. One MUST understand this BEFORE doing anything. IMO, one MUST create admissible evidence to successfully rebut legitimate and often outrageous diabolical presumptions. The Matrix runs on records.

Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) 803, Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay:
(6) Records(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;

IMO, any "letter" is NOT evidence. Sorry.

IMO, since the Gross Pay transaction was not in your demand, then that entire amount remains in FRNs, and you owe for that total FRN usage. IMO, the tax is transaction-based, and based on a taxable event - FRN Usage. You may want to share your redacted "Demand Letter" so others do not make this same mistake.

Your comment above raises a VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE & LESSON.

IF the above was coming from disinformation agent, would it not be fairly easy to charge one with tax evasion if one commingled funds by claiming "Net Pay" was NOT using FRNs?

Can you see how such a question posed above could easily be a TRAP if anyone espoused such a position?

See Mt 22:18-21 for the Divine Law against commingling of Caesar's and God's money. This account is the "red line in the sand" that is the enforcement behind 12 USC 411, IMO, at least for His bondservants who keep His Word, and claim its protections in His Name.

BTW, I have already more than once provided you with "examples to get it right".

See again: http://1040relief.blogspot.com/p/getting-started.html

Is there a reason this example is not clear?

I realize that I am the only one on this site requiring this exact wording... perhaps you are seeking confirmation from others on this site?

IMM: Got it. However, given my answer here in number 1 above i.e. regarding the pseudo-transaction-based Treasury demand letter where I basically made a Demand for 'Net Pay only' w/o realizing it, does the Schedule now change to only asking for the 'Net Pay' as a reduction? Not sure of what I can legally claim as a reduction. Like I said, rather play it safe than sorry. So if it's a 'partial reduction' based on 'Net Pay', so be it. Problem is that I have 2 years now of demanding Lawful Money for 'Net Pay only' transactions, if that's how it's being interpreted by 'them' based upon my Treasury Letter.

A secondary question about 'the paychecks/deposit slip amounts': If the proper Demand letter (RILM all transactions, i.e. starting with Gross Pay) was made, is there any calculating of the actual check amounts/deposits to be made regarding the Schedule? Or is that just evidence that ALL transactions were made in Lawful Money? In other words, the 'Net' amounts need not be computed in the actual Line 21 amount because THAT amount is a 'Gross Pay amount' (unless a partial Demand was made like mine, i.e. 'Net amounts' based on my ill-advised Treasury letter).

Thoughts welcome here.

IMO, the "the pseudo-transaction-based Treasury demand letter" is NOT evidence, and can be completely IGNORED.

IMO, you cannot use the Schedule at all. Sorry. That would involve commingled funds given your scenario above.

If I may ask, where did you get that "ill-advised Treasury letter"?

[itsmymoney]

The FRE Hearsay Exception Rule 803(6)(B) is critical to record formation for defending one's position. One MUST understand this BEFORE doing anything. IMO, one MUST create admissible evidence to successfully rebut legitimate and often outrageous diabolical presumptions. The Matrix runs on records.

IMO, any "letter" is NOT evidence. Sorry.

IMO, since the Gross Pay transaction was not in your demand, then that entire amount remains in FRNs, and you owe for that total FRN usage. IMO, the tax is transaction-based, and based on a taxable event - FRN Usage. You may want to share your redacted "Demand Letter" so others do not make this same mistake.

Your comment above raises a VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE & LESSON.

IF the above was coming from disinformation agent, would it not be fairly easy to charge one with tax evasion if one commingled funds by claiming "Net Pay" was NOT using FRNs?

Can you see how such a question posed above could easily be a TRAP if anyone espoused such a position?

See Mt 22:18-21 for the Divine Law against commingling of Caesar's and God's money. This account is the "red line in the sand" that is the enforcement behind 12 USC 411, IMO, at least for His bondservants who keep His Word, and claim its protections in His Name.

BTW, I have already more than once provided you with "examples to get it right".

See again: http://1040relief.blogspot.com/p/getting-started.html

Is there a reason this example is not clear?

I realize that I am the only one on this site requiring this exact wording... perhaps you are seeking confirmation from others on this site?


IMO, the "the pseudo-transaction-based Treasury demand letter" is NOT evidence, and can be completely IGNORED.

IMO, you cannot use the Schedule at all. Sorry. That would involve commingled funds given your scenario above.

If I may ask, where did you get that "ill-advised Treasury letter"?

Doug555,

I understand the Hearsay Exception Rule is important. I just meant that the wording is tricky and can be confusing if not thought out well. FWIW, my 'Treasury letter' was recorded at the County Recorder's office, so it's not like there is no 'on-the-record' evidence of my demand even though now I realize it's an 'empty' demand. I will post it for review however I'm not sure of the method of attaching a Word document here - if someone can give a quick instruction on attaching I'd be happy to post it. Also FWIW, I was paraphrasing 'Net Pay events' when stating: "It's more of, all 'Net Pay events' are to be redeemed in Lawful Money". I never actually stated 'Net Pay' in my letter as you will see when it's posted. However, it READS that way based on the language I used.

I found an example from the various links you have posted regarding the 'all transactions' Affidavit demand (after my prior post so my apologies for not researching more before posting). I'm surmising that with a new recorded Affidavit I cannot 'retroactively' demand 'all transactions' back to Jan 2013 (when I started restricting my signature) to effectively 'supersede' my original recorded demand letter. So 2 years of 'incomplete/empty' demands for lawful money. If I cannot retroactive the new demand, at least it will be in effect for Jan 1, 2015 as I intend to get it recorded ASAP for start of 2015. If that's the best I can do going forward, then a harsh and disappointing lesson learned.

My question about RILM on 'Net Pay' ('commingling funds') based on my original 'Treasury letter demand' was sincere, if not misguided and ignorant. I now realize the taxable event is on the Gross Pay of which I failed to realize upfront - and you can't RILM the Gross Pay until after the fact with your novated paychecks/deposit slips via the 'Net Pay' of which is what you are given, and, is the evidence of the demand on the Gross Pay based on the 'all transactions' language. If I am misunderstanding this still, PLEASE correct me. I hope this clears any confusion up for you. I most certainly DO NOT want to put misinformation out there. I'm trying to learn and I ask a lot of questions, some of them perhaps 'impatiently' without first more study, of which I apologize for that. I have studied here many times, but I'm feeling quite foolish at the moment for not enough study and better comprehension. But my intentions are sincere about learning and 'doing it right'.

The 'ill-advised Treasury letter' was drafted by myself based on information over 2 years ago from this site (STSC) and another site of which was visited by a well-known Suitor here, where that Suitor provided some information on that other site and directed me and others here at STSC. Obviously I did not study enough back then and thought that the RILM deposits themselves were the only necessary demand to be made (i.e. not recognizing Gross Pay nor the necessary 'all transactions' demand).

I welcome your replies.

IMM

[ag maniac]

IMM

I will post it for review however I'm not sure of the method of attaching a Word document here - if someone can give a quick instruction on attaching I'd be happy to post it.

Click "Reply", under the text box click "Go Advanced", top row of icons click the "paperclip", top right of new pop-up click "add files"


Don't forget to sanitize doc before upload --> you don't want a valentines card from me in 6 weeks

[doug555]

Doug555,

I understand the Hearsay Exception Rule is important. I just meant that the wording is tricky and can be confusing if not thought out well. FWIW, my 'Treasury letter' was recorded at the County Recorder's office, so it's not like there is no 'on-the-record' evidence of my demand even though now I realize it's an 'empty' demand. I will post it for review however I'm not sure of the method of attaching a Word document here - if someone can give a quick instruction on attaching I'd be happy to post it. Also FWIW, I was paraphrasing 'Net Pay events' when stating: "It's more of, all 'Net Pay events' are to be redeemed in Lawful Money". I never actually stated 'Net Pay' in my letter as you will see when it's posted. However, it READS that way based on the language I used.

I found an example from the various links you have posted regarding the 'all transactions' Affidavit demand (after my prior post so my apologies for not researching more before posting). I'm surmising that with a new recorded Affidavit I cannot 'retroactively' demand 'all transactions' back to Jan 2013 (when I started restricting my signature) to effectively 'supersede' my original recorded demand letter. So 2 years of 'incomplete/empty' demands for lawful money. If I cannot retroactive the new demand, at least it will be in effect for Jan 1, 2015 as I intend to get it recorded ASAP for start of 2015. If that's the best I can do going forward, then a harsh and disappointing lesson learned.

My question about RILM on 'Net Pay' ('commingling funds') based on my original 'Treasury letter demand' was sincere, if not misguided and ignorant. I now realize the taxable event is on the Gross Pay of which I failed to realize upfront - and you can't RILM the Gross Pay until after the fact with your novated paychecks/deposit slips via the 'Net Pay' of which is what you are given, and, is the evidence of the demand on the Gross Pay based on the 'all transactions' language. If I am misunderstanding this still, PLEASE correct me. I hope this clears any confusion up for you. I most certainly DO NOT want to put misinformation out there. I'm trying to learn and I ask a lot of questions, some of them perhaps 'impatiently' without first more study, of which I apologize for that. I have studied here many times, but I'm feeling quite foolish at the moment for not enough study and better comprehension. But my intentions are sincere about learning and 'doing it right'.

The 'ill-advised Treasury letter' was drafted by myself based on information over 2 years ago from this site (STSC) and another site of which was visited by a well-known Suitor here, where that Suitor provided some information on that other site and directed me and others here at STSC. Obviously I did not study enough back then and thought that the RILM deposits themselves were the only necessary demand to be made (i.e. not recognizing Gross Pay nor the necessary 'all transactions' demand).

I welcome your replies.

IMM

IMO, the first banking record created with the "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2)" on it is when you have admissible evidence of breaking your contract with the FED through usage of FRNs.

County records I believe are also evidence... however, subsequent inadvertent usage of FRNs re-establishes the FED contract, IMO.

The Affidavit in the county record memorializes the exact date when you created that first 12 USC 411 demand on record with the bank.

I think you have it now!

Now, just go write yourself a check and deposit it today, Dec 26, 2014, with the above exact demand on both instruments under your name & address on the front, and then go out and celebrate!

You are now free... you have just "broken the bonds"!

Thanks for your patience and perseverance!

BTW: I continue to write this exact wording on all my checks and deposit slips, just to establish a "preponderance of evidence" in case it is ever needed.

[David Merrill]

Thank you for bringing the Rules of Evidence into the picture.

[itsmymoney]

Click "Reply", under the text box click "Go Advanced", top row of icons click the "paperclip", top right of new pop-up click "add files"


Don't forget to sanitize doc before upload --> you don't want a valentines card from me in 6 weeks

ag maniac, thank you for the quick lesson for attachments! After sanitizing I will attach the doc in my reply to Doug555's last reply to my post, of which you greciously replied to here.

Most grateful,

imm

[itsmymoney]

IMO, the first banking record created with the "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2)" on it is when you have admissible evidence of breaking your contract with the FED through usage of FRNs.

County records I believe are also evidence... however, subsequent inadvertent usage of FRNs re-establishes the FED contract, IMO.

The Affidavit in the county record memorializes the exact date when you created that first 12 USC 411 demand on record with the bank.

I think you have it now!

Now, just go write yourself a check and deposit it today, Dec 26, 2014, with the above exact demand on both instruments under your name & address on the front, and then go out and celebrate!

You are now free... you have just "broken the bonds"!

Thanks for your patience and perseverance!

BTW: I continue to write this exact wording on all my checks and deposit slips, just to establish a "preponderance of evidence" in case it is ever needed.

Doug555,

My replies, a few last questions, and a pasted sanitized text version of the letter sent to the Treasury and recorded at the County almost 2 years ago. Look forward to your/anyone's review and comments.

Doug555: "County records I believe are also evidence... however, subsequent inadvertent usage of FRNs re-establishes the FED contract, IMO."

IMM: The pasted 'Treasury letter' has no mention of 'all transactions' and implies or otherwise stipulates RILM of 'Net Pay'. Therefore, all prior RILM attempts are null and void until new Affidavit is sent and recorded effective Jan 1, 2015. Agree?

Doug555: Now, just go write yourself a check and deposit it today, Dec 26, 2014, with the above exact demand on both instruments under your name & address on the front, and then go out and celebrate!"

IMM: I recognize handwriting (not stamping) '411 and 95a(2)' on the front of checks/deposit slips. I currently have been stamping the '411' language on deposit slips and BACK of checks (the stamp is my signature and the 'standard USC 411 language' demand). As for the required signature on the BACK of the check, is there harm in continuing to use my stamp (although w/o the 95a(2) language, just USC 411), or since the front of both deposit instruments (check/slip) are in proper accordance with RILM can I simply handwrite my signature as normal on the back?

Doug555: You are now free... you have just "broken the bonds"! Thanks for your patience and perseverance!

IMM: Doug555 and everyone on this great Forum, THANK YOU for you patience, guidance and perseverance! ...

I welcome anyone's thoughts on my 'empty RILM demand from the Treasury' letter below (sent/recorded almost 2 years ago) of which I have pasted from the original. As you stated Doug555, perhaps this is a good lesson for what NOT to do, and perhaps you can emphasize that in your reply as a reference to this letter assuming it is completely ineffective as a RILM evidence record, of which I believe has been proven true, unfortunately. I may add a line to the new Demand Affidavit to be recorded at County, that "the new Demand (effective Jan 1, 2015), null and voids any prior demand made by me effective the date of this new Demand, Jan 1, 2015". Or something to that effect.

Thankful,

imm

[doug555]

Doug555,

My replies, a few last questions, and a pasted sanitized text version of the letter sent to the Treasury and recorded at the County almost 2 years ago. Look forward to your/anyone's review and comments.



IMM: The pasted 'Treasury letter' has no mention of 'all transactions' and implies or otherwise stipulates RILM of 'Net Pay'. Therefore, all prior RILM attempts are null and void until new Affidavit is sent and recorded effective Jan 1, 2015. Agree?

IMO, this Affidavit is what should be recorded, AFTER you have a copy of your check and deposit with your demand on it showing on your next bank statement, as proof that it is in the bank's records. The date on that is when your demand starts. I do not send a copy of this Affidavit to any government agency or bank since I believe it is unnecessary being redundant, and probably discarded by them. As long as the IRS has been accepting the non-hearsay bank records that I upload to Google Drive for their inspection, that is all that matters to me for now.


IMM: I recognize handwriting (not stamping) '411 and 95a(2)' on the front of checks/deposit slips. I currently have been stamping the '411' language on deposit slips and BACK of checks (the stamp is my signature and the 'standard USC 411 language' demand). As for the required signature on the BACK of the check, is there harm in continuing to use my stamp (although w/o the 95a(2) language, just USC 411), or since the front of both deposit instruments (check/slip) are in proper accordance with RILM can I simply handwrite my signature as normal on the back?

IMO, the Back of the check is Private (belongs to FRS). I believe adding restrictive conditions on the Back is impinging on their domain. I only sign on the Back as I did before. That's all. Remember, there is no CFR regulation for 12 USC 411 specifying HOW & WHEN & WHERE this demand is made. So I put it on the Front, the Public side of the instruments, IMO. Not one bank has ever complained to me about my demand.


IMM: Doug555 and everyone on this great Forum, THANK YOU for you patience, guidance and perseverance! ...

I welcome anyone's thoughts on my 'empty RILM demand from the Treasury' letter below (sent/recorded almost 2 years ago) of which I have pasted from the original. As you stated Doug555, perhaps this is a good lesson for what NOT to do, and perhaps you can emphasize that in your reply as a reference to this letter assuming it is completely ineffective as a RILM evidence record, of which I believe has been proven true, unfortunately. I may add a line to the new Demand Affidavit to be recorded at County, that "the new Demand (effective Jan 1, 2015), null and voids any prior demand made by me effective the date of this new Demand, Jan 1, 2015". Or something to that effect.

IMO, keep it simple to avoid any possible rebuttal by them. Use this Affidavit. Edit its wording as you see fit.


Thankful,

imm

See above in blue...

[JohnnyCash]

Thank you for this major theological discussion - "How many LM angels can dance on the head of a 1040 pin?"
You should consider submitting your work to the Annals of Improbable Research (AIR).

Here's the bottom line.... the IRS runs away screaming from LAWFUL MONEY tax returns.
I say that based on my 7 yrs as a successful nontaxpayer and eyewitness to 5 LM tax filings with no subsequent CP letters nor friv pens. In fact LAWFUL MONEY isn't on the Friv Pen List... take a look. Here's the glaring omisson: CONTENTION: Lawful money is not income.
It's not there because it's true.

Lawful Money on a tax return is like kryptonite or contagion to the IRS. They run away screaming. They'll give you what you want and hope you won't tell anyone. Been there, done it. Whether you take a 1 cent or 100% earnings LM deduction doesn't seem to matter to the IRS. They won't block it. It makes sense they wouldn't too. Can you imagine an IRS auditor asking:
"about this deduction, exactly what date/amount did you demand lawful money?"
"Why should that matter?"
"Oh, well, it doesn't really. I'm just a... trying to, um, understand your reasoning... nevermind then."

You think a black robe is gonna allow a lawful money discussion in his courtroom? On the record? HA! Take whatever LM deduction you want, won't make no nevermind, you're likely to get it. Take it from me, the first to determine and announce the LH forum was fully infiltrated & dominated by quatloser agents. Fake users, fake questions, fake discussions.

[doug555]

Thank you for this major theological discussion - "How many LM angels can dance on the head of a 1040 pin?"
You should consider submitting your work to the Annals of Improbable Research (AIR).

Here's the bottom line.... the IRS runs away screaming from LAWFUL MONEY tax returns.
I say that based on my 7 yrs as a successful nontaxpayer and eyewitness to 5 LM tax filings with no subsequent CP letters nor friv pens. In fact LAWFUL MONEY isn't on the Friv Pen List... take a look. Here's the glaring omisson: CONTENTION: Lawful money is not income.
It's not there because it's true.

Lawful Money on a tax return is like kryptonite or contagion to the IRS. They run away screaming. They'll give you what you want and hope you won't tell anyone. Been there, done it. Whether you take a 1 cent or 100% earnings LM deduction doesn't seem to matter to the IRS. They won't block it. It makes sense they wouldn't too. Can you imagine an IRS auditor asking:
"about this deduction, exactly what date/amount did you demand lawful money?"
"Why should that matter?"
"Oh, well, it doesn't really. I'm just a... trying to, um, understand your reasoning... nevermind then."

You think a black robe is gonna allow a lawful money discussion in his courtroom? On the record? HA! Take whatever LM deduction you want, won't make no nevermind, you're likely to get it. Take it from me, the first to determine and announce the LH forum was fully infiltrated & dominated by quatloser agents. Fake users, fake questions, fake discussions.

You're welcome... real LH Forum agent...

[itsmymoney]

Doug555,

Some follow-up here if I may.

IMO, this Affidavit is what should be recorded, AFTER you have a copy of your check and deposit with your demand on it showing on your next bank statement, as proof that it is in the bank's records. The date on that is when your demand starts. I do not send a copy of this Affidavit to any government agency or bank since I believe it is unnecessary being redundant, and probably discarded by them. As long as the IRS has been accepting the non-hearsay bank records that I upload to Google Drive for their inspection, that is all that matters to me for now.

I thought the idea was to record the 'intent' to RILM prior to one's actual execution. Where for example, I record with the County Registrar my demand effective Jan 1, 2015. My first 2015 check is RILM on Jan 7. The Demand was made public record a week earlier therefore I'm 'covered' because my RILM occurred after that public-record date (evidenced later by RILM checks/slips/etc). Are you saying the date on the deposit slip (and evidenced on your next bank statement) is THE date the AFFIDAVIT should reference? The AFFIDAVIT (recorded AFTER the actual first Demand date) would therefore reference a 'retro-active' date back to the actual first Demand date (evidenced by RILM checks/slips/etc). Correct? If true, please see my question re. "nunc pro tunc" below. If not, please clarify.


Regarding the example AFFIDAVIT (saw that earlier - thanks!), specifically "nunc pro tunc". It appears this term may only be executed/enforced by a court order. If I'm understanding correctly, wouldn't 'we' (common man, not in a court situation), be prohibited from using this language in an AFFIDAVIT? I'm sure I'm misunderstanding this, but perhaps you or someone could explain this. This goes to my first question above about 'THE' RILM Demand date that should be referenced in the AFFIDAVIT.


Also, after getting my AFFIDAVIT witnessed/stamped by the Notary, is it possible to get the Notary's Certification at the County during the same time as recording the AFFIDAVIT there? I'm guessing that's too much work for them at once. Maybe a 'work order/application/request' for the Notary Certification must be submitted to be mailed to you later. Then the trip back to record THAT. Please clarify if I'm misunderstanding.

Learning a lot here. Much appreciated.

P.S. To JohnnyCash: Thanks for your insights over at CB's and here.

[itsmymoney]

Thank you for this major theological discussion - "How many LM angels can dance on the head of a 1040 pin?"
You should consider submitting your work to the Annals of Improbable Research (AIR).

Here's the bottom line.... the IRS runs away screaming from LAWFUL MONEY tax returns.
I say that based on my 7 yrs as a successful nontaxpayer and eyewitness to 5 LM tax filings with no subsequent CP letters nor friv pens. In fact LAWFUL MONEY isn't on the Friv Pen List... take a look. Here's the glaring omisson: CONTENTION: Lawful money is not income.
It's not there because it's true.

Lawful Money on a tax return is like kryptonite or contagion to the IRS. They run away screaming. They'll give you what you want and hope you won't tell anyone. Been there, done it. Whether you take a 1 cent or 100% earnings LM deduction doesn't seem to matter to the IRS. They won't block it. It makes sense they wouldn't too. Can you imagine an IRS auditor asking:
"about this deduction, exactly what date/amount did you demand lawful money?"
"Why should that matter?"
"Oh, well, it doesn't really. I'm just a... trying to, um, understand your reasoning... nevermind then."

You think a black robe is gonna allow a lawful money discussion in his courtroom? On the record? HA! Take whatever LM deduction you want, won't make no nevermind, you're likely to get it. Take it from me, the first to determine and announce the LH forum was fully infiltrated & dominated by quatloser agents. Fake users, fake questions, fake discussions.

Johnny, regarding your statement, "Take whatever LM deduction you want, won't make no nevermind, you're likely to get it." ...

The gracious Doug555 has been sharing knowledge here regarding how I have been 'attempting' (not actually executing) RILM for almost 2 years. My public-record demand AFFIDAVIT I pasted above (see 'Department of the Treasury' addressee') reads as taking only a 'Net Pay' Demand (deposits/withdrawals/etc.). I would agree with Doug555 that the Demand on 'all transactions' - first and foremost being the 'Gross Pay' of which is the actual initial payment/taxable-activity before deductions - is the proper way to evidence the on-the-record demand. I'm somewhat crushed that I have been restricting checks/deposit slips/ATM withdrawals for almost 2 years now, however my public-record AFFIDAVIT seems to be 'incomplete' or 'empty' as it reads like only a 'Net Pay' demand. Based on that, and my penalty history with 'them', I am wary of filing using the RILM deduction for upcoming TY 2014. I already filed 'sheeple' version for 2013.

Would like your thoughts based on your comments above, and Doug's observations. It's a great discussion, regardless. Thanks.

Sincerely,

imm

[BLBereans]

It seems to me that the living are the source of all value and it is that value which is utilized as evidence of security behind the issued notes of the United States. No "goods and services" produced means no collateral property to point to as the value backing such issuance of notes. So the "private credit" of each living man is the value behind the public or "lawful" money in circulation.

If the people acting in offices of the United States (Congress) have the power to issue currency and regulate the value thereof, then FRNs can be deemed "lawful" money - just NOT in the context of the Title 12 citation (411). It's all legal wordplay and the more words used to declare one's right, the greater the chance of error and misinterpretation.

Keep it simple, I find, makes for good results in most every scenario.

"It is my wish to make demand in lawful money, as expressed in Title 12 Sec. 411, for all transactions in [insert Name here]"

[David Merrill]

It seems to me that the living are the source of all value and it is that value which is utilized as evidence of security behind the issued notes of the United States. No "goods and services" produced means no collateral property to point to as the value backing such issuance of notes. So the "private credit" of each living man is the value behind the public or "lawful" money in circulation.

If the people acting in offices of the United States (Congress) have the power to issue currency and regulate the value thereof, then FRNs can be deemed "lawful" money - just NOT in the context of the Title 12 citation (411). It's all legal wordplay and the more words used to declare one's right, the greater the chance of error and misinterpretation.

Keep it simple, I find, makes for good results in most every scenario.

"It is my wish to make demand in lawful money, as expressed in Title 12 Sec. 411, for all transactions in [insert Name here]"

All trust indentures, corporations, are amoral persons capable of suit and being sued. However the rumor that government has declared or defined Federal Reserve notes "lawful money" is greatly exaggerated. All the citations seem to be directed to MILAM, that simply says the same thing you say, That Congress has the power to define money. MILAM does not specifically say that Congress has defined Federal Reserve notes to be lawful money.

[BLBereans]

If one googles, "mobley m milam us asst attorney" one may find some interesting pages to view regarding MILAM's past employment. It seems that it would have been the ultimate incompetent oversight for MILAM to not mention to his attorney that Title 12 USC 152 clearly defined what "lawful money" as it relates to Title 12:

Sec. 152. Lawful money reserve of associations issuing gold notes;
receiving notes of other associations

"Every association organized under section 151 of this title shall
at all times keep on hand not less than 25 per centum of its
outstanding circulation, in gold or silver coin of the United
States; and shall receive at par in the payment of debts the gold
notes of every other such association which at the time of such
payment is redeeming its circulating notes in gold coin of the
United States, and shall be subject to all the provisions of title
62 of the Revised Statutes: Provided, That, in applying the same to
associations organized for issuing gold notes, the terms ''lawful
money'' and ''lawful money of the United States'' shall be
construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States; and the
circulation of such associations shall not be within the limitation
of circulation mentioned in title 62 of the Revised Statutes."

This may have been repealed in 1994just NOT in the context of the Title 12 citation (411)