Very interesting development regarding online payment from lawful money account

[David Merrill]

I think the real problem lies in the treasury, they are the ones buying the feds credit and floating it out to us poor saps.
IRS mailings don't mention the Fed on their letterhead they mention the treasury. And therein lies the real problem, I believe we have as much right to the use the treasury of our nation in our daily lives as is lawful for conduct of business which is what drives David's whole point home. When we redeem lawful money we are applying remedy per the savings to suitors clause and its guarantee of common law. It has taken me while to get used to these concepts but once they take your eyes are truly opened.

"All common law is is case law - stare decisis."

That was the utterance of a second-year law student, my cousin's wife, to me at a family reunion. That is a stark reality check too. This is the safety net protecting all formal suitors. None of the suitors face criminal prosecution (under regular circumstance of redeeming lawful money) because the DoJ understands that if they lose the appeal then authority is established (case law) by way of the justices' opinion to release all Americans from the mental imprisonment that they must endorse private credit from the Fed.

This was revealed more clearly by the withdrawal of an appeal by 'government' upon mandatory notice to the USCA (United States Codes Annotated) publication service. The annotations become the common law - the opinions of the appellate justices become citations to pursuade subsequent appeals opinions. Of course that should have been obvious to me already - but it only came into my consciousness when I read it on a court docket report. The USCA is a sacrosanct medium of the common law. Even if it is government appealing, they have to live with the outcome. So the government withdrew the appeal. [I am having trouble remembering the case right now but will show you when I can find it.]

[David Merrill]

The dollar has changed definition many times since then. From wiki, but you can find it on many other resources...



It says the us dollar was free to float, but, David noted this a while back...

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/bulletin/1208assets.htm

Look at footnote number 1.

I don't know how, but, for some reason I can't kick the idea it is still stuck there. The value of US notes are still defined this way I believe, somehow though, we accept them to float right along with the FRNs. This is definitely what has been plaguing my mind for some time. The US Treasury has "sold" gold certificates to the Federal Reserve at the 42.22 dollars per ounce. Basically issued around 11 billion in these certificates, the amount of gold which they possessed, which then the Federal Reserve could lend upon. It was a way to sell the gold, yet keep it in the gov't vaults. That number is locked until the certificates are reclaimed. It's crazy to think about, but the value of the United States notes should be as good as gold.

Another thing, redeeming the FRN for lawful money was also a way for the Treasury to back out of the Federal Reserve system. The gov't took on all the liabilities of debt, but, they could also receive all the assets from the system. Since the US note has been diluted, I can't see why it hasn't kept it's value. Either way...

I went off on a mathematical tangent... (hey! That's a pun!)

I might have been better to wait for a certain email that informed me:

...that goes back to the Wheeler case of 1914, - 1914.SCT.244 , 233 U.S. 434, 58 L. Ed. 1030, 34 S. Ct. 607


...where in federal reserve notes is what is taxed for the privilege of their use in fact one administrative corporate supreme court, not the original one on 333 constitution ave. judge made the decisional statement and I paraphrase to shorten

The federal reserve has the right to tax their notes that are the debt obligations of the United States. They had transferred them to you via the company you worked or if you worked as yourself they were transferred to you by a man that you did work and you in turn transfer them to others and no matter where the notes, their situs, as stated by the court, lies in the federal reserve system.


and get this;


Again it is noted that situs is the legality to tax the notes be they in California, Maine, France or China. Remember we are applying the PRINCIPLE here to the federal reserve note since the court stated that technically there is no difference between the notes they are talking about in this case and federal reserve notes which are also defined as bills of exchange as they are blank notes, which you have not endorsed but merely passed on called a transfer.

On my first reading I find a very satisfying verification about redeeming lawful money!

...But it is plain that bills and notes, whatever they may be called, come very near to identification with the contract that they embody. An indorsement of the paper carries the contract to the indorser. An indorsement in blank passes the debt from hand to hand so that whoever has the paper has the debt.

[mikecz]

David,

I do lack the terminology here, but am definitely in line with the gov't complete avoidance of case law. They don't want to clear and in a formal opinion of the courts a decision on lawful money (seriously, is it not clear enough in the constitution, which I believe could be the largest elephant in the room in human history.) This is why it is so difficult to get anyone to write anything about money, the dollar, lawful money, or gold on paper.

So, I have the constitution of the United States Section 10. I have the Indiana constitution Article 11 Section 7. I have Indiana state code defining what employers can only be paid in...lawful money. IC 22-2-5-1. So since I'm paid in lawful money, I can then only "pay" others in lawful money. What I'm looking for is case law as you speak. I need a few cases where lawful money is clearly defined. I have found a few older cases that were of some interest. Basically a contract had been written between two parties for payment in confederate dollars.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/115/566

So in this case, someone bought land in confederate currency. The war was fought, confederate currency lost all the value, and needed to be paid in lawful money. The confederate currency was valued in lawful money, a clear distinction in rate. I wish we could get a case noting a difference in FRNs and Lawful money. Either way.
I'm going to solicit the law department of my credit union. We'll see where that goes...






Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

Section 7. All bills or notes issued as money shall be, at all times, redeemable in gold or silver; and no law shall be passed, sanctioning, directly or indirectly, the suspension, by any bank or banking company, of specie payments.

(a) Every person, firm, corporation, limited liability company, or association, their trustees, lessees, or receivers appointed by any court, doing business in Indiana, shall pay each employee at least semimonthly or biweekly, if requested, the amount due the employee. The payment shall be made in lawful money of the United States, by negotiable check, draft, or money order, or by electronic transfer to the financial institution designated by the employee. Any contract in violation of this subsection is void.

[David Merrill]

I wish we could get a case noting a difference in FRNs and Lawful money. Either way.
I'm going to solicit the law department of my credit union. We'll see where that goes...

That 1914 case I just read is fairly close. I like how it distinguishes bills from notes. That is very helpful in my mental models.


Also, along the way I have collected:

In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money.

United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.

[mikecz]

Thank you!!! Wonderful.

I had this crazy idea on the way home. Imagine we get two amicable parties to sue each other to formally have a case law example? This could be set up in a number of ways, a contract of sorts, but most importantly, the language of the suit could be designed to force a clear definition of lawful money from the court.

This isn't perfect and can be refined, but just an example here.

Say I contract with another party for a good, lets just say something cheap like a table, and require payment only in the form of lawful money of the united states. The person buying the table offers FRNs and I refuse the payment, as I claim it is not lawful money. I'm trying to think how to frame this so there is no wiggle room for the courts. I suppose FRNs are legal tender and must be accepted for payment, but, as stated in some other cases, like at restaurants, legal tender must be accepted, but for things like convenience stores, or vending machines, certain types can be excluded, as it is a private contract. We, the two parties, could disagree on what the definition of lawful money of the united states in the contract (which would be in writing). It could start at the small claims level (its only $81), though we might not get a completely lawful result, I think it might be a stepping stone for an appeal, etc.

Just thinking out loud here.

[mikecz]

Thank you!!! Wonderful.

I had this crazy idea on the way home. Imagine we get two amicable parties to sue each other to formally have a case law example? This could be set up in a number of ways, a contract of sorts, but most importantly, the language of the suit could be designed to force a clear definition of lawful money from the court.

This isn't perfect and can be refined, but just an example here.

Say I contract with another party for a good, lets just say something cheap like a table, and require payment only in the form of lawful money of the united states. The person buying the table offers FRNs and I refuse the payment, as I claim it is not lawful money. I'm trying to think how to frame this so there is no wiggle room for the courts. I suppose FRNs are legal tender and must be accepted for payment, but, as stated in some other cases, like at restaurants, legal tender must be accepted, but for things like convenience stores, or vending machines, certain types can be excluded, as it is a private contract. We, the two parties, could disagree on what the definition of lawful money of the united states in the contract (which would be in writing). It could start at the small claims level (its only $81), though we might not get a completely lawful result, I think it might be a stepping stone for an appeal, etc.

One better would be an argument claiming a difference in value. Something like, I've found FRNs to have depreciated rapidly in value, and demand payment in lawful money. Currently lawful money was last pegged at 42.22 per ounce gold, therefore my demand is either payment in lawful money, or a conversion of said value in FRNs...

Just thinking out loud here.

[Michael Joseph]

The last part of that quote from USA v. Luther THOMAS is interesting. See the distinction FRNS are not Money. So then 12USC411 makes it clear they can be Redeemed ON DEMAND in Lawful MONEY. So the operation of Law requires a CHOICE.

Balaam cannot curse you. You can submit to Tribute or you can choose to make a Demand. In you lies the Redemption of the Debt. Has to be because as an operation of law the Redemption requires a Demand be it Oral or Expressly written. If I was engaged in banking I would prefer the latter, then there are no presumptions to overcome. However, the Right to issue FRNS is in the Federal Reserve Board by way of Contract with the Congress; the Obligation for said Notes lies within the United States by formal agreement codified at Title 12 USC 411. Or if you desire the Congressional Record which is THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA in Congress Assembled - Reference the Federal Reserve Act.

[Michael Joseph]

USA v. Thomas 319 F.3d 640

Paper currency, in the form of the Federal Reserve Note, is defined as an

Now where it gets real interesting - at least to me - is WHY does the Obligation reside in the United States and NOT in the United States of America? In my opinion, this is because the Sovereigns forming the Corporate Body known as the United States pledged as Surety their own Estates, Honor and Lives - as Surety for the debts of the United States of America. Or as Washington called them the [Dis] United States of America. So then the debtor is slave to the lender. And the Obligation and therefore the Rights that derive from those Obligations are therefore IN the United States.

[LearnTheLaw]

The last part of that quote from USA v. Luther THOMAS is interesting. See the distinction FRNS are not Money. So then 12USC411 makes it clear they can be Redeemed ON DEMAND in Lawful MONEY. So the operation of Law requires a CHOICE.

Balaam cannot curse you. You can submit to Tribute or you can choose to make a Demand. In you lies the Redemption of the Debt. Has to be because as an operation of law the Redemption requires a Demand be it Oral or Expressly written. If I was engaged in banking I would prefer the latter, then there are no presumptions to overcome. However, the Right to issue FRNS is in the Federal Reserve Board by way of Contract with the Congress; the Obligation for said Notes lies within the United States by formal agreement codified at Title 12 USC 411. Or if you desire the Congressional Record which is THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA in Congress Assembled - Reference the Federal Reserve Act.

maybe this will shed a little more light on the matter?


Westfall vs. Braley, 10 Ohio 188, 75 Am. Dec. 509:

[Chex]

These banknotes were a form of representative money which could be converted into gold or silver by application at the bank. Since banks issued notes far in excess of the gold and silver they kept on deposit, sudden loss of public confidence in a bank could precipitate mass redemption of banknotes and result in bankruptcy.

The use of bank notes issued by private commercial banks as legal tender has gradually been replaced by the issuance of bank notes authorized and controlled by national governments. The Bank of England was granted sole rights to issue banknotes in England after 1694. In the USA, the Federal Reserve Bank was granted similar rights after its establishment in 1913. Until recently, these government-authorized currencies were forms of representative money, since they were partially backed by gold or silver and were theoretically convertible into gold or silver.

Definition of 'Lawful Money'
Any form of currency issued by the United States Treasury and not the Federal Reserve System, including gold and silver coins, Treasury notes, and Treasury bonds. Lawful money stands in contrast to fiat money, to which the government assigns value although it has no intrinsic value of its own and is not backed by reserves. Fiat money includes legal tender such as paper money, checks, drafts and bank notes.

Also known as "specie", which means "in actual form."

Investopedia explains 'Lawful Money'

Oddly enough, the dollar bills that we carry around in our wallets are not considered lawful money. The notation on the bottom of a U.S. dollar bill reads "Legal Tender for All Debts, Public and Private", and is issued by the U.S. Federal Reserve, not the U.S. Treasury. Legal tender can be exchanged for an equivalent amount of lawful money, but effects such as inflation can change the value of fiat money. Lawful money is said to be the most direct form of ownership, but for purposes of practicality it has little use in direct transactions between parties anymore.

Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/...#ixzz2LIHcDxpT

[mikecz]

David maybe you can answer this...

What is the difference between this notation..

DEPOSITED FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
OR EXCHANGED FOR
NON-REDEEMABLE FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES

and...

REDEEMED IN LAWFUL MONEY
PURSUANT TO TITLE 12 USC 411

One seems to require Fed Reserve notes, the other...lawful money. Both have posts saying they aren't taxable. Not sure...

[David Merrill]

Non-redeemable Federal Reserve notes are US notes in the form of Fed notes. They cannot be redeemed in any higher form of currency. Federal Reserve notes can be redeemed in lawful money, according to Congress and the courts.

[mikecz]

Non-redeemable Federal Reserve notes are US notes in the form of Fed notes. They cannot be redeemed in any higher form of currency. Federal Reserve notes can be redeemed in lawful money, according to Congress and the courts.

Ok,

I have a stamp here with the language of 12 USC 411, and just want to make sure we are accomplishing the same end. Basically we are saying the same thing but in different ways.


But this guys argument below is a little different. The point I don't get "a barter transaction of two different kinds of things being traded even-up for equal value are not taxable, there was no sale or financial gain just a private trade." "No one gets paid for anything with anything of valuable substance.

He states his stamp is saying he isn't getting anything of valuable substance. It's the "illegal" valuable substance that is taxable. The argument I've formed from the website is quite different, lawful money isn't taxable because it isn't private credit. Maybe I'm going in circles here, but I'm not quite getting them two notations stating the same thing...

[shikamaru]

maybe this will shed a little more light on the matter?


Westfall vs. Braley, 10 Ohio 188, 75 Am. Dec. 509:

Holy crap!
Thank-you for this.

[David Merrill]

That makes me wonder if there is some kind of 100-year expiration of charter, maybe from the Bible somewhere?

Could it be that the Fed will be shutting its doors this Christmas?