Abolish the Fed

[David Merrill]

In my pursuit of simpler explanations I find the fact that the Fed was designed in 1913 to be abolished by its own charter expiration (1933). That seems to be an easy way to explain it.

Now I cannot explain how since the only thing keeping the Fed going has been endorsement from people who hate the Fed - that the Fed has lasted this long!

[Brian]

In my pursuit of simpler explanations I find the fact that the Fed was designed in 1913 to be abolished by its own charter expiration (1933). That seems to be an easy way to explain it.

Now I cannot explain how since the only thing keeping the Fed going has been endorsement from people who hate the Fed - that the Fed has lasted this long!

People don't make the connection about the foundational nature of the "money" they are using.

Read: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/money-...omment-2362949

Note this paragraph: "If you could print a currency at no cost, that had no intrinsic value, and get the legal system to recognize it as the only legally permissibly 'tender' to satisfy all debt, public and private, would you print as much as you could, loan it out to as many entities and people as you could, and sit back, not caring whether 90% or 9% of the loans were repaid, since it cost you nothing to produce the loan, meaning that you can only gain assets (securitized) and indebt institutions (create indebted parties that you can then garnish), and literally lose not one atom of anything of inherent value?"

FRN's were given "legal tender" status in 1933. Between then and 1971 all other forms of "money" were eliminated from circulation except FRN's and current coin. True the statutes still exist for USN's but most people have no idea what they are, let alone ever seen one.

[shikamaru]

From the horse's mouth

US Treasury


Legal Tender Status

I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal?

The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."

This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.

[shikamaru]

More interesting information from the horse's mouth:

US Treasury

What are Federal Reserve notes and how are they different from United States notes?

Federal Reserve notes are legal tender currency notes. The twelve Federal Reserve Banks issue them into circulation pursuant to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. A commercial bank belonging to the Federal Reserve System can obtain Federal Reserve notes from the Federal Reserve Bank in its district whenever it wishes. It must pay for them in full, dollar for dollar, by drawing down its account with its district Federal Reserve Bank.

Federal Reserve Banks obtain the notes from our Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP). It pays the BEP for the cost of producing the notes, which then become liabilities of the Federal Reserve Banks, and obligations of the United States Government.

Congress has specified that a Federal Reserve Bank must hold collateral equal in value to the Federal Reserve notes that the Bank receives. This collateral is chiefly gold certificates and United States securities. This provides backing for the note issue. The idea was that if the Congress dissolved the Federal Reserve System, the United States would take over the notes (liabilities). This would meet the requirements of Section 411, but the government would also take over the assets, which would be of equal value. Federal Reserve notes represent a first lien on all the assets of the Federal Reserve Banks, and on the collateral specifically held against them.

Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything. This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy. In another sense, because they are legal tender, Federal Reserve notes are "backed" by all the goods and services in the economy.

Let me ask: is this why banks are so interested in getting people to borrow from them?

Is a lien on your personal assets from a bank collateral for the FRB as a part and parcel of its overall assets?

If not the property, than their interest in the property?

[shikamaru]

FRN's were given "legal tender" status in 1933.

I'm trying to find this via some official source or document? Could you help me with the assertion above?

Between then and 1971 all other forms of "money" were eliminated from circulation except FRN's and current coin.

Money is gold, silver, and copper coin. Specie.
"Money" would be USNs, gold certificates, silver certificates, and the like.

True the statutes still exist for USN's but most people have no idea what they are, let alone ever seen one.

I think I've found this one: The Legal Tender Act of 1862.

[David Merrill]

It is supported by deduction with the amendment to . Look at the Notes.



I can likely come up with better and more direct citations by looking. Thanks for asking.

[ManOntheLand]

In my pursuit of simpler explanations I find the fact that the Fed was designed in 1913 to be abolished by its own charter expiration (1933). That seems to be an easy way to explain it.

Now I cannot explain how since the only thing keeping the Fed going has been endorsement from people who hate the Fed - that the Fed has lasted this long!

It is a presumed contract that depends for its existence on the "taxpayer" being unaware of the contract (or in any case, how the contract was formed). I understand some suitors have made retroactive claims that no tax liability was incurred even prior to their knowledge of and use of the remedy in 12 USC S. 411 due to fraud by omission--and that this has reportedly become a less successful strategy over time.

IMHO, the fraud by omission assertion is likely to be ignored by IRS because IRS attorneys know that asserting fraud places the burden of proof upon the one making the assertion, and that this would be difficult to prove in court, while also somewhat changing the subject away from remedy. In other words, a presumed taxpayer defendant who relies on fraud by omission to defend against an obligation that was incurred (prior to demanding lawful money) may find his defense quickly ruled against, merely because he made a very difficult to prove assertion and could not meet the burden of proof for fraud. IRS could get a dismissal of such a claim without having to get into a discussion of lawful money. This may be why they are starting to ignore such assertions.

A stronger position is probably to assert that no contract was formed in the first place, using one or more of the affirmative defenses to performance of a contract described in the Restatements in the Uniform Commercial Code, e.g. no meeting of the minds, no intent to be bound, mistake of law, mistake of fact, failure of consideration, unconscionable contract (who would agree to convert his right to labor and earn a living into a taxable privilege, absent consideration?), none of which require one to prove fraudulent intent by any one.

Also, the U.S. Supreme Court stated in Brady v. United States (1970) that waivers of constitutional rights must be voluntary, knowing and intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the likely consequences.

This seems to me a much stronger position for getting IRS to back off liabilities incurred prior to discovering remedy than asserting "fraud by omission".

Having said that, perhaps a case might still be made (if necessary) for misrepresentation, if not fraud. In Rohwer and Skrocki's Contracts in a Nutshell,. p. 291 it states: "conduct designed to prevent or likely to prevent another from learning a fact is equivalent to an assertion that the fact does not exist."

Consider the following conduct and how it may have prevented you from learning about remedy sooner : removal (in 1964) from the FRN the statement that the note may be redeemed for lawful money? Or the Treasury failing to circulate U.S Notes for the past 42 years? These facts could be used in line with the claim that one would have demanded redemption from the first paycheck ever, if one had known the option existed.

[Michael Joseph]

Money is gold, silver, and copper coin. Specie.
"Money" would be USNs, gold certificates, silver certificates, and the like.

Consider if I hold a Certificate saying that I can redeem said Certificate for property - then isn't that Certificate an INTEREST in the property? And since the property is clearly being held in trust - if it wasn't then you would not be carrying certificates - then the Trustee would have to give the interest in the property OR the property upon demand of the Certificate Bearer.

This was easily seen when the property was gold, silver or any TANGIBLE form of property. But what if the Property is INTANGIBLE. What if the REDEMPTION has to do with PROMISES held in TRUST. Isn't a Promise an EQUITABLE interest? Of course it is!

If I promise you I will do something, then you have equity coming to you according to my promise. I have a duty to perform upon my promise.

Notes are evidence of TRUST. If the Property is Lawful Money [monetary issue with certain obligations and therefore certain rights] then I must make a demand for it as before. The operation of law is the same - the holder of the certificate MUST make a demand.

[Brian]

I'm trying to find this via some official source or document? Could you help me with the assertion above?



Money is gold, silver, and copper coin. Specie.
"Money" would be USNs, gold certificates, silver certificates, and the like.



I think I've found this one: The Legal Tender Act of 1862.

HJR-192 page 112/113

See page 9 of this pdf for a scan of the bill: http://freedom-school.com/money/fede...gal-tender.pdf

[ManOntheLand]

I am not sure if "money" is actually defined anywhere in U.S. law other than by giving examples, but "dollar" is certainly defined in U.S. law.

FRN's use the term "dollar" on them, yet since FRN's became no longer redeemable in gold, the Federal Reserve has zero connection to the public law definition of "dollar". The Federal Reserve is clearly operating under a different definition of the term "dollar" (private law or fiction of law definition).

This private law definition of "dollar" seems to be "one dollar United States note", since this seems to be all you are entitled to get from the Fed in exchange for a dollar FRN.

FRN's can no longer be redeemed for gold as of 1933, but the dollar itself continues to this day to be defined in public law as a given weight in gold. Therefore we have currency, we have lawful money, we have legal tender, we have notes, we even have coins, but none of them can be "dollars" according to the law of the land unless they are redeemable for a given weight of gold. Making it clear that Federal reserve Notes cannot possibly be lawful money according to public law.

The 1792 Coinage Act (amended in 1900 and still in effect today), states that a dollar is 25.8 grains or 1/20 of an oz of gold. The closest you could come to getting a dollar from Fed is to receive a U.S. Note, making it pretty clear that this is their private law definition of a "dollar".

[ManOntheLand]

Thinking about this today, it suddenly struck me that remedy seems to be implied on the face of some payroll checks I have received. This was one of those moments like the last minutes of "The Usual Suspects" where clues that have been right under my nose started hitting me like a ton of bricks all at once.

Many of the thoughts expressed below are more the product of intuition than logic, so I welcome any corrections anyone has to offer. To wit:


Many payroll checks I have received state on their face "Pay exactly (numerical amount spelled out) Dollars and (digits) Cents."

The Box to the right of that also states "Pay Exactly" and contains below that a numerical value expressed in digits with a decimal point but with no dollar sign.

Below those boxes on the face of the payroll check is the phrase "Pay to the Order of" along with the legal name I use, (my PERSON), for commerce.

It seemed on the surface to be redundant and even overkill to state "pay exactly" twice and "pay to the order of" all within the small space of one payroll check, until I realized that slightly different versions of one command are being made on the check as a result of doing it this way:

1) Pay exactly (stated amount) in dollars and cents (lawful money/ i.e. U.S. Notes and/or coins)
2) Pay exactly (stated amount) not in dollars and cents (but instead pay in the form of private credit)
3) In any case, pay to the order of LEGAL NAME

This variability is what makes my paycheck a "negotiable instrument" and not money. I have always known I could endorse a check over to another party, but until now I did not catch the subtle absence of any dollar sign on the box where the numerical value is expressed in digits.

Perhaps leaving the dollar sign off gives the banks plausible deniability and allows them to technically avoid fraud? It seems the absence of a dollar sign on the check is subtly giving notice that Federal Reserve credit is not legally "dollars" (i.e. U.S. Notes/lawful money) even though FRN's seem to say they are dollars on their face. (And U.S. Notes are not circulated anymore, with the intended result that most of us will not know we can demand U.S.Notes in exchange for FRN's).

For those who think I am reading too much into this, I have gotten tax refund checks from federal and state that have the dollar sign in front of the digits listed for the payable amount. Most personal checks I have observed also have a dollar sign in front of the box where you write in the numbers of the amount you are paying.

So I think the absence of a dollar sign has significance. It seems unlikely to me that payroll companies are just too lazy or forgetful to put a dollar sign in front of where the numbers go. I believe the absence of a dollar sign on my payroll checks has everything to do with the public policy of trying to get as many people as possible to trade in their un-taxable right to labor for compensation, exchanging that right for a taxable privilege, by getting such people to accept payment in private credit rather than in dollars and cents (i.e. U.S. Notes/lawful money).

So, based on the face of the negotiable instrument known as my payroll check, I can do any of the following:

1) DEMAND to be paid exactly the amount stated on the face of the check in dollars and cents, (i.e. U.S. Notes and coins, or even entirely in coins if I so choose), "lawful money" as the Federal Reserve Act defines it

OR

2) endorse over the check to another party and leave the option of said party to receive dollars and cents, or private credit in exchange

OR

3) I can demand to be paid exactly the same amount, NOT in dollars and cents but in the form of private credit) in exchange for endorsing and bonding the check into the Federal Reserve System



The remedy in Federal Reserve Act is subtly implied on the face of the payroll check, in that my legal PERSON is named as the party giving the order as to whether the transaction will be in "dollars" (i.e. lawful public money/U.S. Notes) or private credit. FRN credit cannot lawfully be denominated in "dollars" (? not sure about this) So this is why the dollar sign is missing--the amount is not in dollars but represents private credit--an amount that is only a "reserve" for nine times that amount in fractional lending!!

FRN's can be redeemed for dollars but cannot ever be dollars themselves, (not even by the Fed's private definition of "dollar"--a one dollar U.S. Note) because this would make a constructive fraud into an ACTUAL fraud. A dollar is a fixed amount of weight by law. A currency that is continuously depreciated and debased cannot be referred to with the same term without committing fraud.



I have noticed before that W-2 forms and 1040 tax returns also do not have dollar signs in front of the amounts. Nor does the Federal Notice of Lien filed against me have any dollar sign in front of the alleged amounts owing, and nowhere is the word "dollar" used.

The amounts reported on W-2 is relevant information to the IRS, but only to the extent that such amounts were a transfer of private credit. This is why the W-2 form lacks dollar signs. If I made my demand to redeem those amounts in dollars and cents/lawful money/U.S. Notes, then the tax liability from such transfers is mathematically eliminated.


Likewise with the notice of lien, the lien cannot be made against dollars, but only against the Fed's own privately issued credit. They have a first lien on amounts denominated in this private credit or property obtained with such credit. I think this is why the notice of lien has no dollar signs.

1099 forms, however, do use the dollar sign. This is because the party generating the 1099 form is not an "employer" (for purposes of the reported transactions), is not bound to contribute to FICA from the payments, and is presumed to be making a business to business payment.

Year end statements for unemployment checks also use the dollar sign. This is because the payments and forms are generated by states, who are prohibited from issuing bills of credit by the Constitution.

It seems clear to me based on the absence of dollar sign on W-2 that the laborer earning a "paycheck" is the primary target of the income tax scheme. Business to business payments on 1099 forms less so; there is already a legitimate tax nexus on profit from trade or business in the U.S. in the Code (independent of the private credit nexus), so playing the games with the dollar sign is not necessary for the 1099; only for the otherwise untaxable wages of the private sector worker reported on W-2.



Looking back at copies of tax refund checks I have received, it is interesting to note that the "United States Treasury" refund check states: "Pay to the Order of", yet the State refund checks I have received state simply "To:" The State refund check also uses the term "dollars and cents" to describe what I received. (States are prohibited from issuing bills of credit by Article I Section 10 of the Constitution).

Also the U.S. Treasury Refund checks you get from federal taxes do not use the word "dollar" but they do have a dollar sign in front of the digits representing the payable amount.

In cases when I have received interest as a part of Treasury refund checks, the interest amount is separately stated at the bottom of the check, and there is NO dollar sign in front of the interest amount, just the digits. It is interesting that the total amount is paid in dollars and cents, but the interest is separately listed with no dollar sign.

This seems to be because such interest is by public law "gross income" that is legitimately a profit from a "trade or business" within the United States and is being issued as "new currency" exclusively in private credit FRN (since no U.S. Notes are circulated). The rest of the check is just a refund of withholding amounts previously collected which were not ultimately due, so the option to call these dollars is available without committing fraud.

My conclusion: Because dollar-based domestic transactions not generating profit cannot be the basis for income taxation, the reporting of a payment amount which lacks a dollar sign indicates a transfer of private credit that is creating the sole income tax nexus on such payment.

The 1099, although it does indicate payments in dollars and cents, is ostensibly for reporting payments effectively connected to a trade or business within the U.S., creating at least the presumption of a "profit" tax nexus that would be independent of the endorsement of private credit.

(This may explain why I have found it far easier to get IRS to back down when disputing the tax nexus of a 1099 by informing them that the payment was not effectively connected to a trade or business within the U.S.) The same assertion with respect to a W-2 never seemed to work in the long run--now that I understand the income tax nexus from the use of private credit, I know why.

[ManOntheLand]

After checking many of the notices I have received from IRS, it seems they use the dollar sign freely on bills they send me, and any other time that they can, but I think they are safe to do so within a fiction of law context (I am presumed to be a taxpayer already on such notices, and thus presumed to be operating in their fiction of law that FRN's are "dollars".)

It seems they only avoid using the dollar sign in certain contexts where they have to, to avoid crossing the line into actual fraud (rather than just constructive fraud).

The dollar sign seems to be left off only in those cases where there would otherwise be fraud or an indication that a fundamental right is being infringed upon. Thus the private sector worker's pay for his labor, prior to the determination that he is a taxpayer, must be reported on W-2 with no dollar sign (reflecting the transfer of private credit) but the worker is at the same time meant to think that his paycheck is taxable under the public law.

I guess it's the worker's fault for believing his paycheck is taxable and/or not noticing or wondering why the dollar sign is missing on his checks and W-2 form! But if the W-2 ACTUALLY claimed his payment was in dollars AND IRS claimed he is legally taxed on it, IRS would apparently be "crossing the line" into actual fraud and or deprivation of rights under color of law. Only after the worker signs onto all of this and enters the legal fiction can the IRS send him bills telling him how many "dollars" he owes them, using dollar signs.

The notice of tax lien also has no dollar signs, because it is a publicly recorded document and would otherwise on its face be an encumbrance against private property without due process of law, as well as a fraudulent instrument, as the federal tax lien is enforceable only against property with the private credit nexus attached to it.

By contrast, the levy notices I have seen do have dollar signs, as a notice of levy is not a publicly recorded document, but is used only "internally" to the private credit system to seize bank accounts (presumably containing exclusively private credit) and to intercept the transfer of private credit in the form of employee wages.

[David Merrill]

I am not sure if "money" is actually defined anywhere in U.S. law other than by giving examples, but "dollar" is certainly defined in U.S. law.

FRN's use the term "dollar" on them, yet since FRN's became no longer redeemable in gold, the Federal Reserve has zero connection to the public law definition of "dollar". The Federal Reserve is clearly operating under a different definition of the term "dollar" (private law or fiction of law definition).

This private law definition of "dollar" seems to be "one dollar United States note", since this seems to be all you are entitled to get from the Fed in exchange for a dollar FRN.

FRN's can no longer be redeemed for gold as of 1933, but the dollar itself continues to this day to be defined in public law as a given weight in gold. Therefore we have currency, we have lawful money, we have legal tender, we have notes, we even have coins, but none of them can be "dollars" according to the law of the land unless they are redeemable for a given weight of gold. Making it clear that Federal reserve Notes cannot possibly be lawful money according to public law.

The 1792 Coinage Act (amended in 1900 and still in effect today), states that a dollar is 25.8 grains or 1/20 of an oz of gold. The closest you could come to getting a dollar from Fed is to receive a U.S. Note, making it pretty clear that this is their private law definition of a "dollar".

This is the real point about the Diminished Money Counterclaim thread. Thank you for such a delightful connection point - your post!

[ManOntheLand]

More clues right under our noses: Looking at different currencies issued throughout U.S. History, I couldn't help notice that the Treasury Seal on the federal reserve note was changed at some point and this lead me to discover that the flag of the United States Secretary of Treasury was also changed in 1915 from this:

http://https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_United_States_Secretary_of_the_Tr easury_%281887-1915%29.png

to this:

http://https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_United_States_Secretary_of_the_Tr easury.png


Comparing the two, the current flag has a similar looking crest as the old one, except placed upon a distinctly maritime looking ocean of blue with two white anchors crossing each other. Also the "water" seems to have flooded out the substance of the crest. The scales are now part of the ocean, as is the key; and the stars that used to be in the chevron are gone. Finally the old flag had 8 stars in a circular formation, plus 5 more in the chevron, and the new one has 13 stars, all on the outside. Not sure what that means...

[JohnnyCash]

Wow. ManOntheLam has been busy at the keyboard! TL;DR

This is how I end the Fed.