Make Demand At Treasury

[Keith Alan]

Lawful Money is Equitable Title to Labor-Credit Asset.

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

It appears a creditor is forgiving a debt! This is very cool.

[Keith Alan]

Withdrawal Of Circulation

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

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

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money is required; (3) when bonds are called for redemption by the Secretary of the Treasury and circulating notes are withdrawn in consequence thereof.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

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

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

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

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

[Chex]

If this indeed is the case, and the taxpayer's role as debtor is flipped to that of being creditor.

There is no question about it. Isn’t it that your signature [endorsement] that creates the printing machine to start rolling? Indeed without me there is no you.

[Keith Alan]

I'm understanding the concept of redemption better now.

[allodial]

If you are talking about making a distinction its pretty easy to distinguish between Keith Alan Doe and Keith Alan. 1040 can be signed KEITH ALAN DOE By: Keith Alan, as Manager or w/e. Or Keith Alan d/b/a KEITH ALAN DOE. Depends.

[Keith Alan]

If you are talking about making a distinction its pretty easy to distinguish between Keith Alan Doe and Keith Alan. 1040 can be signed KEITH ALAN DOE By: Keith Alan, as Manager or w/e. Or Keith Alan d/b/a KEITH ALAN DOE. Depends.

This is one reason I started the thread, to try and figure out how to sign the return. I'm thinking I will be appearing on the return in two capacities - as you suggest - first as the legal person, and second as an accomodation party. But how do I set the stage? In other words, the legal person incurred a tax liability, but the accomodation party is demanding lawful money, and offering to set off the legal.person's tax liability with his exemption (since lawful money is exempt from siezure).

The supporting schedule shown elsewhere on the site makes clear that a suitor was demanding lawful money through the Fed for Sep through Dec 2011. That same schedule reserves the right to make further demand nunc pro tunc to Jan 2011, but apparently the suitor has no documentation to justify doing that. Otherwise, why not do it right away?

Now I'm taking a slightly different tact, exploring the idea of making the demand directly to Treasury (on the 1040), as the statute directs. But doing so should not rely on supporting documentation such as photocopies of checks with non-endorsements. Rather, it takes into account the act of clearly delineating the two different capacities of legal person and accomodation party on the return. The question is how to do that.

I think signing the return on the bottom left (as the form indicates) might be incorrect for making the operating capacities clear. I think the signature should go on the right somewhere - like a check, and in the margin, vertically - so as to make the distinction that I am not in debt to the Treasury, but rather am setting off and settling any debt my legal person might incur.

[allodial]

This is one reason I started the thread, to try and figure out how to sign the return.

It might be vanity that has some people injecting themselves into situations where they ought not (personation). I get the impression that you might be mistaking the 1040 (assessment process) with the bank-side redemption process applicable to checks/deposits. I would treat KARL ALAN DOE as distinct and separate from myself. If the mail is to KARL ALAN DOE, and I were acting in the capacity of agent, rep. or it was a d/b/a... Is it vanity that makes John Henry want to stick his whole head and body into JOHN HENRY DOE's affairs? Or would it be foolishness?

/s/ KARL ALAN DOE
By: Karl Alan, as Authorized Representative. ( Executor, Administrator, Treasurer...).

Alternative is Karl Alan for KARL ALAN DOE. I could not in good suggest signing the form "Karl Alan". Be not confused. One way.. or another. A workable model IMHO shouldn't be confusing although it might take adjusting to at times to go from lesser light into more marvelous light.

I have not gone through his taxes as with any and all suitors - I do not do taxes. The suitors do not expect that from me and the readers and members here should keep that in mind. To reiterate from my learned perspective I perceive the redemption for lawful money is taking the position of the creditor and thusly the tax liability disappears from underlying and related reasons--by operation of law.

Fair enough. Redemption for lawful money is more of a bank/treasury side. Not a revenue side matter. However, it may be that endorsing/accommodating private credit can lead to revenue ramifications. I 'strongly suspect' that the tax liability becomes moot in consequence of a redemptioner taking the position of being originator of the credit rather than not.

**

Back to Keith Alan: obviously they aren't paying you in gold coin, you do the redemption with the checks they give you whether they come from the U.S. Treasury or one of their many delegates (US charter banks).

[David Merrill]

One thing members and readers should keep in mind is that I do not carefully screen examples like the Schedule one I presented by attachment here. That example in fact does not agree precisely with the W-2 Form amount and the suitor was at first concerned that he should correct that Schedule before I could sanitize it and present it. As I recall he was thinking that the discrepancy was because he was including the SSI amounts. Then he thought through it again...

He asked me to black out a few more figures and it would be okay to share it so there you have it. He had already filed that Schedule when we were discussing it.

I have not gone through his taxes as with any and all suitors - I do not do taxes. The suitors do not expect that from me and the readers and members here should keep that in mind. I have on several occasions listened to a suitor go through his or her figures over the phone and more than anything I am listening for the confidence that they feel the figures are correct - rather than the figures themselves of course.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

A suitor on the brain trust feels that his signature on the redeemed lawful money return caused some problems with the IRS agent. I have been suggesting that if the mail and letterhead addresses JOHN H DOE to write exactly that on the return.

"JOHN H DOE" neatly written or better yet typed in the form.

[ManOntheLand]

I have been re-reading G. Edward Griffin's The Creature from Jekyll Island and found the following anecdote about redeeming lawful money (apparently the anecdote described happened in 1947, when M.E. Slindee was acting Secretary of Treasury) on page 136:

Even the government cannot define money. Some years ago, a
Mr. A.F. Davis mailed a ten-dollar Federal Reserve Note to the
Treasury Department. In his letter of transmittal, he called attention
to the inscription on the bill which said that it was redeemable in
"lawful money," and then requested that such money be sent to
him. In reply, the Treasury merely sent two five-dollar bills from a
different printing series bearing a similar promise to pay.

Mr. Davis responded:

Dear Sir:
Receipt is hereby acknowledged of two $5.00 United States notes,
which we interpret from your letter are to be considered as lawful
money. Are we to infer from this that the Federal Reserve notes are not
lawful money?
I am enclosing one of the $5.00 notes which you sent to me. I note
that it states on the face, "The United States of America will pay to (he
bearer on demand five dollars." I am hereby demanding five dollars.


One week later, Mr. Davis received the following reply from Acting Treasurer, M.E. Slindee:

Dear Mr. Davis:
Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of December 23rd,
transmitting one $5. United States Note with a demand for payment of
five dollars. You are advised that the term "lawful money" has not
been defined in federal legislation.... The term "lawful currency" no
longer has such special significance. The $5. United States Note
received with your letter of December 23rd is returned herewith.

The phrases "...will pay to the bearer on demand" and "... is
redeemable in lawful money" were deleted from our currency
altogether in 1964.

1. As quoted by C.V. Myers, Money and Energy: Weathering the Storm (Darien,
Connecticut: Soundview Books, 1980), pp. 161,163. Also by Lawrence S. Ritter, ed-,
Money and Economic Activity (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1967), p. 33.