"Redeeming Lawful Money"

[.]

So, to summarize the 5 pages of this thread, I count no fewer than 20 requests for even one court ruling upholding Van Pelt's nonsense in any way.

Which has been answered by Van Pelt with volumes of additional gibberish and word-salad, but nary a single cite to any court; there's also the emerging fall-back excuse that his imaginary recipients of imaginary refunds based on his imaginary hogwash wouldn't litigate because they're happy and, apparently, very, very shy.

Which, unfortunately for Van Pelt, ignores the fact that the IRS will always litigate (and win) bogus refund cases, most recently demonstrated by the long string of CtC-users' refund losses in court.

Assuming that there are any morons out there who were dumb and/or ignorant enough to have used Van Pelt's rubbish on an actual tax return (I'm not even sure how one could possibly do that,) Van Pelt has to hope that they remain under the radar because if any are discovered, we'll soon enough thereafter read the published court decision ordering the repayment of the erroneous refund.

Meanwhile, we and everyone else with a skeptical bone in their body will wait forever in vain for Van Pelt to provide proof of something that doesn't exist and can't exist anywhere other than in his dysfunctional mind.

I think Wes's thread has served its purpose well, the few pot-shots at Van Pelt notwithstanding. He's been shown to be delusional and totally unable to respond coherently to simple requests for facts. Repeatedly.

[fortinbras]

But, ignoring the history and the law, there is nonetheless some logic in saying that, since FRNs can be redeemed in lawful money, they are not themselves lawful money. ....

That might have been true back in 1913 when the Federal Reserve Act was passed. Originally FRNs were not intended for general circulation but used as markers among federal banks. I do not know when or how FRNs "leaked" into general circulation but I suspect it didn't take long and it wouldn't be the first or last time that something started by Congress was treated differently than originally envisioned. In 1933, Congress took us off the Gold Standard, for very good reasons, and shortly thereafter declared that FRNs and all other forms of money issued by Congressional authorization were now "legal tender", which was a substantial change from the status of FRNs from what they were in 1913.

[Pottapaug1938]

The first FRNs appeared (I believe) in 1914; and as in the case of United States Notes and National Currency they were intended to be a means of expanding the supply of money, thereby fostering economic growth, and avoiding the consequences of deflation (which was what happened from 1929 until 1933, when the Federal government tried its utmost to defend the gold standard).

[David Merrill]

But, ignoring the history and the law, there is nonetheless some logic in saying that, since FRNs can be redeemed in lawful money, they are not themselves lawful money. ....

That might have been true back in 1913 when the Federal Reserve Act was passed. Originally FRNs were not intended for general circulation but used as markers among federal banks. I do not know when or how FRNs "leaked" into general circulation but I suspect it didn't take long and it wouldn't be the first or last time that something started by Congress was treated differently than originally envisioned. In 1933, Congress took us off the Gold Standard, for very good reasons, and shortly thereafter declared that FRNs and all other forms of money issued by Congressional authorization were now "legal tender", which was a substantial change from the status of FRNs from what they were in 1913.

Every time I think we have sealed up this slur campaign, Wserra's project as a failure you bring up some great point.

I do not know when or how FRNs "leaked" into general circulation but I suspect it didn't take long and it wouldn't be the first or last time that something started by Congress was treated differently than originally envisioned.

I showed you all that at the beginning of this thread!





At the State Governors' Convention in 1933 FDR explained that the people could start endorsing their salary checks, just like they were the formerly exclusive Fed banks! You admit it. You just don't know when it began. I am showing you all where it began:

[David Merrill]

The first FRNs appeared (I believe) in 1914; and as in the case of United States Notes and National Currency they were intended to be a means of expanding the supply of money, thereby fostering economic growth, and avoiding the consequences of deflation (which was what happened from 1929 until 1933, when the Federal government tried its utmost to defend the gold standard).

Which describes quite well how elastic currency destroyed the gold standard.

[Dr. Caligari]

In any indictment I am sure that the defendant has been signing all sorts of papers without redeeming lawful money. It is redeeming lawful money that avoids contract with the Fed.

An indictment must allege all facts necessary to support a conviction. If no one could be convicted of tax evasion unless he had signed something without redeeming lawful money, the indictment would have to say so and the Government would have to prove it at trial. But no indictment ever says so and no such evidence is ever presented at trial.

[Pottapaug1938]

The first FRNs appeared (I believe) in 1914; and as in the case of United States Notes and National Currency they were intended to be a means of expanding the supply of money, thereby fostering economic growth, and avoiding the consequences of deflation (which was what happened from 1929 until 1933, when the Federal government tried its utmost to defend the gold standard).

Which describes quite well how elastic currency destroyed the gold standard.

That's better, David; but the gold standard certainly deserved to be destroyed, and "elastic currency" had nothing to do with it. Here's a good example as to why (where I found it, I do not recall):

Among the many factions of Americans who believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, one fervent group traces its wrong turn back to Aug. 15, 1971. On that day, President Nixon eliminated the gold standard — a monetary system in which dollars were backed by and could be exchanged for a fixed amount of gold. Since then, the United States has used a fiat currency, in which dollars are valuable simply because the government says they are.

A recent upsurge in pining for the gold standard among tea partiers and libertarians has led 13 conservative states to adopt or consider laws in the past year that would allow gold and silver coins to be used as legal tender. Meanwhile, Republican presidential candidates Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich are both urging policymakers to consider a nationwide return to the gold standard — a move they say would rein in inflation and take the country back to an era of financial stability, by barring the government from putting new paper money in circulation unless an equal amount of gold is mined.

However, mainstream economists are overwhelmingly against a return to the gold standard. Why? What effects would it have if it were reinstated today? We've polled several experts to find out just that.

Ups and downs

Contrary to the belief that gold standards stabilize prices, the most dramatic historical episodes of deflation and inflation occurred when the United States had one in place. According to William Gavin, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis who has conducted research on the effects of a gold standard on price levels, pegging the dollar to gold would make prices fluctuate wildly. "With the gold standard you have far too much price volatility," he told Life's Little Mysteries.

This is because, even if the price of gold is fixed, demand for it continues to wax and wane. People tend to hoard gold during periods of economic uncertainty, and this causes prices to fall (deflation). "When you take money out of the system by hoarding gold, that makes the available money able to support transactions and economic activity go down," Gavin explained. Less money in circulation means prices drop and unemployment rises, and the government must adjust interest rates in response to try to stimulate economic activity.
Historically, when a gold standard was in place, the average unemployment was almost 2 percentage points higher, and a measure of price volatility called the "coefficient of variation" was 13 times higher.

Furthermore, with the gold standard, the financial system frequently experienced shocks and rapid inflation due to new gold discoveries, such as the California Gold Rush of the 1840s and '50s. These unpredictable increases in the money supply tended to be less beneficial to the economy than the kind of controlled increases enacted by the Federal Reserve today.

In Gavin's opinion, people who support the gold standard are "looking at history through rose-colored glasses."

Hard money, hard times

If the United States returned to the gold standard and then faced an economic crisis, the government would not be permitted to use monetary policy (such as injecting stimulus money into the economy) to avert financial disaster. Similarly, the government would no longer have the option of creating money in order to fund a war.
This inflexibility means any small economic downturn would be expected to rapidly intensify, because there would be few mechanisms available for stopping a plunge. Barry Eichengreen, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, argues that this economic rigidity greatly exacerbated and prolonged the Great Depression during the 1930s. If, after the 1929 stock market crash, the government had immediately abandoned the gold standard and taken measures to curb deflation and job losses, the crisis could have been minimized.

Even during the period that many gold supporters view as a golden era of economic prosperity — the years from 1880 to 1914, when the majority of countries went on a gold standard together — financial crises occurred repeatedly and were severe and disruptive and led to sharp recessions. "The idea that this was a smoothly functioning monetary system is not correct," Eichengreen told Life's Little Mysteries.

Supporters of the gold standard may wrongly attribute the economic growth and boom in international trade during that post-Civil War period to the monetary system that was in place, when in fact the gold standard caused frequent problems in a time that was otherwise experiencing the glory of the Industrial Revolution.

In a recent article about the recession of 2008-09, Eichengreen and economist Peter Temin of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology argue that it was the government's aggressive fiscal stimuli that helped the United States avoid a Depression-level catastrophe three years ago. If we had still been on the gold standard, the government would not have been permitted to take palliative measures, and the downfall would have been disastrous.

In short, gold standards "intensify problems when times are bad," the economists wrote.

Gold at a price

The immediate consequences of pegging the dollar to gold would depend on what dollar amount was chosen, according to Michael Bordo, an economist at Rutgers University who is recognized as a leading expert on the gold standard. And picking the right price would be extremely difficult.

"If the price at which gold is pegged is too low, then we would get long-run deflation as in the 1920s and '30s," Bordo said. In effect, the attractively low price of gold would cause people to trade in their dollars, and gold hoarding would drive prices down. If, however, the price set for gold is too high, "then we would get long-run inflation," Bordo said — exactly what advocates of the gold standard despise most.

On top of all the other drawbacks, it would cost a tremendous amount to produce and maintain the gold coins we would need for a return to the gold standard. In 1960, the economist Milton Friedman estimated that maintaining a gold coin standard costs 2.5 percent of the Gross National Product, or more than $350 billion today.

Follow Natalie Wolchover on Twitter @nattyover. Follow Life's Little Mysteries on Twitter @llmysteries, then join us on Facebook.

-- David Frum, special assistant to George W. Bush, also wrote an excellent column, for CNN, on the subject.

[Arthur Rubin]

You believe in guilt and monetizing sin. You keep protecting a non-redemptive system of thought. Your endeavor to find a case opinion is Talmudic - Oral Tradition in writing.

I don't think he's making any (unsupported) claims, thereby indicating the post should be deleted, but I'm not sure. Is being pure gibberish justification for deleting a post?

[David Merrill]

Whatever...

They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...


We are still They to you Poppycock. We are redeemed. You will eventually become like us or die off first; your choice.

[The Observer]

I don't think he's making any (unsupported) claims, thereby indicating the post should be deleted, but I'm not sure. Is being pure gibberish justification for deleting a post?

No - gibberish, unadulterated or not, is fine.

[David Merrill]

You believe in guilt and monetizing sin. You keep protecting a non-redemptive system of thought. Your endeavor to find a case opinion is Talmudic - Oral Tradition in writing.

I don't think he's making any (unsupported) claims, thereby indicating the post should be deleted, but I'm not sure. Is being pure gibberish justification for deleting a post?

Eloquent, coming from RUBIN.

Rth 4:6 And the kinsman said, I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I mar mine own inheritance: redeem thou my right to thyself; for I cannot redeem it.
Rth 4:7 Now this was the manner in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning changing, for to confirm all things; a man plucked off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbour: and this was a testimony in Israel.
Rth 4:8 Therefore the kinsman said unto Boaz, Buy it for thee. So he drew off his shoe.
Rth 4:9 And Boaz said unto the elders, and unto all the people, Ye are witnesses this day, that I have bought all that was Elimelech's, and all that was Chilion's and Mahlon's, of the hand of Naomi.

[Arthur Rubin]

Eloquent, coming from RUBIN.

That's not me. It's not even an "Arthur Rubin". And at least one of the "documents" is a redacted filing by the poster, himself, which is not allowable on this board.

Rth 4:6 And the kinsman said, I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I mar mine own inheritance: redeem thou my right to thyself; for I cannot redeem it.
Rth 4:7 Now this was the manner in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning changing, for to confirm all things; a man plucked off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbour: and this was a testimony in Israel.
Rth 4:8 Therefore the kinsman said unto Boaz, Buy it for thee. So he drew off his shoe.
Rth 4:9 And Boaz said unto the elders, and unto all the people, Ye are witnesses this day, that I have bought all that was Elimelech's, and all that was Chilion's and Mahlon's, of the hand of Naomi.

Quite. See, for instance, this for a plausible meaning of the word "redeem" in that context, as opposed to any possible interpretation of TAFKAVP's rants.

[David Merrill]

I am just saying that Congress usually avoids pronouns. In a world where Congress would allow people to be redeemed from false balances of elastic currency, you have to admit that even if it is my delusional fantasy I live in a much more pleasant world that Poppycock!

In the link there please notice that Robert RUBIN decided to redeem himself from temple desecration in time for the 5:00 News! The Indictment was published just before noon on 5/12/99 and his resignation made the 5:00 News, honest!!


Regards,

David Merrill.

[grixit]

I redeemed some lawful money the other day. I gave a bank teller a 5 dollar bill, he gave me five 1 dollar coins. I did it because i like the look and feel of the coins, but apparently i reduced the national debt. Of course, sooner or later those coins are going to get spent, so does that increase the debt?

[David Merrill]

I redeemed some lawful money the other day. I gave a bank teller a 5 dollar bill, he gave me five 1 dollar coins. I did it because i like the look and feel of the coins, but apparently i reduced the national debt. Of course, sooner or later those coins are going to get spent, so does that increase the debt?

You tendered lawful money for coins lawful money. My bet is that you acquired the $5 bill by endorsing private credit from the Fed. So the coins of course had a first lien by the Treasury too.

[Pottapaug1938]

I am just saying that Congress usually avoids pronouns. In a world where Congress would allow people to be redeemed from false balances of elastic currency, you have to admit that even if it is my delusional fantasy I live in a much more pleasant world that Poppycock!

Regards,

David Merrill.

I don't doubt that, Van Pelt. Going through life without troubling yourself with things like fact, logic, accuracy or reality DOES make things much more pleasant. You can construct your own world of fantasy; and since you are the one who constructed the world you get to set the rules!

We all do that, at some point... but then most of us eventually outgrow the fantasies.

[David Merrill]

I am just saying that Congress usually avoids pronouns. In a world where Congress would allow people to be redeemed from false balances of elastic currency, you have to admit that even if it is my delusional fantasy I live in a much more pleasant world that Poppycock!

Regards,

David Merrill.

I don't doubt that, Van Pelt. Going through life without troubling yourself with things like fact, logic, accuracy or reality DOES make things much more pleasant. You can construct your own world of fantasy; and since you are the one who constructed the world you get to set the rules!

We all do that, at some point... but then most of us eventually outgrow the fantasies.

Let's look at that for the fifteenth time.

They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...

You Quatlosers argue that there is no remedy available when that is what is right there. Additionally you argue that albeit Congress could have abolished the law cited any time over the last 100 years I logically say that they must leave a common law remedy available to elastic currency that obviously defies the IN GOD WE TRUST trust indenture on every bill.

A false balance is an abomination to the LORD but a just weight is His delight.

You argue that Congress does not mean what Congress says, and you even try some sophistry about dicta. Then you come back saying that I am without fact and logic? It is plain English that if They are Federal Reserve notes then they are not synonymous with lawful money. I find it an elating revelation to substitute People who redeem lawful money into They as redeemed people considering the spiritual relationship between people and God in the CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST on the bills. Congress means that people redeem themselves from the false balances, not the currency!

Wonderful!

I really don't get what has made you so miserable as to Grinch your own remedy.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[wserra]

As far as I'm concerned, this thread has served its purpose. It is the second hit in a google of "redeeming lawful money", third in a bing. It has been open and quite active for over a week. As of this writing, David has attempted to defend his pet theory in forty posts, with the following results:

(1) Legal foundation: limited to the one clause of 12 USC § 411. I and others have discussed how the "redeem in lawful money" meant something when there were multiple other types of money in circulation and FRNs were primarily intended for interbank use, but is now an anachronism. David's response is limited to "but that's what it says". There are plenty of statutes now on the books which, due to changes in other statutes or social conditions, have even less remaining application than does the "redeem in lawful money" clause of § 411. Moreover, even should § 411 have continuing meaning past exchanging old bills for new - it doesn't, but should it - David never explains how it magically renders any transaction non-taxable. That's where we zoom off into the ozone of "the spiritual relationship between people and God in the CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST on the bills", "monetizing sin", "Golden Rectangles", and logarithmic spirals drawn on maps.

(2) Factual proof: easy - none whatsoever. Neither David nor anyone else has been able to document verifiably a single instance of this stuff ever working. Only in David's mind are photoshopped or redacted documents "proof". Moreover, Pete Hendrickson claimed that refunds which the govt later clawed back (plus interest and penalties) were "proof" of the effectiveness of his own pet theory, a claim with which I doubt those who got hosed agreed. David doesn't even get that far.

I don't intend to shut the thread down, and suggest that other mods not do so either. However, I will move flames as soon as I see them.

[Randall]

One step at a time. Get it?
I'll accept this as step one. Now tell me what the demand should say so that I have the correct words. I don't want to mess it up and have it refused because I used the wrong magical word(s). So, tell me the what the correct wording is for the demand. Nothing more. Nothing less.

You've had all weekend to produce these magic words that will start me on the road to freedom yet I cannot find them anywhere. I did see where you admitted there is no court case that backs up your BS though.

[Randall]

Whatever...

They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...


We are still They to you Poppycock. We are redeemed. You will eventually become like us or die off first; your choice.

So if I redeem you what do I get? What is the going rate for redeeming one David Merrill? A nickel? A bucket of warm spit? A pound of cow patties?