"Redeeming Lawful Money"

[wserra]

David, in over fifty posts you have yet to produce any evidence at all that "redeeming lawful money" is anything more than the delusion of someone starved for attention. If your next post doesn't contain either legal or factual proof, it will be your last to this thread. Legal proof is a court decision that "redeeming lawful money" does anything to relieve one's tax burden. Factual proof is verifiable evidence that someone, when contested by the IRS, has succeeded with your theory. No more hundred year old documents, no more redacted documents, no more pictures of old statutes, no more spirals on maps.

Proof or silence.

But... but...

None of the people who get refunds of all their withholdings are complaining and taking the IRS to court. And nobody who has received a refund has had the IRS come after them to return the funds.

As I posted before, I have my own surefire way of beating the income tax. All you have to do is face the nearest Fed, spit three times, and recite the Magna Carta backwards. It works! Proof? How can you ask for such a thing? After all, none of the people who get refunds of all their withholdings are complaining and taking the IRS to court. And nobody who has received a refund has had the IRS come after them to return the funds.

A couple of suitors have complained, however, that it's too difficult to remember the backwards Magna Carta. For them, I worked out something new. Whomever you're dealing with at the IRS, curse 'em out. The more disgusting things you say about their lineage, the better. And you know something, that works too! Proof? How can you ask for such a thing? After all, none of the people who get refunds of all their withholdings are complaining and taking the IRS to court. And nobody who has received a refund has had the IRS come after them to return the funds.

After nearly sixty posts, you were told: Proof or silence. Unless something is done, you will simply keep posting the same bullshit just to get the last word. Not any more. I take it you've chosen silence.

[Pottapaug1938]

David, in over fifty posts you have yet to produce any evidence at all that "redeeming lawful money" is anything more than the delusion of someone starved for attention. If your next post doesn't contain either legal or factual proof, it will be your last to this thread. Legal proof is a court decision that "redeeming lawful money" does anything to relieve one's tax burden. Factual proof is verifiable evidence that someone, when contested by the IRS, has succeeded with your theory. No more hundred year old documents, no more redacted documents, no more pictures of old statutes, no more spirals on maps.

Proof or silence.

But... but...

None of the people who get refunds of all their withholdings are complaining and taking the IRS to court. And nobody who has received a refund has had the IRS come after them to return the funds.

But... but... yourself, David.

We have already agreed that no one who gets refunds of all their withholdings are complaining and taking the IRS to court; BUT THAT HAS NEVER BEEN THE CONTENTION OF ANYONE HERE EXCEPT YOU. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE EXACT REVERSE SITUATION.

As for the IRS going after people who have received a refund to obtain a return of that refund -- David, I can't believe that you have the effrontery to say that. Both on Quatloos and Dan Evans' Tax Protestor FAQ, we can find many cases where the IRS has done exactly that, and won every time. "But... but... those people didn't demand redemption in lawful money!", you whine. Well, unless you can do as I and Wserra have challenged, and can come up with legal and factual proof, of the kind that he and I have specified, you cannot claim, with any legal authority, that your fantasies will do anything except produce an eventual IRS prosecution for tax evasion (unless the person in question is so poor that they are judgment-proof and not worth the cost of prosecution).

Put up, or shut up. The cards are on the table, and we're calling your hand.

[David Merrill]

If I was trying to impress anybody around here I would have brought up:

Paper currency, in the form of the Federal Reserve Note, is defined as an “obligation[ ] of the United States” that may be “redeemed in lawful money on demand.” 12 U.S.C. § 411 (2002). These bills are not “money” per se...

[Famspear]

If I was trying to impress anybody around here I would have brought up:

Paper currency, in the form of the Federal Reserve Note, is defined as an “obligation[ ] of the United States” that may be “redeemed in lawful money on demand.” 12 U.S.C. § 411 (2002). These bills are not “money” per se...

And if you had "brought that up", you wouldn't have impressed anybody around here. Everyone here has read that quote before.

You're still evading the questions.

And you probably always will.

[wserra]

If I was trying to impress anybody around here I would have brought up:

Exactly how do you believe that you would "impress anybody" by citing a case which we discussed in detail some time ago and which I cited in the first post to this very thread?

[wserra]

Posts about Thomas moved to thread on Thomas.

[wserra]

Sooner or later, "redeeming lawful money" was bound to appear in that font of all things UFO, Bigfoot and shape-shifting lizard-like, Godlike Productions. If you look towards the end of the two-page thread, you see the OP (David? Harvey?) inviting the readers to David's forum.

Could be worth charging admission.

[tracer]

I just saw this thread (after a brief hiatus from this forum), and noticed this item on page 1:

The nature and function of Federal Reserve Notes have changed since they were first introduced in 1913. Primarily, in 1933 they were explicitly declared to be "legal tender", along with any other currency ever produced by the federal govt. This elevated them from mere markers used among the banks to active currency.

So, wait ... does this mean that Federal Reserve Notes printed before 1933 DON'T have the words "This note is legal tender" printed on them anywhere?



EDIT: Well, I'll be darned. It looks like they don't!

I found this image of a $100 Federal Reserve Note from the Series of 1914:
http://www.londoncoin.com/currency/fede ... ve-note-4/

Click on the left or right image to see a close-up of the front or back of the note.

The front of the note says:
"The United States of America / will pay to the bearer on demand / One hundred dollars"

The back of the note says:
"This note is receivable by all national and member banks and Federal Reserve Banks and for all taxes, customs and other public dues. It is redeemable in gold on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States in the city of Washington, District of Columbia or in gold or lawful money at any Federal Reserve Bank."

So, yeah! It kinda makes sense that these early, pre-1933 Federal Reserve Notes would be intended for inter-bank use only, and not intended to be released into general circulation.

[Pottapaug1938]

I just saw this thread (after a brief hiatus from this forum), and noticed this item on page 1:

The nature and function of Federal Reserve Notes have changed since they were first introduced in 1913. Primarily, in 1933 they were explicitly declared to be "legal tender", along with any other currency ever produced by the federal govt. This elevated them from mere markers used among the banks to active currency.

So, wait ... does this mean that Federal Reserve Notes printed before 1933 DON'T have the words "This note is legal tender" printed on them anywhere?



EDIT: Well, I'll be darned. It looks like they don't!

I found this image of a $100 Federal Reserve Note from the Series of 1914:
http://www.londoncoin.com/currency/fede ... ve-note-4/

Click on the left or right image to see a close-up of the front or back of the note.

The front of the note says:
"The United States of America / will pay to the bearer on demand / One hundred dollars"

The back of the note says:
"This note is receivable by all national and member banks and Federal Reserve Banks and for all taxes, customs and other public dues. It is redeemable in gold on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States in the city of Washington, District of Columbia or in gold or lawful money at any Federal Reserve Bank."

So, yeah! It kinda makes sense that these early, pre-1933 Federal Reserve Notes would be intended for inter-bank use only, and not intended to be released into general circulation.

Actually, FRNs were intended for use in general circulation, just like United States Notes, National Currency and Federal Reserve Bank Notes. The clause on the Series of 1914 notes, and the similar clause on the 1928 series of FRNs, was intended to assure the recipient that a FRN could be redeemed for gold, if desired (or for other lawful money, in the 1928 series). Since gold, silver and their related Certificates are no longer in circulation, the "redeemability" of FRNs means that, if you take one to the bank to "redeem it", you will get either other FRNs or some sort of coinage... despite what someone else will say. Rubber-stamping it with a statutory quote, or other message, accomplished nothing except ensuring that the FRN in question has an early date with a shredder and replacement by an undefaced note.

[tracer]

Actually, FRNs [before 1933 as well as after] were intended for use in general circulation, just like United States Notes, National Currency and Federal Reserve Bank Notes. The clause on the Series of 1914 notes, and the similar clause on the 1928 series of FRNs, was intended to assure the recipient that a FRN could be redeemed for gold, if desired (or for other lawful money, in the 1928 series).

Hrm ... that doesn't really jive with what notorial dissent was saying back on page 1 of this thread, where he wrote:

The law [12 USC 411] quite specifically says issued to Federal reserve banks for the purpose of making advances, NOTHING ELSE. We are not talking about regular currency here.

So, was notorial dissent in error? Or was he talking about only one narrow category of pre-1933 FRNs, and saying that the other kind of FRNs (the ones that were intended for circulation) weren't covered by 12 USC 411 but were covered by a different Federal law entirely?

[notorial dissent]

I was referring specifically to the special large denomination notes that were only used internally for making bank to bank transfers, but I suppose in it would have applied to a lesser extent to the smaller notes they had in circulation as well since they weren't technically legal tender at the time, but the big notes never actually left the bank that held them. I still think we are talking about two different items here, but haven't found the backup to it.

[Gregg]

There are $100,000 Gold Certificates that never left various Federal Reserve Banks intended not to be circulated, but I have seen circulated bills in $10,000, $5000 and $1000 denominations.

[Cpt Banjo]

There used to be a couple of displays at the Horseshoe casino in Las Vegas featuring $1 million consisting of 100 $10,000 bills.

http://lasvegasginger.blogspot.com/2009 ... ollar.html

[tracer]

There are $100,000 Gold Certificates that never left various Federal Reserve Banks intended not to be circulated, but I have seen circulated bills in $10,000, $5000 and $1000 denominations.

True, and I've even found pictures of these (circulation) $1000, $5000, and $10,000 Federal Reserve Notes.

Only problem is ... the pictures I found were labelled "Series of 1934".

It's the pre-1933 FRNs that I'm concerned about.

[wserra]

tracer! Welcome back.

[tracer]

tracer! Welcome back.

Aw, thank ye! Though I don't think I'll be hanging out here much.

I'm not a lawyer or a tax professional, and my interest in the subject matter was largely due to my brief involvement with National Trust Services back in 1997.

I posted in this thread because there are still things about money that I don't understand, and I want to make sure the picture of what I DO understand is clear and correct. (Which is why contradictions like "pre-1933 FRNs were intended for circulation" and "no they weren't" bug me.)

[Pottapaug1938]

tracer! Welcome back.

Aw, thank ye! Though I don't think I'll be hanging out here much.

I'm not a lawyer or a tax professional, and my interest in the subject matter was largely due to my brief involvement with National Trust Services back in 1997.

I posted in this thread because there are still things about money that I don't understand, and I want to make sure the picture of what I DO understand is clear and correct. (Which is why contradictions like "pre-1933 FRNs were intended for circulation" and "no they weren't" bug me.)

If I recall correctly, all pre-1934 FRNs were theoretically intended for circulation) although the higher denominations tended to be lightly used, with a goal of increasing the supply of circulating money. The same goes for the FRNs of the Series of 1934, and all subsequent issues, the main difference being the absence of redeemability into gold. Printing of all denominations above $100 ended when it was decided that there was no legitimate need for them, since many cash substitutes were available, and there was a desire to make it somewhat more difficult for large sums of illegally-earned money to be moved here and there.

The $100,000 bills which can be seen here and there (I've seen them at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and at American Numismatic Association conventions) are Gold Certificates, and may not be legally held by private persons.

[Gregg]

I have seen a $100,000 bill when I worked at the Fed many years ago, it was in a display case. I have a nearly mint $1,000 bill of my own, encased in Lucite, as a paper weight.

[tracer]

I have a nearly mint $1,000 bill of my own, encased in Lucite, as a paper weight.

That is an awfully expensive paperweight.

[Gregg]

I have a nearly mint $1,000 bill of my own, encased in Lucite, as a paper weight.

That is an awfully expensive paperweight.

Indeed. I paid $1200 for the bill, it's not in good enough shape to be truly collectible but the big bills generally cost more than face value.