"Redeeming Lawful Money"

[Famspear]

Like I said above, the sentence that can be easily construed to mean in plain English that Federal Reserve notes are distinct from lawful money is:

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

If you can redeem one thing in something else, that means that there are fundamental differences between the two items.

As others have pointed out, a reasonable assumption based on this language is that if you are allowed to redeem something in lawful money, the "thing" you are giving up to obtain the lawful money might not, itself, be lawful money. That's an understandable, reasonable assumption.

But it is an incorrect assumption. If you submit a ten dollar Federal Reserve note to a commercial bank (or to a credit union, or to one of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks, or to the U.S. Treasury, or to anyone else for that matter) and you receive two five dollar Federal Reserve notes, you need to understand that the ten dollar note is "lawful money" and the two five dollar notes are also "lawful money." All Federal Reserve notes held by a member bank (such as Wells Fargo) in the Federal Reserve System qualify as "lawful money" for purposes of that member bank's reserve requirements. I believe wserra and perhaps others have already explained to you what the term "lawful money" means. The fact that you refuse to accept the truth is your problem.

Further, the term "lawful money" has little if anything to do with what is or is not taxable for Federal income tax purposes. The federal income tax is not a tax on "lawful money." It's a tax on INCOME from whatever source derived, and in whatever form realized.

I tried to understand why you make my point quoting a statute about murder. You quoted the word "intentionally". Did you mean to do that? I think you missed that word.

David, how could I have missed the word "intentionally"? How many ways are there to explain it? Of course I meant to quote from a statute that includes that word. That was the whole point.

You stated that there is no way to prove "intent." I was demonstrating to you that you are wrong. "Intent" is a very common mens rea element in certain criminal statutes. The element of "intent" is proven in Texas courts all the time. The murder statute I cited is a Texas statute. Are you really not understanding this, David? Did you really miss the fundamental point? The point was that you were wrong. You can indeed prove "intent" in a court of law. It happens all the time.

You keep imploring that I put effort into it and I have indeed done so over the last seven years. More posts are rejected for "proof or silence" than you get to read here so this post is duplicated with links to examples on the other echo chamber. I am sure you have learned to read there too if you are really interested, which I doubt that you are Famspear.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. The "other echo chamber"? What "echo chamber"? To what are you referring? If you're talking about the "saving to suitors" web site or whatever it's called, no, I don't have much interest in reading that.

By the way, David, because I have moderator privileges, I do sometimes read your proposed posts before they're accepted (or rejected) by other moderators.

[Pottapaug1938]

[(the) sentence that can be easily construed to mean in plain English that Federal Reserve notes are distinct from lawful money is:

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

If you can redeem one thing in something else, that means that there are fundamental differences between the two items. Furthermore Congress changed that to accomodate FDR's gold seizure in 1933-1934 and has had plenty of time to abolish, repeal or amend that particular sentence if it were indeed unclear or misleading.

Regards,

David Merrill.

You can construe anything in plain English until the cows come home; or you can construe any cow in plain English until you come home; but the fact remains that, without an appellate court case which supports your contentions, you just can't prove that your fantasies have any legal substance, no matter how many times you repeat them.

[Famspear]

......Furthermore Congress changed that to accomodate FDR's gold seizure in 1933-1934 and has had plenty of time to abolish, repeal or amend that particular sentence if it were indeed unclear or misleading.

Yes, Congress has had plenty of time to abolish it, repeal, amend it. And yet, the Congress has not done that. Despite the fact that you want to use that fact as support for your position, you are wrong.

Neither the Congress nor the rest of the world seems to want to bend to your fervent desire that the world be the way you want it to be, David.

A few people have been confused about the term "lawful money" since before you were born, David. I'm guessing that you never took a standard college economics course called "Money and Banking." I'm guessing that you have never read a college-level text book where this business about "lawful money" was addressed.

I am also guessing, however, that even if you had taken such a college course, and even if you had read such a college text book, you might not have accepted what you were taught, anyway.

[NYGman]

Like I said above, the sentence that can be easily construed to mean in plain English that Federal Reserve notes are distinct from lawful money is:

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

If you can redeem one thing in something else, that means that there are fundamental differences between the two items. Furthermore Congress changed that to accomodate[SIC] FDR's gold seizure in 1933-1934 and has had plenty of time to abolish, repeal or amend that particular sentence if it were indeed unclear or misleading.

What IRS Code section or treasury regulation, In plain English, allows for a deduction to the extent you redeem for lawful money?? Please explain why you are not taxed on receipt, prior to converting. Even if there is some mechanism for converting at source(when pay or proceeds are issued to you), which I can not see anywhere, does not Lawful money have a value, which is still taxable under the code. \

Also, once converted, since they can't be withdrawn as per your theory they don't exist, how do you get money out?

All explanations should be in plain English, with code/regs to support. I should point out you can't use plain English on one hand, then say it doesn't apply on the other. So, please be consistent.

[Gregg]

That's a good point. If I get paid in performing weinerdogs for some taxable activity, I would have to, for the purposes of at least my tax return, assign a value per dancing dachshund.

Further, if not all the hot doggies were equal to each other, in value, due to training, color, breedability etc.. I may have to prepare a schedule of canine conversions.

I won't even go into the special tax treatment I could envision for the 666th Air Assault Dachshund Brigade, suffice to say I used them to take a write-off on the airplane.

and this still isn't as silly as Redeeming Lawful Money

[David Merrill]

Like I said above, the sentence that can be easily construed to mean in plain English that Federal Reserve notes are distinct from lawful money is:

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

If you can redeem one thing in something else, that means that there are fundamental differences between the two items. Furthermore Congress changed that to accomodate[SIC] FDR's gold seizure in 1933-1934 and has had plenty of time to abolish, repeal or amend that particular sentence if it were indeed unclear or misleading.

What IRS Code section or treasury regulation, In plain English, allows for a deduction to the extent you redeem for lawful money?? Please explain why you are not taxed on receipt, prior to converting. Even if there is some mechanism for converting at source(when pay or proceeds are issued to you), which I can not see anywhere, does not Lawful money have a value, which is still taxable under the code. \

Also, once converted, since they can't be withdrawn as per your theory they don't exist, how do you get money out?

All explanations should be in plain English, with code/regs to support. I should point out you can't use plain English on one hand, then say it doesn't apply on the other. So, please be consistent.

I accept your evaluation then, that there is a fundamental distinction between Federal Reserve notes and lawful money - at least prior to redemption. I find it silly to debate grammar. I wish that I had paid more attention in junior high English class so that I could parse out the terms.

The process works like this. Suppose $1000 in Federal Reserve notes are presented for redemption in public money. To raise $1000 in public money the Fed must surrender U.S. Bonds in that amount to the Treasury in exchange for the public money demanded (assuming that the Fed had no public money on hand). In so doing $1000 of the National Debt would be paid off by the Fed and thus canceled. Can you imagine the result if large amounts of Federal Reserve notes were redeemed on a regular, ongoing basis? Private credit would be withdrawn from circulation and replaced with public money, and with each turning of the screw the Fed would be obliged to pay off more of the National Debt. Should the Fed refuse to redeem its notes in public money, then the fiction that private credit is used voluntarily would become unsustainable.

Furthermore explaining in plain English is impossible because you never read the posts. I get an email back saying "Proof or Silence".

[David Merrill]

That's a good point. If I get paid in performing weinerdogs for some taxable activity, I would have to, for the purposes of at least my tax return, assign a value per dancing dachshund.

Further, if not all the hot doggies were equal to each other, in value, due to training, color, breedability etc.. I may have to prepare a schedule of canine conversions.

I won't even go into the special tax treatment I could envision for the 666th Air Assault Dachshund Brigade, suffice to say I used them to take a write-off on the airplane.

and this still isn't as silly as Redeeming Lawful Money

Key Words: "taxable activity".

[Cathulhu]

That's a good point. If I get paid in performing weinerdogs for some taxable activity, I would have to, for the purposes of at least my tax return, assign a value per dancing dachshund.

Further, if not all the hot doggies were equal to each other, in value, due to training, color, breedability etc.. I may have to prepare a schedule of canine conversions.

I won't even go into the special tax treatment I could envision for the 666th Air Assault Dachshund Brigade, suffice to say I used them to take a write-off on the airplane.

and this still isn't as silly as Redeeming Lawful Money

Yeah, but at least the dancing doggies have the redeeming quality of cuteness. For once this is an image I can enjoy, rather than get nauseated.

[Famspear]

The process works like this. Suppose $1000 in Federal Reserve notes are presented for redemption in public money. To raise $1000 in public money the Fed must surrender U.S. Bonds in that amount to the Treasury in exchange for the public money demanded (assuming that the Fed had no public money on hand).

No, David, that's not how the "process" works.

Assuming for the sake of argument that someone presents $1,000 in Federal Reserve notes for "redemption" in "public money" (as you have put it), all the Fed has to do is give that someone another $1,000 in Federal Reserve notes. Again, you would have done well to have taken a college course in Money and Banking.

....Should the Fed refuse to redeem its notes in public money, then the fiction that private credit is used voluntarily would become unsustainable.

Again, David, the Fed -- or, more specifically, a given Federal Reserve bank -- can "redeem" a Federal Reserve note simply by issuing another Federal Reserve note. That's the "process."

[Pottapaug1938]

The process works like this. Suppose $1000 in Federal Reserve notes are presented for redemption in public money. To raise $1000 in public money the Fed must surrender U.S. Bonds in that amount to the Treasury in exchange for the public money demanded (assuming that the Fed had no public money on hand). In so doing $1000 of the National Debt would be paid off by the Fed and thus canceled.

I'm sure that you have either a trial court or appellate court case, not reversed on further appeal (thus excluding the Credit River case), which supports your claim. Let's see the citation.

Furthermore explaining in plain English is impossible because you never read the posts. I get an email back saying "Proof or Silence".

That's because you stubbornly insist on regurgitating the same non-proof which, you have been told numerous times, is not "proof" at all. If you are able to supply the kind of proof mentioned above, the moderators have promised that the post will appear here.

[NYGman]

Like I said above, the sentence that can be easily construed to mean in plain English that Federal Reserve notes are distinct from lawful money is:

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

If you can redeem one thing in something else, that means that there are fundamental differences between the two items. Furthermore Congress changed that to accomodate[SIC] FDR's gold seizure in 1933-1934 and has had plenty of time to abolish, repeal or amend that particular sentence if it were indeed unclear or misleading.

What IRS Code section or treasury regulation, In plain English, allows for a deduction to the extent you redeem for lawful money?? Please explain why you are not taxed on receipt, prior to converting. Even if there is some mechanism for converting at source(when pay or proceeds are issued to you), which I can not see anywhere, does not Lawful money have a value, which is still taxable under the code. \

Also, once converted, since they can't be withdrawn as per your theory they don't exist, how do you get money out?

All explanations should be in plain English, with code/regs to support. I should point out you can't use plain English on one hand, then say it doesn't apply on the other. So, please be consistent.

I accept your evaluation then, that there is a fundamental distinction between Federal Reserve notes and lawful money - at least prior to redemption. I find it silly to debate grammar. I wish that I had paid more attention in junior high English class so that I could parse out the terms.

The process works like this. Suppose $1000 in Federal Reserve notes are presented for redemption in public money. To raise $1000 in public money the Fed must surrender U.S. Bonds in that amount to the Treasury in exchange for the public money demanded (assuming that the Fed had no public money on hand). In so doing $1000 of the National Debt would be paid off by the Fed and thus canceled. Can you imagine the result if large amounts of Federal Reserve notes were redeemed on a regular, ongoing basis? Private credit would be withdrawn from circulation and replaced with public money, and with each turning of the screw the Fed would be obliged to pay off more of the National Debt. Should the Fed refuse to redeem its notes in public money, then the fiction that private credit is used voluntarily would become unsustainable.

Furthermore explaining in plain English is impossible because you never read the posts. I get an email back saying "Proof or Silence".

If you accept my evaluation then*, that there is a fundamental distinction between Federal Reserve notes and lawful money - at least prior to redemption, then you should accept that you receive FRN as payment for services, prior to redeeming them for "lawful money." Here we have two distinct issues. The first, you are taxable on the FRN's earned, prior to conversion, and are not taxed on the conversion, as you get back equal value, which does not create a gain or loss. Therefore, plain English, you are still taxable, as you earned the income, to which the FRD's were given as compensation. This logic also works on electronic transfers, and checks.

I too wish you I had paid more attention in junior high English class, maybe you would understand plain English better. However, it isn't a problem here, as the fragments of statues have many cases and regulations behind them, not to mention the surrounding words, that put statements in to context, to make clear that your plain English view of what is being said by statute is incorrect. At a minimum, you have to agree, there are alternative plain English alternatives available, and that are supported by the law, and cases. .

One thing about the law, each side in a case believes they have the right answer that they are supported by the law, but in a trial, there can only be one answer. So while there may be many correct answers, one is always more correct than the other, and that correct answer usually always prevails. Show me a legal opinion you have from a lawyer, get a PLR from teh IRS confirming your view is correct, show me a case where using the "Lawful Money" arguement has ever resulted in no tax liability. I bet money you can not. And don't hide behind censorship, the truth will not be censored. (I believe you can always PM me too).

* I should add, I am not sure if I ever said that, but lets roll with it, an admission from David is so rare

[David Merrill]

I grant you that it is presumed you will be endorsing private credit from the Fed when you cash your paycheck. At least there are a lot of bank tellers who have to consult with the bank's attorney before accepting the non-endorsement as a "restricted endorsement".

[Dr. Caligari]

The process works like this. Suppose $1000 in Federal Reserve notes are presented for redemption in public money. To raise $1000 in public money the Fed must surrender U.S. Bonds in that amount to the Treasury in exchange for the public money demanded (assuming that the Fed had no public money on hand). In so doing $1000 of the National Debt would be paid off by the Fed and thus canceled. Can you imagine the result if large amounts of Federal Reserve notes were redeemed on a regular, ongoing basis? Private credit would be withdrawn from circulation and replaced with public money, and with each turning of the screw the Fed would be obliged to pay off more of the National Debt. Should the Fed refuse to redeem its notes in public money, then the fiction that private credit is used voluntarily would become unsustainable.

Even if any of that were true, where does the non-taxability part come in?

I'm not even asking you for proof that this works to avoid taxes, I'm just asking you for your theory: assuming that what you said is true, what law exempts you from paying income tax on your earnings if you convert them to lawful money?

[David Merrill]

The process works like this. Suppose $1000 in Federal Reserve notes are presented for redemption in public money. To raise $1000 in public money the Fed must surrender U.S. Bonds in that amount to the Treasury in exchange for the public money demanded (assuming that the Fed had no public money on hand). In so doing $1000 of the National Debt would be paid off by the Fed and thus canceled. Can you imagine the result if large amounts of Federal Reserve notes were redeemed on a regular, ongoing basis? Private credit would be withdrawn from circulation and replaced with public money, and with each turning of the screw the Fed would be obliged to pay off more of the National Debt. Should the Fed refuse to redeem its notes in public money, then the fiction that private credit is used voluntarily would become unsustainable.

Even if any of that were true, where does the non-taxability part come in?

I'm not even asking you for proof that this works to avoid taxes, I'm just asking you for your theory: assuming that what you said is true, what law exempts you from paying income tax on your earnings if you convert them to lawful money?

I guess it is the law of prolonged denial. Every time I show you (that Demosthenes lets you read anyway) you write a slew of posts telling me that is not what Congress means.

[David Merrill]

The theory goes basically like this:

Since the IRS attorneys disagree with Quatloosians, Quatloosians are incorrect.

[Arthur Rubin]

The theory goes basically like this:

Since the IRS attorneys disagree with Quatloosians, Quatloosians are incorrect.

I believe the hypothesis is in question.

[David Merrill]

The Quatlude denial is based in belief in the contortion that US notes and coin can function like reserve currency. The taxation on use of Federal Reserve notes arises from it being a reserve currency.

We cannot connect our beliefs because you do not relate well to the US Code primarily at Title 31 §§5114-5119. You are not a net value to continue arguing with when you cannot accept the premise I already proposed. You asked for the theory. I wrote it out above. You say the theory is defective and I say that you need to read my citation. US notes are still in circulation even though the Treasury has not put any more in circulation since 1971. See Juliard.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Pottapaug1938]

The process works like this. Suppose $1000 in Federal Reserve notes are presented for redemption in public money. To raise $1000 in public money the Fed must surrender U.S. Bonds in that amount to the Treasury in exchange for the public money demanded (assuming that the Fed had no public money on hand). In so doing $1000 of the National Debt would be paid off by the Fed and thus canceled. Can you imagine the result if large amounts of Federal Reserve notes were redeemed on a regular, ongoing basis? Private credit would be withdrawn from circulation and replaced with public money, and with each turning of the screw the Fed would be obliged to pay off more of the National Debt. Should the Fed refuse to redeem its notes in public money, then the fiction that private credit is used voluntarily would become unsustainable.

Even if any of that were true, where does the non-taxability part come in?

I'm not even asking you for proof that this works to avoid taxes, I'm just asking you for your theory: assuming that what you said is true, what law exempts you from paying income tax on your earnings if you convert them to lawful money?

I guess it is the law of prolonged denial. Every time I show you (that Demosthenes lets you read anyway) you write a slew of posts telling me that is not what Congress means.

More Van Peltian evasions. He hasn't shown us anything except a regurgitated word salad. He consistently ducks the challenge of providing the kinds of proof which we have all said that we would accept.

[wserra]

In the 341st post of this thread, please allow me to provide a perspective: You're never going to get a rational answer from David. Either (1) he is incapable of it, or (2) he knows that the only rational answer is that "redeeming lawful money" is a lot of hooey which never has and never will succeed in doing anything other than attracting frivpens. If (2), he will never admit it, because that would deprive him of the only thing that keeps him from being just another unemployed guy who lives in his mother's basement.

My original idea for this thread was to give David every opportunity to defend the indefensible. Once it was clear to anyone capable of original thought that he was unable to do so, I intended to lock the thread. I then ran across a way to find the actual cases where David's BS has crashed and burned on every occasion someone has tried it. I thought those cases worthy of inclusion. That essentially restarted the thread. It now has reached an almost-useless number of posts, despite splitting off nearly 100 posts to the "Arguing" thread. Only those already interested in the subject will ever slog through it. Moreover, take a look at the last eight or nine pages of posts - the only new material is the information documenting how the this stuff has lost every time. This may well be part of David's plan - bury the proof of how useless his gibberish is in a mound of more gibberish. He now has 81 posts in this thread, of course not including all of the ones that have not been approved.

Not complaining - it's the nature of a bulletin board inhabited by a lot of bright and articulate folks, each of whom (myself included) can't help but believing that s/he can say it just a little more clearly than the preceding posters. But each such post has given David the opportunity to bury the useful info in more gibberish.

I think I'll try to condense the useful information into a blog entry.

[notorial dissent]

How about splitting off and locking the collection of Merrill's losses and preserving his epic failures for posterity, and then locking this turkey and be done with it.

As you so rightly point out, this pig ain't never ever going to sing.