Redeem lawful money

[David Merrill]

http://goldismoney.info/forums/attachme ... 1176137303

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

Recently somebody asked me to define lawful money for the purposes of redemption on demand in Title 12 U.S.C. §411. That led to some interesting dialog including Demosthenes' attempts to move things to Ranting and Raving with here comparisons of delivery drivers...

viewtopic.php?t=689&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Webhick chose for himself to let the conversation die when he realized that taking a species of currency out of circulation is not actually the same thing as discontinueing to put more into circulation. Webhick used the scenario about valueable limited print quarters. The quarters have not been taken out of circulation albeit some rare quarters have been discontinued and it is a mistake when you mix them up and lose potential profits of recognition for their rarity.

Assuming that since the topic was off-topic to begin with, that the conversation there is actually ended, I was smug in ending with a PostScript:

P.S.

I went back and re-read your post a couple of times. I'm sorry, I did not initially see the parts where you mentioned that there is a difference between taking something out of circulation and not entering anymore in.

I'm misreading and misunderstanding you and you're throwing accusations.

The accusation is basically that you are part of the Quatloos Insultinator dogpiling on David Merrill for the sake of fun. Specifically though, the accusation that you are distorting taking something out of circulation for the decision to not continue putting something, in its particular form into circulation. As compared to:

On Sui, David has posted -- if I understand him correctly, and that's a big "if"-- that he has some magic means of turning FRNs into "lawful money"; that the "lawful money" looks exactly like FRNs; but that, because it's now "lawful money," it's non-taxable.

that is a wonderful confirmation that when people compliment me about my video, saying that they understand me, they are telling the truth. And that the genre of posters like Dr. Caligari read and understand what I am saying too.

I am confident that even Webhick, pleading ignorance about notes, understands the point I am making about redemption of lawful money according to the bankers' code - Title 12.

With you all up to speed, understanding that you all know that FRNs can be redeemed in lawful money, this brings up some interesting questions to those who choose to argue with me about it.

1) Can FRNs be redeemed in lawful money?
2) what is the point in doing so?

Some thought should be given to Question 3) in regards to gold and silver coin. Technically fiat currency became the rule in 1861 with the emergency of the War of Rebellion. And with the Colorado Territory notes from Governor Gilpin and subsequently Greenbacks - US Notes, that have never been taken out of circulation:

http://friends-n-family-research.info/F ... uliard.jpg

...shall be reissued (after the War) and kept in circulation...

I got a kick out of the misdirection, seething with feigned ignorance:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-07-30.pdf

See items 11 and 12...

You do realize that you linked to a document that calls your position frivilous, right?

about this memorandum to IRS agents:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-07-30.pdf

and look carefully at the wording:

http://friends-n-family-research.info/F ... case_1.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/F ... case_2.jpg

...although entitled to redeem his note...

Recently this court clearly recognized that this average Joe (banker - being that FRNs are obviously by Title 12 U.S.C. §411 stock certificates with the Fed) had every right to redeem his notes - just not in gold and silver coin.

I spent some time prodding Treasury Agent AndyK on another forum and got the same admission out of him. The only thing in the IRS/tax court arsenal about this is the presumption that redeeming lawful money means the patriot nutjob is trying to get gold and silver coin according to a recently (1994) repealed, already obscure definition.

gold and silver coin = lawful money

3) supposing an IRS agent does not feel lawful money is not Income and pushes for frivolous fines administratively, and it eventually goes into civil or even criminal court, is the judge compelled to examine one's entitlement to lawful money if the issue is already brought into the 1040 filing methods?

3a) Is any judge allowing this into his courtroom compelled to explain the process of redeeming lawful money if it is the defendant's good faith attempt to be doing so?

Remember that I will be deferring to my video whenever any questions have already been answered clearly in it. If you persist with a question I may point out the Minute Mark.

http://friends-n-family-research.info/F ... cMoney.wmv



Regards,

David Merrill.

[.]

being that FRNs are obviously by Title 12 U.S.C. §411 stock certificates with the Fed

Financial comic extraordinaire!

My hat's off to you, Van Pelt. You concoct the funniest stuff!

Unfortunately, your potential stand-up financial comedy audience is rather limited. Do you have a rough count of your fellow insane "Readers" who might show up at a comedy club to see your act?

[John J. Bulten]

Sure, I'd pay lawful money to see David speak before a thousand people. I think he would elicit both laughter and seriousness in equal portions and quite deliberately.

David, I don't have a dog in this fight, can you tell me, do I have any lawful money?

[David Merrill]

being that FRNs are obviously by Title 12 U.S.C. §411 stock certificates with the Fed

Financial comic extraordinaire!

My hat's off to you, Van Pelt. You concoct the funniest stuff!

Unfortunately, your potential stand-up financial comedy audience is rather limited. Do you have a rough count of your fellow insane "Readers" who might show up at a comedy club to see your act?

I think we went through this once before, you and I. You got a gag order placed on you.

What I want to know is exactly when if ever the Fed stopped printing actual stock certificates. I am guessing nobody can show me one after Bretton Woods in 1944.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S.

Sure, I'd pay lawful money to see David speak before a thousand people. I think he would elicit both laughter and seriousness in equal portions and quite deliberately.

David, I don't have a dog in this fight, can you tell me, do I have any lawful money?

Likely not. You need to express non-endorsement since most tellers will require a signature.

One suitor, a state employee got his entire state refunds for two previous years on the bad faith argument alone. Meaning he had only just begun non-endorsement but would have redeemed lawful money from his first paycheck ever if he had only been instructed in good faith he had the option.

http://friends-n-family-research.info/F ... _money.jpg

If you endorsed the paycheck that put the funds in your pocket, then I would say you are holding unlawful money - meaning it can be fractionalized upon and even regulated by the Fed. You could take it down to the corner bank and trade it for lawful money, but it would be a waste of energy since it would still say, FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE at the top.

That would really tickle "." and a few others if you would give us a blow-by-blow of that trip. Or better yet go into a formal Federal Reserve Bank and demand lawful money redemption for your FRNs. - Raise your voice a bit and state, "And I don't mean gold and silver coin!"

Then again you might master a little metaphysics and deem the FRNs in your pocket lawful money (US Notes in the form of FRNs). But then to get into your pocket you already accrued the irrecusable obligation by endorsing the paycheck...

Here is some supplemental prodding on the Insultinator. One suitor felt it important enough to publish but it seems to be a couple pages, maybe by Eustace Mullins? I am not sure. But the author's comments are contradictory to the 1984 article in my video about the Constitutional application. The letter allegedly from the Commissioner back then is completely coherent with state laws about obligations of the US being taxable.

http://goldismoney.info/forums/attachme ... 1180903451


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Joey Smith]

This is one of the easiest positions of David to throw in the garbage.

First issue: Who decides whether certain money is "lawful" or not? Is it David Merrill? Is it just anybody Joe Blow on the streetcorner? No. Answer: The courts (and not each individual) decide whether certain money is "lawful" or not.

Second issue: Have the courts decided that those paper "Federal Reserve Notes" that we carry in our pocket are money? Answer: Yes. The courts have consistently rejected positions like David's as not just wrong, but also as so much gibberish.

No matter how much David or the Soooeeyjurians complain that the "Federal Reserve Notes" are not money, they are in fact "lawful" money that is easily accepted anywhere from McDonald's to Mercedes. The judges even accept them as salary.

End of David's position, such as it was. Thanks for playing.

[.]

as so much gibberish

Yeah, but at least it's funny gibberish.

[sucker4lush]

Ahoy, David Merrill (Help...drowning...in...admir...al...gulp)!


Yes, it's true: when you're in a dogpile, you can't discern whose finger that is in your_, but I think you're wrong about webhick.

True, there's no shortage of people who never learned their childhood lesson about needing put-downs as pick-me-ups, (I coach what are often referred to as "bad ass kids" on an inner-city SA hoops team. One kid in particular's got a really messed up home-life and exhibits that as soon as he hits the entrance every day. Just as some grown-ups use the keyboard for a blow-off valve) but webhick's a clean player to me. Kept her eye on the ball after your smack-talk (ever seen a child namecalling an adult? Did they let it get to them? Outside of Adam Sandler movies that is). She even gave Prof 15 yards for piling on.

So anyway, my advice is to keep it simple homey. Don't be one of those who end up convincing everyday people that money and law aren't for them to comprehend. People looking for lawful money can find it everyday on their shirt, as they wipe their brow. And that's where it always will be, no matter what the chosen ones decree. Even FLAHERTY the debunker, in well-chosen language from webhick's NFA link agrees. He defined lawful money as the reserves, the money people work for and deposit, vs the other "keystroke" money. Simple.

BTW, I haven't gotten to holla @ u since my thread about your lack of arrest over the BOE, (I think I got the all-time record for the lowest view/reply ratio) like a year ago. I was making fun of your belief in the given name being the biblical "white stone of acquittal". Remember, I mentioned that nuclear physicist who believes the white stone to be ORM-Au, which actually is white. And you said that [paraphrasing] you don't need no stinkin' sample, just use its frequency. The first thought that came to mind for me back then was that you should find the frequency for fire and pipe it into the Bureau of Engraving and Printing as the FRN's roll off the line.
Note to Homeland Security data mining personnel: That was a joke- I've never even seen a Koran! Okay, I've seen one, but I didn't read it...Okay, I read it, but I don't agree with it... Okay, I agree with some things in it, but not the violent stuff. Violence doesn't solve anything, right? Of course it's nicer to see that nobody will ever be able to change the self-evident fact that, just because some of the money is legal plunder, all of it can't and will never be.

[iamfreeru2]

I have a question for all you quatloosers. Have not been here for quite some time and probably will be quite some time before I return again except maybe to lurk. Answer me this question based on Section 411 of Title 12.

TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 3 > SUBCHAPTER XII > § 411

§ 411. Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption


Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank. [Emphasis added]

Seems to me that the statute here makes a clear distinction between FRNs and "lawful money." Why is this the case and if courts declare FRNs to be "lawful money" the courts are in violation of their own statute are they not?

Looks to me like David is right on the money, no pun intended, with his posts and has made all you quatloosers look like the idiots that you are.

[Nikki]

Prove us idiots and losers. Demonstrate the distinction between FRNs and lawful money.

[Demosthenes]

Seems to me that the statute here makes a clear distinction between FRNs and "lawful money."

No, actually, it doesn't.

[grixit]

I have a question for all you quatloosers.

Please clarify: are you addressing Quatloosers or Quatloosians?

Quatloosers (or Quatlosers if you prefer) are people like Steve or Gattago, who are convinced, in spite of the evidence, that there is some magic tecnique they can use to get out of paying taxes.

Quatloosians are people like Demo or CaptainKickback, who recognize reality.

[David Merrill]

Seems to me that the statute here makes a clear distinction between FRNs and "lawful money."

No, actually, it doesn't.

The statute makes it clear there is a distinction between FRNs and lawful money.

Yes, it's true: when you're in a dogpile, you can't discern whose finger that is in your_, but I think you're wrong about webhick.

Amid the Insultinator I find her taking offense disingenuous. She has chosen to let the conversation die. Too bad. She was really contributing.

http://www.investorwords.com/2733/lawful_money.html

Definition

Any money (coin or paper) that is issued directly by the United States Treasury and not the Federal Reserve System - this includes gold and silver coin, Notes, Bonds, etc.

Notes, directly from the US Treasury are lawful money. But not notes from the Fed...

So anyway, my advice is to keep it simple homey. Don't be one of those who end up convincing everyday people that money and law aren't for them to comprehend.

I am dispelling the complexity. Being the basis for government bonds through this conditioned endorsement of private credit is the same foundation for the Income Tax - percentage slavery.

People looking for lawful money can find it everyday on their shirt, as they wipe their brow. And that's where it always will be, no matter what the chosen ones decree.

Things are much simpler to use advanced resonance.

The first thought that came to mind for me back then was that you should find the frequency for fire and pipe it into the Bureau of Engraving and Printing as the FRN's roll off the line.

What is funny is that nobody seems interested in the Request that happened the same day China's Market dropped 6.5% and they resolved that by firing 40 million government workers? That is the real fun part; watching this in real time...

There goes Nikki again; always making me smile. I do not need to prove anything, I posted a certified copy of Title 12 U.S.C. §411. That is like calling this bill gold because it can be redeemed in gold.

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/F ... ollars.jpg



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Joey Smith]

The statute makes it clear there is a distinction between FRNs and lawful money.

No it doesn't. That is a statute passed by Congress, and Congress itself can determine what constitutes "lawful money" which can include Federal Reserves Notes. So, let's say that a Federal Reserve Bank has a bundle of $1 FRNs. It can "redeem" those $1 FRNs for $20 FRNs or rolls of quarters or whatever else Congress may deem to be money.

When anybody who matters agrees with your position please let us know.

[wserra]

Seems to me that the statute here makes a clear distinction between FRNs and "lawful money." Why is this the case and if courts declare FRNs to be "lawful money" the courts are in violation of their own statute are they not?

(1) The courts don't declare FRNs legal tender, Congress has done so. 31 USC § 5103

(2) The story about 12 USC § 411: Ya know, you guys like to decry the inefficiency of the federal government - except when there is a point you would dearly love to make which precludes it. Then you would style the govt a model of mathematical precision. In fact, as with any entity the size of the US govt, it can be both, depending on the context.

Section 411 was originally enacted in 1913. A lot has happened since then. It was amended in 1934 to remove the provision which permitted redemption in gold, and has not been amended since. However, since then there govt no longer issues US Notes. In an ideal world, the statute would have been amended to remove the last sentence completely, but it's not an ideal world. The only purpose that sentence now serves is to permit exchange of worn paper, since FRNs are by definition money.

If you don't agree, prove that FRNs are not money.

[iamfreeru2]

What I would like to know where does it say that "legal tender" is "money." I know what section 5103 says and knew it before wserra's post. Section 5103 does not say FRNs are money, just legal tender. The key here is the phrase "in payment of debts." If FRN can't pay for anything then FRNs are not money. (Emphasis added)

Let's take a look at Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution:

"No States shall.....make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts........" Now remember the States are prohibited from accepting anything but gold and silver as "payment" of debts. Was Article 1, Section 10 ever repealed? I know what some say about gold and silver and I tend to agree with them, that we should not have our "money" backed by gold. For one reason is the gold is in the control of the wrong people.

http://www.investorwords.com/2733/lawful_money.html

lawful money
Definition

Any money (coin or paper) that is issued directly by the United States Treasury and not the Federal Reserve System - this includes gold and silver coin, Notes, Bonds, etc. [Emphasis added]

Here is Black's definition of lawful money. "Money which is legal tender in payment of debts." There is that word payment again. Looks to me like the definition is in line with what the Constitution says, eh? That word is something that is missing from the statute regarding legal tender. Something that wserra and his ilk will not disclose. I wonder why? LOL!!!

OK, now here is the definition of real money from Black's. "Money which has real metalic, intrinsic value as distinguished from paper currency, checks and drafts." Now you tell me, is wserra and the other quatloosers telling the whole story? I think not.

An yes I called all you here quatloosers. LOL

[David Merrill]

Seems to me that the statute here makes a clear distinction between FRNs and "lawful money." Why is this the case and if courts declare FRNs to be "lawful money" the courts are in violation of their own statute are they not?

(1) The courts don't declare FRNs legal tender, Congress has done so. 31 USC § 5103

Congress has not declared FRNs to be lawful money. Thank you Wesley Marc.

If you don't agree, prove that FRNs are not money.

Like I explain in my video, both US Notes and Federal Reserve Notes are emergency/fiat currency. US Notes are domestic and FRNs are foreign - being that the Fed is the central bank of the US. Look at Minute Mark 29:20 of my video.

http://friends-n-family-research.info/F ... cMoney.wmv

(2) The story about 12 USC § 411: Ya know, you guys like to decry the inefficiency of the federal government - except when there is a point you would dearly love to make which precludes it. Then you would style the govt a model of mathematical precision. In fact, as with any entity the size of the US govt, it can be both, depending on the context.

Section 411 was originally enacted in 1913. A lot has happened since then. It was amended in 1934 to remove the provision which permitted redemption in gold, and has not been amended since. However, since then there govt no longer issues US Notes. In an ideal world, the statute would have been amended to remove the last sentence completely, but it's not an ideal world. The only purpose that sentence now serves is to permit exchange of worn paper, since FRNs are by definition money.

It is inherently admitted in the text of the point here that there is absolutely nothing to back up the assertion that the statute means anything other than what it says.

It is the SDR, Special Drawing Rights that forms a fictional currency basket based in the confidence and security building levels of Social Security. Look how far it got the Chinese; listen to this morning's audio snippet - and day before yesterday 40 million government workers were laid off... Does anybody remember the Thirty One Day Government Shutdown?

http://finance.dayoo.com/img/2007-05/28 ... 199232.jpg

Translation: It is far better to speculate in the market than to rob.

http://goldismoney.info/forums/attachme ... 1180952278

http://goldismoney.info/forums/attachme ... 1180689996


Regards,

David Merrill.

P.S.

David, that link is to a letter in which you advocate "devaluing" the renminbi. I think you meant to advocate for an upward revaluation, not a devaluation. A cheaper renminbi would increase Chinese exports to the U.S.

Revaluing the renminbi is a red herring, IMO. The trade balance could be resolved by devaluing the dollar against all foreign currencies. This would hike the price of cheap consumer goods at Wal-Mart and inflame the lower classes, which is why the U.S. won't really do it.

Since the U.S. economy is so much bigger than the Chinese, if we really wanted to revalue the renminbi upward, it would be easy enough for the U.S. to announce it would buy renminbi for dollars at a rate higher than the official one. But it's in some people's interest to keep the country in debt, so you're not going to see anything of the kind.

David, you were asked point blank what you consider "lawful money." Can you please explain? FRNs say right on their face that they are legal tender. Isn't that lawful money? Could you post a picture of some "lawful money"? You've referred to it a number of times but I don't know what you mean by the phrase.

Believe me, none of you are having as much fun as LDE over this.

Question: What would Jesus do?

Answer: Just like with Zechariah's Prophecy, he would Immanentize the Christian Eschaton.


P.P.S. How flattering:

I have a question for all you quatloosers. Have not been here for quite some time and probably will be quite some time before I return again except maybe to lurk. Answer me this question based on Section 411 of Title 12.

Some of you ponder why more people like Iamfree don't post here. How about Heidi? Remember how nasty Demosthenes got with her? You people are pretty pathetic around the truth so I suggest the proper spelling is Quatlosers, not Quatloosers.

It is big fun for me that I brought up a point interesting enough for sensible people to brave out the Quatloser Gauntlet over.

[iamfreeru2]

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > § 8

§ 8. Obligation or other security of the United States defined
How Current is This?

The term “obligation or other security of the United States” includes all bonds, certificates of indebtedness, national bank currency, Federal Reserve notes, Federal Reserve bank notes, coupons, United States notes, Treasury notes, gold certificates, silver certificates, fractional notes, certificates of deposit, bills, checks, or drafts for money, drawn by or upon authorized officers of the United States, stamps and other representatives of value, of whatever denomination, issued under any Act of Congress, and canceled United States stamps. [Emphasis added]

Someone please tell me what an obligation is? Is it not a debt? If FRNs are debt, then how can they be used to "pay" another debt? So we can see here that FRNs are not money, but obligations (debt) and nothing more. Now if people want to use them as "money" more power to them. As long as the Federal Reserve issues them, or I should say, loans them, they will continue to be DEBT. If FRNs are debt then is there really any accession to wealth as the PTB would have us believe? Is there any taxes owing on debt? Some things to ponder. I do not know of any statute anywhere that declares FRNs to be "money." If you find it please let me know.

Looks to me like David is still making fools out of you qautlosers. His posts are on the "money." No pun intended. Thanks David for correcting my spelling of quatlosers. LOL

[David Merrill]

Wserra said:

Section 411 was originally enacted in 1913. A lot has happened since then. It was amended in 1934 to remove the provision which permitted redemption in gold, and has not been amended since. However, since then there govt no longer issues US Notes. In an ideal world, the statute would have been amended to remove the last sentence completely, but it's not an ideal world. The only purpose that sentence now serves is to permit exchange of worn paper, since FRNs are by definition money.

FRNs are redeemable on demand in lawful money. And you said yourself that Congress defines FRNs to be legal tender; not money.

http://www.iwfbsnewyork.com/jsp2650291.jsp

Thank you for the exemplary Attorney Joke. However a simple single mathematical substitution of a third grader can see through it Wesley Marc.



David Merrill.

[silversopp]

What I would like to know where does it say that "legal tender" is "money."

Legal means "lawful"
Tender means "money"

"No States shall.....make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts........" Now remember the States are prohibited from accepting anything but gold and silver as "payment" of debts.

The Constitution says no such thing. The states are forbidden from printing their own fiat currency. It has nothing to do with states paying their debts.

Here is Black's definition of lawful money. "Money which is legal tender in payment of debts."

And yet above you asked what makes legal tender money.

[silversopp]

Does anyone here think David will ever answer the questions posed to him?

If he's redeemed FRNs into "lawful money" why can't he show us what they look like? Why can't he describe what "lawful money" looks like?

If he's redeemed FRNs into "lawful money" where does he do his purchasing? Who accepts this "lawful money"?

If he ever gets around to answering those questions, then he could explain what advantages there are to having "lawful money" instead of FRNs.

It's not hard to do at all. I have FRNs, I can describe what they look like right now. I can go to any store in the nation and make purchases with them.

Money is not some magically defined thing. Money is simply a medium of exchange. If you can exchange an object for another object, it is money. If the object is accepted as suitable for exchange by the vast majority, that object is the best at being money. FRNs are the best objects to have to serve the purpose of money.

(Also, FRNs are great when used to provide child support to your daughter).