Redeem lawful money

[.]

One can apply for and receive private credit from the Federal Reserve through a simple endorsement

Our resident financial comic just can't resist one-liners. Ba-da-boom!

Whenever the drugs (assuming you are taking at least some of the many which have probably been prescribed) wear off, contact your financial-comedy agent. There may be some stand-up opportunities out there.

[ErsatzAnatchist]

Pardon me for being a dimwit (either by birth or intentionally), but could someone (perhaps the esteemed David Merrill) post a picture of this "lawful money" that you can apparently get by redeeming federal reserve notes?

A picture is worth a thousand words....

<SNIP>
That is what is happening every time an informed employee redeems lawful money. It would be too easy to show you a picture.

Regards,

David Merrill.

David,

This is all too much for my poor little head. I feel like Costello in the Who's On First routine. When I go to redeem my Federal Reserve Notes for lawful money, what does the lawful money that I will receive look like?

[.]

there is already an authorizing signature on the face of the paycheck - from your boss or company you work for

What if I signed it myself, as I often have because I own the company I "work" for? What then?

Have I sold myself into slavery to the Fed? Should I refuse the proceeds for cause? UCC-whatever? Should I disavow my Social Security number? Should I disavow my name? Can you help me defeat the inevitable lien? How about my motor-scooter? Should I disavow that or sue somebody in its name?

Inquiring minds want to know what the King of financial word-salad has to say on such pressing topics.

[The Observer]

That is what is happening every time an informed employee redeems lawful money. It would be too easy to show you a picture.

What is wrong with the "too easy" route? I would think that you would prefer taking less time and effort to convince your audience of what you are saying, especially if it would make it easier for them to understand.

Sounds to me like you don't know what lawful money looks like.

[Disilloosianed]

David, this discussion of lawful money has all the practical application of determining how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Let's say you are correct and FRNs are not lawful money. My grocer accepts them. My utility company accepts them. The gas station accepts them. My bank accepts them. Why go down the rabbit hole to obtain this "lawful money" if everyone around you is happy with the FRNs?

[Imalawman]

This is all too much for my poor little head. I feel like Costello in the Who's On First routine. When I go to redeem my Federal Reserve Notes for lawful money, what does the lawful money that I will receive look like?

Yes, that's exactly what it looks like.

[silversopp]

David, this discussion of lawful money has all the practical application of determining how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Let's say you are correct and FRNs are not lawful money. My grocer accepts them. My utility company accepts them. The gas station accepts them. My bank accepts them. Why go down the rabbit hole to obtain this "lawful money" if everyone around you is happy with the FRNs?

More importantly, David could use them to pay his child support instead of leaving his family out to dry while he goes on his little motor scooter fairy tale crusade.

[Disilloosianed]

Yeah, I imagine they would gladly accept FRNs, preferably in large denominations.

[Kimokeo]

Forest D Montgomery - from the letter in the link: "31 U.S. Code 742 generally exempts Treasury obligations from taxation by state or local governments. This provision, as well as the Constitution, prohibits state taxation of Federal Reserve notes.

I'm not sure why Mr. Smigeilski's name is off of the letter unless the other websites are wrong to say the letter was addressed to him. Doesn't matter really.

I note the word "generally" - meaning there are exceptions.

I found this: In United States
v. County of Fresno, 429 U.S. 452 (1977) (Comfy
of Fresno ), California taxed possessory interests in
federally owned housing held by federal forest
rangers. `The Supreme Court declined to invalidate
the tax, stating that to the extent a state can isolate
a private person's interest in property owned by the
government, it can tax that interest.

So I guess if you believe the FRN's are owned by the Gov't but you have a private interest in the property, you can be taxed.

[David Merrill]

Forest D Montgomery - from the letter in the link: "31 U.S. Code 742 generally exempts Treasury obligations from taxation by state or local governments. This provision, as well as the Constitution, prohibits state taxation of Federal Reserve notes.

I'm not sure why Mr. Smigeilski's name is off of the letter unless the other websites are wrong to say the letter was addressed to him. Doesn't matter really.

I note the word "generally" - meaning there are exceptions.

I found this: In United States
v. County of Fresno, 429 U.S. 452 (1977) (Comfy
of Fresno ), California taxed possessory interests in
federally owned housing held by federal forest
rangers. `The Supreme Court declined to invalidate
the tax, stating that to the extent a state can isolate
a private person's interest in property owned by the
government, it can tax that interest.

So I guess if you believe the FRN's are owned by the Gov't but you have a private interest in the property, you can be taxed.

Actually that is why the non-endorsement verbiage reads:

DEPOSITED FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUNT OR EXCHANGED FOR NON-NEGOTIABLE FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES OF FACE VALUE

rather than:

DEPOSITED FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUNT OR REDEEMED IN LAWFUL MONEY PURSUANT TO TITLE 12 U.S.C. §411

But thanks for looking into it Kimokeo.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[sucker4lush]

David Merrill, I was gonna include that in my first post, but I didn't wanna steal your thunder way back on p. 1. The qloosians rubber helmets are up to code, though. Strict compliance.

[David Merrill]

David Merrill, I was gonna include that in my first post, but I didn't wanna steal your thunder way back on p. 1. The qloosians rubber helmets are up to code, though. Strict compliance.

It lubricates the bank tellers too. I enjoyed the suitor who spent half an hour while they ran around a bit distressed in Bank of America and had fun; because the attorneys finally approved cashing his non-endorsement. I posted his story on Suijuris and Judge Roy Bean misdirected another incident (unrelated) at BoA for people to think maybe you could get arrested for redeeming lawful money...

Since only the statute makers (which is to say Congress) can define the term "lawful money," and only the courts can interpret that term, my opinion doesn't seem to matter, anyway.

Here it is in the plain disclosure. Ergo my questions which really have gotten no attention but maybe a piffle and ptui. So are we really going to find a judge stupid enough to say that a defendant has no right to redeem lawful money for FRNs? And then Wesley Marc chimes in with his admission that there is absolutely no case on this that does not assume the patriot nutjob is demanding gold and silver coin...


I have been having big fun!


Regards,

David Merrill.

[notorial dissent]

Contrary to the fantasy world Merrill has cobbled together for himself none of his delusions hold water or stand the light of reality.

12 USC 411 was written, as Wsera so correctly points out, in a different age and the FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES referred to in this section were actual notes issued on the authority of the Reserve Governors to advance credit to another Federal Reserve bank as an advance of credit, and were never intended for general circulation. This law was also written at a time when FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES were not in general circulation. This was in a day and age when money transfers between banks had to be done literally in collections of cash, it was the hayday of the armored car company, well before the routine wiring or transfer of funds between banks. Since the notes were not intended for general circulation and only for in house use within the banking system the only redemption faculty was at either a Federal Reserve Branch Bank or the Treasury, otherwise had they been currency, they would have been redeemable at any bank.

31 USC § 5103. Very plainly states that Federal Reserve Notes ARE legal tender, and therefore lawful currency(money), according to the law.

Various state courts have stated that FRN’s are lawful money, despite how he wants to see them, ROCKFORD LIFE INS. CO. v. ILL. DEPT. OF REV., 482 U.S. 182 (1987)

The Federal Courts concur, in US v. Sanders, there are repeated references to “lawful currency” having been stolen from the bank.

The Treasury Act (31 USC 742) he keeps trying to apply to FRN’s does not refer to FRN’s but to gov’t securities which is proven both by the text of the law, and by case law. FRN’s, while they may be obligations of the US Govt are not classed as securities(under 472), but as currency(5103). And, since they are legally currency, endorsing them has no effect legal or otherwise on them, they are what they are, legal tender, lawful money, Federal Reserve Notes.

The Treasury ceased production and issuance, withdrew from circulation, and in fact has since destroyed all outstanding Treasury Notes since January 21, 1971. The only ones still extant are in the hands of collectors as they are worth more as collectibles than they are as currency. So there is no way Merrill can get such an item from the bank, despite what ever voodoo or nonsense he insists he can perform. And his endorsing them or not does not affect his tax liabilities since that occurs at issuance, not encashment. Just one more silly delusion.

[David Merrill]

Contrary to the fantasy world Merrill has cobbled together for himself none of his delusions hold water or stand the light of reality.

12 USC 411 was written, as Wsera so correctly points out, in a different age and the FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES referred to in this section were actual notes issued on the authority of the Reserve Governors to advance credit to another Federal Reserve bank as an advance of credit, and were never intended for general circulation. This law was also written at a time when FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES were not in general circulation. This was in a day and age when money transfers between banks had to be done literally in collections of cash, it was the hayday of the armored car company, well before the routine wiring or transfer of funds between banks. Since the notes were not intended for general circulation and only for in house use within the banking system the only redemption faculty was at either a Federal Reserve Branch Bank or the Treasury, otherwise had they been currency, they would have been redeemable at any bank.

31 USC § 5103. Very plainly states that Federal Reserve Notes ARE legal tender, and therefore lawful currency(money), according to the law.

Various state courts have stated that FRN’s are lawful money, despite how he wants to see them, ROCKFORD LIFE INS. CO. v. ILL. DEPT. OF REV., 482 U.S. 182 (1987)

The Federal Courts concur, in US v. Sanders, there are repeated references to “lawful currency” having been stolen from the bank.

The Treasury Act (31 USC 742) he keeps trying to apply to FRN’s does not refer to FRN’s but to gov’t securities which is proven both by the text of the law, and by case law. FRN’s, while they may be obligations of the US Govt are not classed as securities(under 472), but as currency(5103). And, since they are legally currency, endorsing them has no effect legal or otherwise on them, they are what they are, legal tender, lawful money, Federal Reserve Notes.

The Treasury ceased production and issuance, withdrew from circulation, and in fact has since destroyed all outstanding Treasury Notes since January 21, 1971. The only ones still extant are in the hands of collectors as they are worth more as collectibles than they are as currency. So there is no way Merrill can get such an item from the bank, despite what ever voodoo or nonsense he insists he can perform. And his endorsing them or not does not affect his tax liabilities since that occurs at issuance, not encashment. Just one more silly delusion.

And a big Thank You to you too Notorial Dissent;


That was eloquent. And in return and gratitude I will keep this plain and simple for the Readers. Prof is quite sound in saying that Congress will legislate and the courts will make rulings, not Quatlosers and Suijuris-Heads:

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

...holder of $50 Federal Reserve Bank Note, although entitled to redeem his note...

But we already knew that the courts say you are wrong about your post. What I am amused about is your confirmation that all of you endorsing the fractional lending through endorsing the chattel bond of yourselves about Heidi's "thin air" increase/inflation are all acting in the capacity of private bankers through private credit with the Fed. What "." exposes as disingenuous about his laughter is that sane people will quit laughing by the third time the comedian tells the same joke. Federal Reserve Notes are indeed stock certificates.

Bottom line here is that the law written while FRNs were not in general circulation is still in full force and effect.

31 USC § 5103. Very plainly states that Federal Reserve Notes ARE legal tender, and therefore lawful currency(money), according to the law.

Wasn't that Wesley Marc's simple substitution? I have already addressed that. The Code does not say that FRNs are lawful money - in fact being able to redeem them in lawful money says the opposite. At least until you are willing to accept that the FRNs in §411 are stock certificates and the fellow in the linked case is just the average private banker. His admission that he walked into the Federal Reserve Bank with $50 in FRNs was his admission so...

The Treasury Act (31 USC 742) he keeps trying to apply to FRN’s does not refer to FRN’s but to gov’t securities which is proven both by the text of the law, and by case law.

Thank you again for confirming I was clear about that. United States Notes are obviously obligations of the US. Not FRNs. Note the definition we have been loosely adopting (and thank you again Webhick):

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, [US] Notes, Bonds, etc.

The Treasury ceased production and issuance, withdrew from circulation, and in fact has since destroyed all outstanding Treasury Notes since January 21, 1971.

Only due to wear and tear - expiration as paper currency along with destroying gobs of FRNs for the same reason. I can still go buy $2 worth of merchandise with my $2 US Note - especially from a knowledgable dealer who realizes:

1) that he just earned an easy $10
2) that he could not refuse the $2 US note for face value

Additionally the laws requiring US Notes be kept in circulation are still in place and easily found in the Code.

The most effective testimony is that you wrote the post at all Notorial Dissent. That proves to me I am explaining myself well, fantasy world or not. I imagine if my model about lawful money were truly fantasy it would be nebulous and would only agree partially with the United States Code. Your obfuscation and attempt to steer Readers back to the traditional Death and Taxes Party Line is very revealing.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

David, I was also looking at the Treasury site FAQ, specifically these 2 questions and answers:

Question: What are Federal Reserve notes and how are they different from United States notes?

Answer: Federal Reserve notes are legal tender currency notes. The twelve Federal Reserve Banks issue them into circulation pursuant to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. A commercial bank belonging to the Federal Reserve System can obtain Federal Reserve notes from the Federal Reserve Bank in its district whenever it wishes. It must pay for them in full, dollar for dollar, by drawing down its account with its district Federal Reserve Bank.

Federal Reserve Banks obtain the notes from our Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP). It pays the BEP for the cost of producing the notes, which then become liabilities of the Federal Reserve Banks, and obligations of the United States Government.

Congress has specified that a Federal Reserve Bank must hold collateral equal in value to the Federal Reserve notes that the Bank receives. This collateral is chiefly gold certificates and United States securities. This provides backing for the note issue. The idea was that if the Congress dissolved the Federal Reserve System, the United States would take over the notes (liabilities). This would meet the requirements of Section 411, but the government would also take over the assets, which would be of equal value. Federal Reserve notes represent a first lien on all the assets of the Federal Reserve Banks, and on the collateral specifically held against them.

Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything. This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy. In another sense, because they are legal tender, Federal Reserve notes are "backed" by all the goods and services in the economy.

Question:What are United States Notes and how are they different from Federal Reserve notes?

Answer: United States Notes (characterized by a red seal and serial number) were the first national currency, authorized by the Legal Tender Act of 1862 and began circulating during the Civil War. The Treasury Department issued these notes directly into circulation, and they are obligations of the United States Government. The issuance of United States Notes is subject to limitations established by Congress. It established a statutory limitation of $300 million on the amount of United States Notes authorized to be outstanding and in circulation. While this was a significant figure in Civil War days, it is now a very small fraction of the total currency in circulation in the United States.

Both United States Notes and Federal Reserve Notes are parts of our national currency and both are legal tender. They circulate as money in the same way. However, the issuing authority for them comes from different statutes. United States Notes were redeemable in gold until 1933, when the United States abandoned the gold standard. Since then, both currencies have served essentially the same purpose, and have had the same value. Because United States Notes serve no function that is not already adequately served by Federal Reserve Notes, their issuance was discontinued, and none have been placed in to circulation since January 21, 1971.

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 authorized the production and circulation of Federal Reserve notes. Although the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) prints these notes, they move into circulation through the Federal Reserve System. They are obligations of both the Federal Reserve System and the United States Government. On Federal Reserve notes, the seals and serial numbers appear in green.

United States notes serve no function that is not already adequately served by Federal Reserve notes. As a result, the Treasury Department stopped issuing United States notes, and none have been placed into circulation since January 21, 1971.

United States notes are obligations of the United States issued directly into circulation by Treasury Department.


Federal Reserve notes are, 1) obligations of the Federal Reserve Bank; 2) obligations of the United States; 3) liabilities of the Federal Reserve Bank; 4) represent a first lien on the assets of the Federal Reserve Bank, and on the collateral specifically held against them, and; 5) move into circulation through the private Federal Reserve System.


A United State note, 1) is not an obligations of the Federal Reserve Bank; 2) is not a liability of the Federal Reserve Bank; 3) does not represent a first lien on the assets of the Federal Reserve Bank, and on the collateral specifically held against them, and; 4) are not issued through the Federal Reserve System.

Followed by questions;

Are either of the notes "lawful money" as the words are used at 411?

Technically in my opinion; No. The nation has been in a state of emergency since 1861 - unless of course the South is able to secede yet? Some heckler in the comedy club shouted, "So you are saying the South wants to secede?" No I am not. In 1865 they basically were forced to vote on the Fourteenth Amendent or simply sit with filled chairs, declining to vote.

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

Are "obligations" and "liabilities" of a person, "lawful money", or would they be more properly the subject matter of contracts?

Since 1938 with the blending of law and equity, the question becomes moot. Whether obligations arising out of law, or contract matters, they will be ruled on in equity as though - by contract. That was the purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment with the Federal Reserve Act - to bring matters of contract evolving from private credit with the new central bank of the US - the Federal Reserve Bank into the jurisdiction of the courts of the US.

What, if any, additional terms and conditions are imposed upon people choosing to make use of the private Federal Reserve System?

The major additional terms and conditions mentioned in my video are that Social Security will be treated like Income Tax according to the Supreme Court. I unfortunately deleted the email yesterday outlining the original intent of FDR's Social Security stipulated that it would never be involuntary and that the "premiums" - the funds put into Social Security were deducted from the income for tax purposes...

I should let the emails sit in the wastebin for a day or two.

David, via the non-endorsement, are you bypassing the private Federal Reserve System and looking specifically to the public "obligations of the United States" - or in other words, using the 'public side' of the Federal Reserve note?

Yes. In a way. That is why the verbiage in the non-endorsement was adopted as such. And by adopted, that is the model you are talking about that a fellow reports being audited, and the IRS agents returned informing him the three paychecks he failed to non-endorse with the verbiage were taxable but did not add up to the minimum Filing requirement.

Credit is not taxable. If one deposits the paychecks, they should put the verbiage on the Signature Card and/or make sure they use it whenever withdrawing cash on the Withdrawal Slip.

You say, you are "redeeming FRN's for lawful money", and that, "they (FRN's) are United States Notes in the form of FRN's." I see that both a FRN and a US note are "obligations of the United States".

Not according to the definitions. Even the one repealed mentioned in this thread. FRNs are stock certificates for the Fed. If you are waving around a stock certificate in a private corporation you are waving around your fiduciary responsibility as obligations to perform for the Fed; nobody else.

When you say that is what you see; I am telling you to look again.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[.]

Federal Reserve Notes are indeed stock certificates.

FRNs are stock certificates for the Fed.

Stop it. Yer killin' me.

[David Merrill]

Federal Reserve Notes are indeed stock certificates.

FRNs are stock certificates for the Fed.

Stop it. Yer killin' me.

Your amusement is disingenuous ".". Typically people do not laugh repeatedly at the same joke over and over again.

Do us all a favor and search around for an image of a stock certificate from the Fed. Get back to us.


Regards,

David Merrill.

P.S. Didn't you read Notorial Dissent's post? He clearly explains that FRNs within the scope of Section 411 are stock certificates for the Fed.

[The Observer]

Do us all a favor and search around for an image of a stock certificate from the Fed. Get back to us.

How about you providing an image of lawful money? There are people here clamoring to get a view of it.

[wserra]

Are either of the notes "lawful money" as the words are used at 411?

Technically in my opinion; No.

Defendant argues that the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, s 8, United States Constitution. We have held to the contrary. United States v. Ware, 10 Cir., 608 F.2d 400, 402-403. We find no validity in the distinction which defendant draws between “lawful money” and “legal tender.”

United States v. Rickman, 638 F.2d 182 (10th Cir. 1980).

[.]

people do not laugh repeatedly at the same joke over and over again.

Admitting that your blather is nothing but a joke is a good start, even though you did so unintentionally.