1. Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
    Dismiss Notice
  2. There are no markets
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Week of 6/24/2017 Closing prices & Chg Over Last Wk---- Gold $1256.40 Silver $16.64 Oil $43.01 USD $96.94
  4. "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"
    Dismiss Notice

Lex mercatoria / Law Merchant

Discussion in 'U.S. Constitution & Law' started by BarnacleBob, Feb 11, 2017.



  1. TRYNEIN

    TRYNEIN Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1,641
    Likes Received:
    2,980
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    third cove on the right

    I can read it too you,
    but I can't understand it for you
     
  2. Carl

    Carl Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,882
    Likes Received:
    2,817
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Depends upon the time of day the question is asked
    Location:
    Texas
    OK Bigjon, I'll give you a sporting chance:

    Post the specific section in U.S. law that grants to the Fed the authority to create/coin/print U.S. Legal Tender Money, or any money of any type.

    Post the specific section in U.S. law that designates Federal Reserve Notes as being both, a "private money of the Federal Reserve", and U.S. Legal Tender Money.

    Perhaps they keep 12 USC 411 on the books because it's the enabling law for Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act.?

    "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."
     
  3. Carl

    Carl Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,882
    Likes Received:
    2,817
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Depends upon the time of day the question is asked
    Location:
    Texas
    So in other words, you have absolutely nothing.

    You're just talking out your ass because it makes you feel good about yourself.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2017
  4. Bigjon

    Bigjon Silver Member Silver Miner Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    2,025
    Likes Received:
    1,806
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Somehow you expect con-men are going to give away the con in an English Grammar text, when in fact they only write law in code.

    That FRN you hold in your hand has the Seal of the Federal Reserve and is their notice to you that you are using private credit based money.

    Unless you make a demand for lawful money you are using private credit money which is public money too.
     
  5. Carl

    Carl Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,882
    Likes Received:
    2,817
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Depends upon the time of day the question is asked
    Location:
    Texas
    In other words Bigjon, you're just making shit up with absolutely no basis in fact, because it sounds good to you and that's what you choose to believe.

    OK, I've posted and linked the correct information and you choose to ignore it. Fine, believe as you please, don't let the facts stand in your way.
     
  6. Michael Joseph

    Michael Joseph New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2017
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    This is why David Merrill and I teach on a private forum. I really do think this guy Carl is just having fun. Clearly Thomas declares FRN's are not money. I posted it for your reading pleasure. And you may go look it up to verify and I hope that you will. But then Carl declares FRN's are money and everyone argues with this guy. That to me is funny. Don't you know when you respond to another's query or demand that implies you are subject?

    Better said: Noone ever played tennis by himself. You all can read - you all know the truth and those of you who have experienced the IRS and the Department of Revenue issuing refunds year after year know the truth. You are not dependent on some dude who thinks he has a handle on matters. Don't you see? He is just laughing at you all for even granting him ability to inflame you.

    Just don't give him a minute more of your time - never acknowledge ignorance. Experience trumps anyways. And we have plenty of experience to know what we are talking about. So why get upset?

    It appears that the posters herein have a good grasp on their remedy and the reader can decide what is truth. Many bread crumbs have been left and even with gainsayers in the midst there is too much evidence and too many people enjoying the exercise of duty free public money. So enjoy life - and take her easy. This guy Carl declares I have not responded to his concerns - as if I need to. I have no trust in Carl. I am witnessing and discussing what I know.

    =========

    Declaration of a witness:


    Wow. I have good news. The IRS was not agreeing with my 2013 lawful money tax return and we've been going back and forth over a year. Today I was going to write to TIGTA as you guys suggested because it seemed I wasn't getting anywhere, even started gathering and copying documents. Around lunchtime I check the mail to find this IRS refund check!

    But even better was this:

    The IRS "made the changes I requested." They agreed my lawful money receipts were not taxable income. Praise the Lord!
    and Thank you. Especially David & MJ.

    =========


    Let the reader decide for self- but remember the benefit is in the hand of the doer! You guys seem to have a good handle on what is going on.


    Most Graciously in Honor We Trust, I am Michael Joseph
     
    Goldhedge likes this.
  7. TRYNEIN

    TRYNEIN Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1,641
    Likes Received:
    2,980
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    third cove on the right


    I wasn't posting for his benefit, I was posting for others.
     
  8. Michael Joseph

    Michael Joseph New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2017
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    So in the Spirit of this Thread Law Merchant: I would now like to explore the construction of a global Estate: here is x-talk between myself and a woman who is experiencing problems with a mortgage. Unfortunately she is listening to the "gurus" who teach something for nothing without any knowledge of Statecraft.

    x-talk from a private convo...asked to keep private....


    I do not know your situation and I am not sure you are going to like my response. I believe that if I entered into a contract and received the benefit of the contract then I should abide by my word. However, I will offer the following for your contemplation:






    1. I would check to see if the Sheriff has a valid Oath on file with the clerk who is the custodian of oaths. The sheriff's oath should conform to State statutes.




    2. Has the writ of Habere facias possessionem been issued ordering the Sheriff to remove you from the land?



    If I had breached a deed of trust in terms of my agreement, and if I desired to stay on the land, then I would go and try to make a deal to cure any breach of trust/contract immediately. I do not understand your presentments. They are confusing at best and they make reference to multiple jurisdictions. I see what you are trying to do but in my opinion you have not done it.


    A man be it male or female. Man can issue a claim but cannot trespass an existing agreement/contract and cannot shirk any legal liability and/or legal obligations entered prior to said claim. Other men and women are counting on that contract to feed their family too. If one seeks to create a new political state, then do it. Quit messing around in this Republic crap. You don't have a republic anymore - our heads have been sold and that's a fact. The only way to redeem self is by right of Self Determination which must be exercised to create a new political state. No territorial state is possible as all the land has been claimed and is being stewarded by trustees holding the States of this world. State is equal to Estate.


    If you say they are removing possession from you - that might be correct if there is a mortgage, but don't be fooled, if you are with a mortgage you do not own the property. The bank is only allowing you to use the property by grace in accord with the provision in the deed of trust. They don't have to let you enter the property until the Mortgage is paid off. So the property once was yours by deed. You desired a mortgage to help you pay the seller, so you thru your agent, the bank, created a mortgage. And you most likely thru your agent the insurance company insured the property against damage. You pledged the property to the bank as surety [security] against default; and, you created a trust whereupon you named the bank as the beneficiary and you appointed a trustee to hold [own] the property until you satisfied the mortgage. You then took the office of borrower and began to enjoy the property that belongs to another.


    If it was me and I was the bank I would be very upset if someone did not perform and then fought me to try to find some legal loophole. Perhaps you are not doing this and if that is the case I apologize. Like I said I don't know your situation. If this is your situation, please do not include me in future communications. If you seek self determination, then you must give notice thru the UN to all the nation states of your change in political status. Then you must negotiate an agreement with the Secretary of State of the United States to perhaps allow you to make a use of the land for an embassy. Then you must negotiate REPLEVIN of the Estate equity into your new State. That is the lawful peaceful settlement process developed in international law to resolve disputes. Now if that is not the case, then again, if this was me, I would call the bank and see what can be done in order to settle the account or bring it current.


    While you are right to use seals and other things reflected in your writings, you have failed to "come out and be separate" and therefore the Court does have jurisdiction and they have the copyright to the governing law and they most likely are not going to release their claim in this IN PERSONAM action. If you rely on Scripture, I will remind you :


    Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.


    Father/Mother = State of Nativity

    Man = State: The State is the founders. Government is the agency of State

    Woman or Wife = Citizenry.


    So Man leaves to go "build a house" which is to say Declare Statehood [Manhood]. When the house is built, then the Man returns to collect his Wife [citizens].


    I have just related to you international law. I would be very careful about those who would tell you that you can be Stateless. Uncle Sam has a Club - Sam's Club and they enjoy eating wild meat. The Universe adopted as the One Law - Divine Law under Canon that rules the World is the Model under which all States comply.


    Divine Law - as adopted in the Canons - is the One Verse - bounded in Law

    Natural Law - again as adopted in the Canons - is the express Will of the Divine

    Cognitive Law = It contemplates Self Awareness, Mind, Consciousness, Ideas, Knowledge, etc.


    The foregoing is your TRINITY.


    All other Law form is derived from Cognitive Law.

    Positive Law = births all other forms of Law. So all other forms of Law are subject to Positive Law.



    Here are your Four Horns. - Divine, Natural, Cognitive, Positive Law forms


    I wrote the following earlier this year. While it may not help your current situation, maybe it will. I don't know your current situation.



    We can see the three fold nature in kingdoms / government. If one just looks carefully, one can discern an imperfect picture in the Earth of the perfect Heavenly Image. In regard to lesser trusts formed concerning property understood by Law, one has to ask of which Law form. For New Jerusalem was measured "with a reed". A reed being a Canon or a Body of Laws. An assemblage of TRUTH and GOODNESS.




    Therefore First is Divine Law which contemplates the One-Verse and bounds all that will be within its contemplation. When one considers the creations of man the Divine Law is the Canon [Reed] which establishes [metes out] the MODEL of the ALL - as related to that specific Uni-Verse. Natural Law proceeds from Divine Law and is not established by the minds of man but is rather a natural observation of the Will of the Divine in Creation. Sometimes referenced to Natures God. For in Nature is the Will of God comprehended. And just as man has 22 bones in his cranium 22 forms of Law exist in the One-Verse.


    Cognitive Law being a Set of Laws derived from Divine and Natural Law. It contemplates Self Awareness, Mind, Consciousness, Ideas, Knowledge, etc. Therefore all other forms of Law are derived from Cognitive Law and that leads one into Positive Law. And now all forms of Law derived of or from [birthed] Positive Law are subject to Positive Law. But it does not take a genius to realize that all is subject to Divine Law.


    And a Corporation Sole is created to Administrate or Oversee the prosecution of Divine Law. You might of guessed the Corporation Sole is "The Bishop of the Church of Rome". The sole office is the Bishop - the Ministry is The Church of Rome. All roads lead to Rome because Rome has the greatest unchallenged claim. Also the same man acting as Bishop is Ceasar or the Emperor of Rome! The Emperor of Rome is also a Corporation Sole with a sole office - The Emperor and the Ministry is Rome.

    A self aware man or woman will certainly discern that the Divine Law contemplated hereinbefore, does show forth a MODEL of Existence. And this Model is merely an overlay on the Real. It is a form of contemplation which uses a very ingenious tool - LANGUAGE and TIME. These two devices bind one into a false reality. I say false reality for it is not truly real but rather aset of Laws derived by man to poorly reflect the real - in the Earth. In other words - to govern the Flesh.


    One is duplicitous to say I am not of this Earth and then turn around and claim the Republics. Don't you hear Uncle Sam sharpening his knives? A Re-Publiced people are a people who refuse to exercise their right of self determination so they are Re-Packaged and a new government is granted to rule them.


    I know you have been on DMG and that is good. Because, if you have not noticed yet, man is the Universe observing Self. See now there is One Titular head of all the Estates. But here is the interesting thing, whilst in the model there was shown a Kingdom of God; Jesus related that he was "A Son of God." We are all children of the Most High. Therefore Jesus related not a Kingdom but a Democracy.


    Your beef is not with a Democracy it is with a Fiefdom. Well guess what? England was a Fiefdom when it granted Sovereignty to the 55 founders and to them ONLY. The rest were Re-public-[ed] from being subjects of the Crown to being subjects of the States. A contract was made between We the People of the United States and the States. The people hold merely a joint tenancy in the Sovereignty - Which means they appoint you as a Trustee whereupon you get the privilege of holding the Estate granted to you IN TRUST for the good of society and yourself and/or assigns according to the Administration and Higher Contracts and/or Treaties.


    I would be damn careful about claiming some status that does not exist anymore. Again Uncle Sam is fond of dining on so called "Stateless" men and women. That status does not exist in the One Verse. Here let me prove it to you:


    ==========





    Represent

    To exhibit or expose; to appear in the character of.

    When an item is represented, it is produced publicly. To represent an individual means to stand in his or her place, acting as his or her substitute or attorney.


    represent
    v. 1) to act as the agent for another. 2) to act as a client's attorney. 3) the state something as a fact, such as "I tell you this horse is only four years old." 4) to allege a fact in court, as "I represent to the court, that we will present six witnesses," "We represent that this is the final contract between the parties.

    ======

    What about Pro Se?

    pro se
    (proh say) prep. Latin for "for himself". A party to a lawsuit who represents himself (acting in propria persona), is appearing in the case "pro se."


    ======

    Does this seem like word magick to you? To represent means to stand in his or her place. Now then how can a man represent himself? Does not a man exist? Ponder that one for a moment.




    Lex [law] Mercatoria [Merchant] ===> Lex Rex.




    Let me see if I can name some character aspects of God:

    1. All knowing
    2. All powerful
    3. Omnipresent

    Does this not relate to the rule of the central banking overlay in conjunction with the central church/state of bogus external practice - don't you know that the blood of bulls and goats cannot satisfy debt. There remains a day - a certain day - when discharged debt must be settled. Do not the priests of this system play their part in this great drama?

    Now then, I suppose I could accept that a man could represent his interests in his own Estate. That sort of makes sense but then I am left guessing who created said Estate? Was it Me? I would think that maybe I would remember that! Or maybe I just do nothing but act in and for it subject to the rule of another? I'll have to think about that one. Not really you all know the answer to that one.




    So if I contemplate discharge I would have to know the meaning of Charge. What an eye opener.

    CHARGE, contracts. An obligation entered into by the owner of an estate which makes the estate responsible for its performance. Vide 2 Ball & Beatty, 223; 8 Com. Dig. 306, Appendix, h. t. Any obligation binding upon him who enters into it, which may be removed or taken away by a discharge. T. de la Ley, h. t.

    And since it contemplates an Estate - now I just must know what LEGAL means:

    LEGAL. That which is according to law. It is used in opposition to equitable, as the legal estate is, in the trustee, the equitable estate in the cestui que trust. Vide Powell on Mortg. Index, h. t.

    2. The party who has the legal title, has alone the right to seek a remedy for a wrong to his estate, in a court of law, though he may have no beneficial interest in it. The equitable owner, is he who has not the legal estate, but is entitled to the beneficial interest.

    3. The person who holds the legal estate for the benefit of another, is called a trustee; he who has the beneficiary interest and does not hold the legal title, is called the beneficiary, or more technically, the cestui que trust.

    4. When the trustee has a claim, he must enforce his right in a court of equity, for he cannot sue any one at law, in his own name; 1 East, 497; 8 T. R. 332; 1 Saund. 158, n. 1; 2 Bing. 20; still less can he in such court sue his own trustee. 1 East, 497.

    LEGAL ESTATE. One, the right to which may be enforced in a court of law. It is distinguished from an equitable estate, the rights to which can be established only in a court of equity. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 1688.

    and finally I sought to know what Res means:

    RES, property. Things. The terms "Res," "Bona," "Biens," used by jurists who have written in the Latin and French languages, are intended to include movable or personal, as well as immovable or real property. 1 Burge, Confl. of Laws, 19. See Biens; Bona; Things.

    and then I wondered about RES-Ident. And then the light came on. Identified Property is the subject of the Trust - Man's Soul - or simply put Man.

    RESIDENT, persons. A person coming into a place with intention to establish his domicil or permanent residence, and who in consequence actually remains there. Time is not so essential as the intent, executed by making or beginning an actual establishment, though it be abandoned in a longer, or shorter period. See 6 Hall's Law Journ. 68; 3 Hagg. Eccl. R. 373; 20 John. 211 2 Pet. Ad. R. 450; 2 Scamm. R. 377.

    but then I was confused again until I found this:

    RESIDENCE. The place of one's domicil. (q. v.) There is a difference between a man's residence and his domicil. He may have his domicil in Philadelphia, and still he may have a residence in New York; for although a man can have but one domicil, he may have several residences. A residence is generally tran-sient in its nature, it becomes a domicil when it is taken up animo manendi. Roberts; Ecc. R. 75.

    2. Residence is prima facie evidence of national character, but this may at all times be explained. When it is for a special purpose and transient in its nature, it does not destroy the national character.


    and now I connected the Res to Character which connects to Represent - and then to Person. And now finally to Domicil

    DOMICIL.

    2. A man cannot be without a domicil, for he is not supposed to have abandoned his last domicil until he has acquired a new one. 5 Ves. 587; 3 Robins. 191; 1 Binn. 349, n.; 10 Pick. 77. Though by the Roman law a man might abandon his domicil, and, until be acquired a. new one, he was without a domicil. By fixing his residence at two different places a man may have two domicils at one and the same time; as, for example, if a foreigner, coming to this country, should establish two houses, one in New York and the, other in New Orleans, and pass one-half of the year in each; he would, for most purposes, have two domicils. But it is to be observed that circumstances which might be held sufficient to establish a commercial domicil in time of war, and a matrimonial, or forensic or political domicil in time of peace, might not be such as would establish a principal or testamentary domicil, for there is a wide difference in applying the law of domicil to contracts and to wills. Phill. on Dom. xx; 11 Pick. 410 10 Mass. 488; 4 Wash. C. C. R. 514.



    ======


    And there you have it. In the One-Verse under Canon Law [Divine Law] there is no such thing as a Stateless Man. If you claim the Re-publics then you testify against yourself that you are subject to the Fiefdom of England - and thus subject to Rome.


    If I have been too hard on you, I apologize. I have answered your reply and you know what you need to do. Now I need to get some sleep because I have a meeting early tomorrow morning. If you are in the flesh you are subject to Rome. No way of getting around that - but the Mind is free to create all sorts of new realities if you believe - tell that Mountain to throw itself into the sea and it shall be so. But you cannot abrogate your liabilities; however, you can envision a mutually beneficial relationship coming to bear that resolves your liabilities. Jesus drew up a fish from the sea - and whoa - there was a gold coin in its mouth - turning to Peter he said "Pay the man." You get my drift?


    What a heavy burden the world puts on your shoulders - Jesus said "my burden is light". Do you believe you can manifest a mutually beneficial reality? If so what are you waiting on? The path you are on is arduous and full of pits. You are on your way out of Egypt to sojourn in the Wilderness. It is rough in that Wilderness - but if you have Faith- God will feed you manna from a place where you know not - God's ways are beyond finding out - but we don't need to find them out - we merely need to have Faith in the Promise that if we eat the diet of "fish and bread" [observe the Spiritual Laws] the children birthed will be of God. For what God has put together, let no man put asunder. Faith is the Title-Deed to the State of Being desired. God IS, therefore all states of being are of equal potential.


    Paperwork claiming some jurisdictional realm is no good unless you created that realm. You asked for my two cents and there it is. I hope you are enriched - I have told you truth and I know that is not popular but I am not interested in popularity.




    To our Success, Most Graciously in Honor We Trust: I am Michael Joseph



     
  9. Carl

    Carl Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,882
    Likes Received:
    2,817
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Depends upon the time of day the question is asked
    Location:
    Texas
    And yet again we are entertained with Michael Joseph's mewling incantations, a legend in his own mind.

    The problem you're having is that you believe your dispute is with me, and that's simply not the case. Your dispute is with the laws that contradict your espoused beliefs, I just happen to be the one that posted them. So, your attempts to make me the focal point for attention and your ire, isn't going to work.

    Gold Reserve Act 48 Stat. 337 - Negates and nullifies your "redemption" claims.

    31 U.S. Code § 5103 - Legal tender - Designates the Official Legal Tender Money of the United States, which are: United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.

    Federal Reserve Notes are "Lawful Money", - upheld as such in U.S. courts.

    Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act - delineates how FRNs get from the Treasury to deposit account holders. The Federal Reserve banks are held legally and financially liable for the notes.

    Legal Tender Status - is a brief synopsis of Section 16 explaining the duties and responsibilities associated with FRN issue.

    Seigniorage in the United States - Explains how the U.S.G. collects seigniorage on the note issue.

    A dictionary, legal or otherwise, is not U.S. law. In that same vein, neither are bible verses.

    I would link my blog where I put it all together, but I was informed that doing so is not allowed.


    Now, if you want to argue, then post the laws that negate the laws I've linked.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2017
  10. Goldhedge

    Goldhedge Modal Operator/Moderator Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    27,948
    Likes Received:
    31,446
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Tech
    I've always thought that the 'Jesus' concept had more to do with debt instruments than heaven and hell.
     
  11. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Site Supporter ++ Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    6,342
    Likes Received:
    2,834
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    K, I'm calling bullshit:
    distinction between a man and a man's role? Dude there michael joseph dude do you even know what the word person entails? A man don't have a "role" wtf are you thinking. did your momie and dadie tell you, you had a role? Is this role based in your life or others dictation of it?

    First of all 'person' is an action and not the actor. Hence the latin description of "SOUND THROUGH." To sound through is not a noun as in person, place or thing. NOTICE: person, place and thing are not a man or a woman.

    OH, and there is no PERSONS or Persons or persons...PERIOD... person is plural and singular. That is why a conglomerate corporation can be called person, in fact that is why the corporation known as THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is known as person. Fuck dude have you ever known the united states of America to be called persons? NO, it is called person. Take a look at the consitution of the bound in which you are living in. In that constitution you will find the words "Making war against the state shall be treason." Treason is the only way you can hurt a fiction and person is a fiction. Fuck me running ...a man's role... shit the bed ur killing me here with that bull shit.
     
  12. Goldhedge

    Goldhedge Modal Operator/Moderator Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    27,948
    Likes Received:
    31,446
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Tech
    It might could be that there is another way to consider law.

    I think we should allow folks to express their point of view with out all the negative comments.

    Just because it doesn't 'fit' with your reality, doesn't make it any less valid.

    It's a 'walk a mile in my shoes' moment we should all take in. Who knows, we might learn something...?
     
    Hystckndle and BarnacleBob like this.
  13. Michael Joseph

    Michael Joseph New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2017
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    michael joseph as dad
    michael joseph as husband
    michael joseph as engineer
    michael joseph as friend
    michael joseph as teacher
    michael joseph as coach
    michael joseph as trustee
    michael joseph as president
    michael joseph as michael joseph

    now I guess I have gone too far. a name is a useful tool of which to develop relationships. You can call me Ray, you can call me Jay or you can call me......rofl.

    No roles you say? All the worlds a stage and we are mere actors in the play.... as some of your poets have written. Each role or person has certain obligations and certain privileges and certain benefits - else I would not play the part.

    I as michael joseph as [role] = personage. The truth is I. The person is "name as [role]"

    Let the reader decide for self. Goldhedge that's good advice, thank you for that. "Sing me a song, your a singer....." - Heaven and Hell.

    Jesus can relate to the enlightened mind in Man - for He said Let there be Light and Light was. And let this Mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus who did not count it robbery to be thought Equal to God.

    To our Success, Most Graciously in Honor We Trust: I am Michael Joseph
     
    Goldhedge likes this.
  14. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Site Supporter ++ Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    6,342
    Likes Received:
    2,834
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    K, ya caught me there Hedge of Gold what I wrote could be construed as mean spirited but I'm still calling BULLSHIT. Let me consider a lie. Then after I have incorporated that lie unto myself then what am I? Now let me live that lie. One day a ship lands and the men from it come ashore and they instruct me that I have been living a lie. Now what have I become?

    First of all I am by myself, I did not arrive in a vessel, I did not appear as a company of men, I did not go forth in another's name. Now, who is living the lie? Are the men who arrived in anothers name in a wood'n boat with a name doing deeds for another living a lie? Or, am I still living the lie because they say so?

    Maybe I am wrong and should not have interfered in Carl's and Michael Joseph's game of kick the can but just because Michael Joseph loads the can with a turd from a bull don't make me wrong for calling it out; does it? The way I see it is "if" Michael Joseph believes he is playing a role and is just a role player then that should be proof to every one exactly what all his written words are about; even to himself. So can I learn something from some one who uses trickery? One cannot do a bad deed for good because it negates the good and I should know because I am in such a position now. I am in the position of having been tricked so should I just lay down and play the role and submit to the merchants of law reasoning? Naw, it ain't in me to submit to faulty reasoning, ever. Maybe I should quit being the third party interloper and step out of the room before I get anymore manure on me.
     
  15. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,600
    Likes Received:
    9,729
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    What are Federal Reserve notes and how are they different from United States notes?

    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.

    https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx

    What is lawful money? How is it different from legal tender?

    "Lawful money" is a term used in the Federal Reserve Act, the act that authorizes the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to issue Federal Reserve notes. The Act states that Federal Reserve 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." The Act did not, however, define the term "lawful money," but up until 1913, the only currency issued by the United States that was legally recognized as "lawful money" was various issues of "demand notes" (subsequently known as "old demand notes") and "United States notes" authorized by Congress during the Civil War.

    https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_15197.htm

    This appears to be a tacit "official" omission by the U.S. Treasury that FRN's ARE NOT lawful money that meet the requirements of §411.... As Congress has not dissolved the Federal Reserve System nor have they "taken over" the notes. Requirements that must first occur pursuant §411 before the notes may be deemed as "lawful PUBLIC money".

    Note that FRN's can only be (i.e. "shall") received by national and member banks and Federal reserve banks.

    What exactly constitutes the definition of "member" banks.... In equity, since ONLY BANKS are LEGALLY authorized by the 1913 Act to RECEIVE FRN's, the voluntary use of FRN's & FRS bank credit CREATES the contractural nexus of instantly creating the "member bank" & associated liabilities, privileges & immunities thereof. For a bank (the note holder & unincorporated member bank) must first receive the private note prior to the note being employed as a legal tender currency for all taxes, customs, and other public dues.

    Since the free choice of using "public money" (U.S. Notes & UST's) has for all intents & purposes been removed from circulation & since the 13th Amendment prohibits involuntary slavery & servitude, and since Congress has not dissolved the private FRS, there must then in contract law, equity & justice be a remedy & escape clause from the quasi-privately issued "merchant" currency & commercial credit system....

    The only question that now remains is the proper remedy to escape the scheme & the consequences of employing the immunities.

    It appears that public policy & statutes, etc. all PRESUME that one is a private "merchant investment" banker & the subject & object of the commercial statutory jurisdictions & law merchant equity & admiralty jurisdictions (re: 27 USC 72.11) .....

    Indeed when a person or an individual deposits any denominated sum of money, currency or securities to an incorporated bank, they are tendering a unsecured loan to the trust institution. Lending & investing is regulateable commerce!

    The legal position of a depositor was settled as long ago as in 1848 - in the court case of Edward Thomas Foley vs Thomas Hill. This case determined that depositors are unsecured creditors.

    Foley v Hill (1848) 2 HLC 28, 9 ER 1002
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foley_v_Hill

    "All deposits in all banks are at risk - for the simple reason that depositors do not own the money they deposited. They are merely investors in a business called banking."

    http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/5121/contracts-between-customers-and-banks-implied-term.aspx

    When read in harmony with the 1895 Pollock v Farmers Loan & Trust Co. case, SCOTUS defined investments as a legitimate federal subject & object of defined activities that are constitutionally subject to Congressional Art I, sec 8 "excise" taxation. Thus it stands to reason that the IRS first uses bank accounts & investment activities as the nexus & prima facia evidence that subjects one to the taxing jurisdiction & reporting requirements.

    Enforcement of these taxes is of course a matter of private equity. 26 USC is NOT public law, it is private Art I legislative equity administration law administered via Art I courts, not Art. III judicial power courts.

    Legal Tender Status

    I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal?

    The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."

    This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.

    https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx

    It occurs to me that the remedy can be found above:



    The foregoing is essentially the nature of the so called voluntary "income tax";

    "businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash"

    Same can be said of the individual, there is no federal law that states employees must be paid for their activities in private legal tender FRN's or incorporated trust bank credit deposits... Once the acceptance is cured, the holder becomes liable for the excise tax and the commercial regulatory jurisdictions.

    The real question comes down to the legitimate ACCEPTABLE & LAWFUL remedy since there is a voluntary choice to either accept FRN's & private credit or not to... As there is no law mandating their said use.

    The question then becomes a matter of whether the instant contract is unconscionable & voluntary... along with other legal concepts such as was the entrance into the agreement willingly, voluntarilly, intentionally & most importantly KNOWINGLY.... !!! Is there really a voluntary choice that may be deemed lawful in equity when a person is faced with acceptance of private FRN's or starvation?

    One would like to believe that private or public equity would take judicial cognizance of this fact in the administration of justice... Namely that the voluntary use of FRN's & incorporated bank credit is for all INTENTS illusional in our modern economic & financial commercial credit system.... Hence remedy & relief is not available legally, but rather equitably. IOW justice, remedy & relief from the PRESUMPTION that one is voluntarilly, knowingly & willingly engaged in activities as a merchant investment banker must first be overcome prior to obtaining relief from the commercial credit system, its taxation & regulations.

    In this respect IMO the "demand for lawful" money is not a silver bullet, but rather prima facia evidence that the individual IS NOT intentionally, willingly or voluntarilly engaged in the merchant-investment banker fractional reserve elastic credit-currency scam.... Its the excersize of a choice when no other choice is available at this time... namely Congress has not disposed of the private FRS system and hence there is not an adequate supply of public money in circulation to conduct ones "private" affairs....

    JMO
     
    Goldhedge, Bigjon and michael59 like this.
  16. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,600
    Likes Received:
    9,729
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    Goldhedge and Hystckndle like this.
  17. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Site Supporter ++ Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    6,342
    Likes Received:
    2,834
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    Use the King's coin and be subjected to the King's rule. I have always viewed the illegalities of selling drugs in this light. No, not anything immoral but just that the owner of said money/tender did not want the coin used in that way. And, it irks me so that this jurisdiction follows everything I do, in every way and by doing that subjects me to jurisdiction of all the kings law. And, yet where is the benefit? I suppose aphoristically the benefit is entangled diametrically with non-benefit.

    I don't have to use coin, lawful or tender at all but darn it every one else does. And, because they do when doing "work" for them they become the ruler and I the "ruled," all by accepting that which they offer. And, they call this the land of freedom? More like the kitchen of chefs with no dishwashers. I suppose if ya wana eat ya gots ta do the chef's dishes, darn.
     
    mtnman and BarnacleBob like this.
  18. Carl

    Carl Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,882
    Likes Received:
    2,817
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Depends upon the time of day the question is asked
    Location:
    Texas
    Could you please explain how you arrived at the determination that FRNs are "private legal tender".

    If I rent you my truck, and I put your name on the truck and allowed you to conducted your business with it, does that make you the owner of the truck?

    Also, isn't it the 'activity' that is taxed and not the money?

    There is no "elastic currency", that system of banking ended in 1933. A bank managed system of debits and credits is not currency, elastic or otherwise.
     
    michael59 likes this.
  19. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Site Supporter ++ Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    6,342
    Likes Received:
    2,834
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    That's the whole stickler of it Carl, the symbolism cannot be wiped off and a new name attached. At least that's how I take it.

    Oh by the way we have had twin kid goats borned this morn.
     
    Carl, searcher and Hystckndle like this.
  20. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,600
    Likes Received:
    9,729
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    Who is the buyer, borrower & issuer of the .gov legal tender product? Who's collateral is used for the purchase, borrowing & issuance?

    Private bank collateral backing issued thru a private banking & credit system. The FRN is a copywrited & trademarked product sold & warrantied by the U.S. Treasury.

    The question is who retains actual ownership of the product. The holder of the note, the banking system or the U.S. Treasury.

    "Also, isn't it the 'activity' that is taxed and not the money?"

    No, I dont believe so! Seems that the excise is laid upon the use of the private currency & credit as money regardless of the activities. Some activities receive immunities & special benefits while others do not.
     
    Bigjon likes this.
  21. Hystckndle

    Hystckndle Daguerreotype Fanatic Site Mgr Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,397
    Likes Received:
    4,701
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Slave, but a little less every day
    Location:
    Central Florida
    Interesting thread,

    Here is what I see in my small and short existence on this rock.

    Play with the kings money. Pay his tax. Also, to avoid his goons, pay his tax. Sometimes, his goons still come. I deal with it.

    Play with private or franchised money. Pay their tax. Sometimes THEIR goons still come. I deal with it.

    Play with only the peoples’ money,
    maybe avoid some taxes in the mix and scheme of things.

    IMO its near impossible to avoid all taxes unless you are living extremely isolated and smaller than I have chosen to and most are or both. The peoples’ money has been and is being squeezed out, that’s the game. I deal with it.

    You have choices in life. Pay taxes or don’t. Antagonize the goons or don’t. Pretty basic decisions. And then there are the nuances. There is the cream in life. The nuances. Sure thing, one can choose to spend your time in doing what is necessary to avoid taxes, file paperwork and avoid with holding . Some of the taxes. Some of the time.

    OR …choose to pay the with holding straight up AND choose to spend the time learning to play AND use the system itself to avoid taxes in general every day, every month, every year after the dust settles. Put on the whole armor of God using your own skills and knowledge and the knowledge of others you glean assistance from. Its all a choice. Use the tools you are provided with and are entitled to, as a subject or not, and use your own sweat equity the way you decide.

    Inside the system- part inside and part outside—or give it a go outside the system—wither choice is honorable and IMHO a person is no more or less an honorable person in doing whatever they decide.

    Me, I believe that a tax system is necessary for the overall benefits of society. Especially todays society and the infrastructure that we have. Yes it is sad to see that our taxed incomes have been used in squandered and wasteful ways. But it is also disappointing that some want to enjoy the benefits of the whole and not pay a share also. That’s my beef overall in our world today. Nothing is free in life. But that’s just me…and who is to say I am “right” or “wrong”. Its all a big lottery. Every day is a gift.

    Regards to all, great to see so many comments on this thread. Very educational.

    Haystackneedle
     
    michael59 and searcher like this.
  22. Bigjon

    Bigjon Silver Member Silver Miner Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    2,025
    Likes Received:
    1,806
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If one uses public lawful money he incurs no tax on the transaction.

    The tax is only incurred through the use of private money.

    When I deposit a FRN in the bank the bankster will use it to back his fractional use money of account which is the elastic money that expands the money supply.
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2017
  23. Carl

    Carl Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,882
    Likes Received:
    2,817
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Depends upon the time of day the question is asked
    Location:
    Texas
    Well, there is no "buyer" of the legal tender, and there is no "borrower" of the legal tender, and there are two issuers; the primary owner/issuer is the U.S.G., the Fed is the secondary issuer for circulation as public money.

    False. The U.S.G. maintains ownership of the notes.

    As a public money, the holder is the owner. As the creator and primary issuer, the U.S.G. is the owner. The Fed is charged with the responsibility of issuing the notes for circulation. And the banking system is charged with the responsibility of rendering the notes to their deposit account holders upon their demand.

    Come on now, you know full well that is is the activity that is taxed, the money exchanged triggers the taxable event.
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2017
  24. Carl

    Carl Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,882
    Likes Received:
    2,817
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Depends upon the time of day the question is asked
    Location:
    Texas
    Bigjon, it appears evident to me that you don't know what you're talking about, but I will ask just in case; do you have any credible sources to back your assertions?

    Can you post the law that designates public money as non-taxable?

    Can you post the law that distinguishes and designates a 'public money' from a 'private money'?

    Can you post the law that designates an 'elastic money'?

    Can you post the law that grants to the banks the power to create U.S. legal tender money?
     
  25. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,600
    Likes Received:
    9,729
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
  26. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,600
    Likes Received:
    9,729
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    Regardless of all the arguments in these threads there is one reality... you, I & we gotta pay the taxes or our property & possibly our corpus's will be seized. Its really that simple....
     
    michael59, searcher and Hystckndle like this.
  27. Carl

    Carl Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,882
    Likes Received:
    2,817
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Depends upon the time of day the question is asked
    Location:
    Texas
    Yes, and Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act stipulates exactly how that former elastic currency, which is now the primary reserve currency, is to be furnished. As with the word 'ISSUE', the word 'FURNISH' does not mean the authority to 'CREATE'. The Federal Reserve has never possessed the authority to create money.

    When gold as money was the primary reserve currency, the FRN was the, designated by law, elastic currency that increased and decreased in volume with the demands of business. When gold as money was outlawed, the FRN was promoted to primary reserve currency, and nothing was designated by law to take over its former role as the new elastic currency.
     
  28. Bigjon

    Bigjon Silver Member Silver Miner Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    2,025
    Likes Received:
    1,806
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1. Issuance of Federal Reserve notes; nature of obligation; where redeemable
    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 hereby 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.

    [12 USC 411. As amended by act of Jan. 30, 1934 (48 Stat. 337). For redemption of Federal reserve notes whose bank of issue cannot be identified, see act of June 13, 1933.]

    The FRN has not stopped the use of ELASTIC CURRENCY.
    When we had a gold standard we had ELASTIC CURRENCY AND IT IS STILL HERE TODAY.

    Fractional Reserve banking is elastic currency and is still denominated in FRN's.

    Just because I don't put up a bunch of links to point this out does not mean i don't know what I'm talking about.

    http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/convincing.html

    Convincing Congress to Abolish the Fed
    Freedom League,
    Sept/Oct 1984


    1984
    is well after all the links to law you have put up.

    Today, we have two competing monetary systems. The Federal Reserve System with its
    private credit and currency, and the public money system consisting of legal tender United States notes and coins. One could use the public money system, paying all bills with coins and United States notes (if the notes can be obtained), or one could voluntarily use the private credit system and thereby incur the obligation to make a return of income.
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2017
  29. Carl

    Carl Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,882
    Likes Received:
    2,817
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Depends upon the time of day the question is asked
    Location:
    Texas

    Already covered.


    12 U.S.C.
    United States Code, 2011 Edition
    Title 12 - BANKS AND BANKING
    CHAPTER 3 - FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
    SUBCHAPTER XII - FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES
    Sec. 411 - Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption
    From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov


    1934—Act Jan. 30, 1934, struck out from last sentence provision permitting redemption in gold.

    Fed and bankster generated debt-based private credit is denominated in FRNs and it expands and contracts in volume with the demands of business, but it's not a currency.

    I do not doubt that you believe you know what you're talking about. Perhaps you could explain how the Fed gets FRNs from the Treasury and why they are a liability of the Fed instead of an asset. I mean, if they are owned by the Fed then they should be an asset of the Fed, right?


    That essay is rife with mistakes and erroneous assertions.
     
  30. Bigjon

    Bigjon Silver Member Silver Miner Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    2,025
    Likes Received:
    1,806
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A currency (from Middle English: curraunt, "in circulation", from Latin: currens, -entis) in the most specific use of the word refers to money in any form when in actual use or circulation as a medium of exchange, especially circulating banknotes and coins.[1][2] A more general definition is that a currency is a system of money (monetary units) in common use, especially in a nation.[3] Under this definition, US dollars, British pounds, Australian dollars, and European euros are examples of currency. These various currencies are recognized stores of value and are traded between nations in foreign exchange markets, which determine the relative values of the different currencies.[4] Currencies in this sense are defined by governments, and each type has limited boundaries of acceptance.

    Other definitions of the term "currency" are discussed in their respective synonymous articles banknote, coin, and money. The latter definition, pertaining to the currency systems of nations, is the topic of this article. Currencies can be classified into two monetary systems: fiat money and commodity money, depending on what guarantees the value (the economy at large vs. the government's physical metal reserves). Some currencies are legal tender in certain political jurisdictions, which means they cannot be refused as payment for debt. Others are simply traded for their economic value. Digital currency has arisen with the popularity of computers and the Internet.

    FRN Seems to fit the description of a currency and can be redeemed for lawful money too.
     
  31. Carl

    Carl Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,882
    Likes Received:
    2,817
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Depends upon the time of day the question is asked
    Location:
    Texas
    FRNs and U.S. coin are a currency, they are legal tender, they are lawful money and they are public money.
    FRNs and U.S. coin are the primary reserve currency of the U.S. Banking System and form the basis of their Fractionally Reserved Private Credit System.
    FRNs and U.S. coin are what the U.S. Banking System legally owes to their deposit account holders.
    FRNs and U.S. coin are the official money/currency of the United States.
    FRNs and U.S. coin are what the United States Government owes in final payment of its debts.
    All United States Government issued securities are redeemable in FRNs and U.S. Coin as final payment.

    Now, do you have anything, other than uninformed opinions, that can refute those stated facts, then please post it.
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2017
  32. David Merrill

    David Merrill Seeker Seeker

    Joined:
    May 15, 2010
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    71
    Trophy Points:
    28
    FRN's may be redeemed in lawful money on demand. That is the law. Therefore they are not the same thing. I am going with Congress on this. Sorry Carl. The truth is too valuable to be paying you much attention.
     
  33. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Site Supporter ++ Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    6,342
    Likes Received:
    2,834
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    I got one and here comes the boomerang.

    so if federal reserve notes are actually money and worth some thing then why are the top valued ones never circulated as legal tender?

    only answer I can come up with is because they are private accounting notes. So if them BIG notes are private then that lil one dollar paper is privet also. So there it is...paper between private banks let loose and called lawful money, but only IF you designate it so.
     
  34. Carl

    Carl Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,882
    Likes Received:
    2,817
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Depends upon the time of day the question is asked
    Location:
    Texas
    OK David Merrill POST THE U.S. LAW THAT DEFINES AND DESIGNATES THE "LAWFUL MONEY" YOU SO COVET AND FRNs CAN BE REDEEMED IN.
     
  35. TAEZZAR

    TAEZZAR LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH Midas Member Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    10,257
    Likes Received:
    15,609
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    ORYGUN
    This is interesting.

     
  36. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,600
    Likes Received:
    9,729
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    U.S. Treasury website:

    "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.

    https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx

    "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.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/411

    Amended:

    http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=48&page=337

    "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" (supra)

    Looks to me that IF Congress should revoke & dissolve the Fed & its license, its FRN's would become worthless, hence as FRN's are an obligation of U.S. .gov there is the statutory option for the note holder to redeem said FRN's for the new legal tender "lawful" money that Congress would create & circulate as the replacement currency.

    Furthermore Art I sec 8, cl 5:

    CONGRESS shall have power: "To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;"

    All legal tender coinage produced by the U.S. Mint is constitutional "lawful money".... and FRN's may be redeemed upon demand for lawful money pursuant 12 USC sec 411. DEMAND for lawful money is alive and well!

    Next....

    "Federal Reserve notes 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." (supra)

    "for no other purpose
    are authorized."

    Indeed it seems that FRN's are only "authorized" for making advances to Fed Res banks via Fed Reserve agents in the ordinary course of bank business... thus is it possible that the "USE" of FRN's is an extraordinary unauthorized use & subjects one to the income tax jurisdiction??? Secondly does the convertability of dollar denominated bank credit into FRN's "upon demand" create the tax liability & requirement to file a return?

    The banking systems capital base is mostly composed of UST's & .gov debt.... a capital base from which the credit expansion & leveraging springs forth from... hence the use of .gov credit/debt creates the liability... Hmmm!?!?
     
  37. Carl

    Carl Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,882
    Likes Received:
    2,817
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Depends upon the time of day the question is asked
    Location:
    Texas
    That video is wrong from its beginning to its end.
    The Fed does not buy bonds from the government.
    The Fed has no legal authority to create money.
    The "money multiplier" is pure fiction.
    Banks Do Not Lend Reserves.
    Banks Do Not Lend Money, PERIOD.
     
  38. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,600
    Likes Received:
    9,729
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    The Fed does not buy bonds from the government: True, the Fed buys & sells bonds through the 20 primary dealers.

    The Fed has no legal authority to create money. True, its authority lays in creating leveraged credit!

    The "money multiplier" is pure fiction: Possibly true dependent upon the use of the word "multiplier."

    Banks Do Not Lend Reserves: True, banks leverage their capital to create loans!

    Banks Do Not Lend Money: True, they lend credit


    Bill of credit is a phrase from Article One, Section 10, Clause One of the United States Constitution. It refers to a document, similar to abanknote, that is issued by a government representing its indebtedness to the holder and typically designed to circulate asmoney. Legal writers—as opposed to economic historians—incorrectly assume that the constitutional phrase "Bills of Credit" was simply a synonym for paper money [source needed], but it only refers to one, though very important, type of paper currency.[1] The Constitution explicitly prohibits the states from issuing bills of creditand coining money. States are only permitted to make gold and silverlegal tender.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_credit
     
    TAEZZAR likes this.
  39. TAEZZAR

    TAEZZAR LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH Midas Member Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    10,257
    Likes Received:
    15,609
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    ORYGUN
    Carl, you are always right. The problem is you are only theoretically right. The reality is, what ever you want to call it, the sheeple accept it.
    Gold is Money, all else is an imposter. That's why we are here !!!!!
     
  40. Carl

    Carl Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,882
    Likes Received:
    2,817
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Depends upon the time of day the question is asked
    Location:
    Texas
    BB, while there is no legal definition of "Lawful Money", the Federal Reserve Notes are a product of U.S. Law and as such, they are considered in law as being a "Lawful Money", the official U.S. Currency and public money. Treasury Bonds, U.S. Agency Bonds, U.S. Notes and Special Drawing Right Certificates are also considered a "Lawful Money", they are redeemable in legal tender/lawful money Federal Reserve Notes and U.S. Coin.

    As per The Gold Reserve Act of 1934, Gold Coin, Gold Certificates, and Gold Based Special Drawing Right Certificates are to be/have been redeemed in "Lawful Money", Federal Reserve Notes, as amended in 12 U.S. Code § 411.

    The collateral held backing the issue of Federal Reserve Notes by the Treasury to the Federal Reserve currently consists of U.S. Treasuries, Agency MBSs, Special Drawing Right Certificates and Gold Certificates.

    The "obligation" incurred by the U.S.G. is to supply the economy with a monetary medium of exchange.

    If congress were to dissolve the Federal Reserve, congress would take control of the notes, which are a liability of the Fed, and the responsibility for the issue of notes for circulation as per paragraph 1, section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act and 12 U.S. Code § 411.

    Please read Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act in its entirety, not just the first paragraph, it explains the purpose to which the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, makes FRN advances to Federal reserve banks.

    I've never heard, saw or read of anyone acquiring a "tax liability & requirement to file a return" for withdrawing their money property from a bank.

    U.S. Currency, A History
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2017

Share This Page