Snoop most likely agrees that Federal Reserve Money is money. S/he probably could post a law that states it - heck - a whole page of codes and statues even... But here's a conundrum... The federal reserve note is... a note. A note is a sign of debt. How does one payoff/retire a debt with a debt?
First, I want to make it absolutely clear that I oppose the Federal Reserve. I also oppose so-called "fraction reserve" lending, which is pure fraud and theft and which causes "debt slavery".
But, I take no position on this subject of your question. The real law on the subject of your question is below for whatever benefit that might be to you and our colleagues on this thread.
The words below have never appeared before anywhere else on the web. I wrote these words for the first time in response to your comment above. So, this is not a "duplicate" or a "machinegun post".
THE REAL LAW ITSELF ON WHETHER FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES ARE MONEY
1. White v. U.S., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14753248592698700360&q="has+established+that"+"Congress,+in+full+accordance+with+its+authority+under"+"the+constitution"+"do+not+constitute+money"+"are+legal+tender"+"is+clearly+without+merit"+"clearly+baseless"+"Federal+reserve+notes"+"are+not+money"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, a tax protester was convicted of a tax-related offense and moved to vacate the judgment against him. He argued that he incurred no tax liability because he was paid in the form of Federal Reserve notes. On appeal, he argued he had "ineffective assistance of counsel" on the grounds that "his lawyer should have argued that Federal Reserve Notes do not constitute "money" under federal statute because they are not backed by gold or silver." But the court disagreed and wrote, "As explained by the Fourth Circuit, "Congress, in full accordance with its authority under article I, section 8, clause 5 of the Constitution, has established that Federal Reserve notes are legal tender." (citation omitted). The Court in [an identical case]... rejected the defendant's arguments that "hinge upon his belief that Federal Reserve notes are not money," characterizing such arguments as "clearly baseless under any conceivable set of facts." (in the 21st paragraph at about 50% through the text).
2. Cauvel II v. Commisioner, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4823644493408609770&q="federal+reserve+notes"+"are+not+money"+rejected+frivolous+groundless+"repeatedly+considered+and"+universally+"other+protester-type+arguments"+ambassador+"who+accepts+no+governmental+privileges"+exempt+"was+improperly+ratified"+"sixteenth+amendment"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, a tax protester argued "that he is not liable for the deficiencies and additions to his [tax obligations]... because the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was improperly ratified; there is no taxable gain from the receipt of wages or other compensation for personal services because the personal services have a basis equal to the wages or other compensation received in exchange; federal reserve notes are not money because they are not backed by gold; petitioner is exempt from income taxation because he is neither a corporation nor a governmental employee but instead is a natural, private, nonenfranchised individual who accepts no governmental privileges and is an ambassador from the Kingdom of God; and other protester-type arguments which have been universally rejected by the Courts." The court ruled against the tax protester and held the tax protester liable for the original deficiencies and additions, and then assessed an additional $5,000.00 penalty against the tax protester for his behavior. (at the 7nd paragraph at about 65% through the text).
3. Lee v. Commisioner, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3006283153837357387&q="we+will+not+waste+our+time+discussing+such+hollow+arguments"+"not+reportable+as+income"+"which+have+been+considered+and+rejected+on+numerous+occasions"+"constitute+income"+"federal+reserve+notes"+"not+money"+"It+has+been+consistently+held+however+that"&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006. In this case, tax protesters seeking to avoid paying income taxes argued "that the Federal Reserve notes they received in the years in issue are not reportable as income at their face value. It has been consistently held, however, that Federal Reserve notes [do] constitute income at face value. (citations omitted). We will not waste our time discussing such hollow arguments which have been considered and rejected on numerous occasions."(at the section entitled "OPINION" at about 15% through the text). Elsewhere in the case the tax protestors argued "... that Federal Reserve notes are not legal dollars." In the following paragraph, the tax protester argued that, "... Federal Reserve notes are not United States dollars as defined by law... ." But, the court ruled otherwise required the tax protesters to pay income taxes on the Federal Reserve Notes they received in the subject tax years. (at the end of "Issue 5" and the beginning of "Issue 6" at about 80% through the text).
4. Tiffany v. Commissioner, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10850436806728706662&q="They+must+be+rejected+again"+"all+of+these+tired+allegations+have+been+considered+by+the+courts+and+rejected+repeatedly"+"are+not+income"+"federal+reserve+notes"+"are+not+money"&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006. In this case, a tax protestor argued, "... that he had no "income" within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution because he received his compensation in [the form of] Federal Reserve Notes; such notes are not "money" in that they are not redeemable in gold or silver coin, and therefore, they are not income." But, the court ruled otherwise and wrote, "All of these tired allegations have been considered by the courts and rejected repeatedly. They must be rejected again." (in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs beginning at about 50% through the text).
5. Harrell v. Commissioner, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4117162275911214916&q=valueless+"Not+redeemable"+"constitutional+money"+"not+dollars"+"lawful+money"+unredeemable+fraudulent+fraud+worthless+imposed+penalty+additional++sanctions+"protester+allegations"+misguided+groundless+frivolous+"Federal+Reserve+Notes"+"are+not+money"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, a tax protestor who sought to avoid paying income taxes on his income argued, "... that he was not obligated to file tax returns, because the "unredeemable Federal Reserve notes he may have received" are "valueless" [meaning they were "not money"] and so did not "trigger any involuntary requirement to report such U.S. obligation activity to the [IRS]... ." But, the court disagreed and not only found the tax protestor liable for back taxes, but also ordered him to pay a $10,000 penalty his behavior. (in the 2nd paragraph below "OPINION" and about 50% though the case).
6. Hightower v. Capital One Finance, et al, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8617227736829971139&q="constitutional+form"+"are+not+money"+"legal+tender"+"prohibiting+states"+"preventing+states"+rejected+"has+been+rejected"+"finding+untenable"+dismissing+"is+meritless"+"does+not"+"Federal+reserve+notes"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, a debtor sought to avoid paying a lender by arguing: 1). that he was loaned Federal Reserve notes which are not money; and 2). that the lender created the Federal Reserve notes he received. But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "The theory that Federal Reserve notes are not legal tender is meritless as a matter of law, as another district court in this circuit has explained:
In arguing that the system of lending money in the United States is unconstitutional, Plaintiff cites Sections 8 and 10 of Article I in the United States Constitution. . . . Nonetheless, ever since the Supreme Court ruled in "The Legal-Tender Cases," in 1884, Courts have consistently held that neither of these provisions of the Constitution renders the country's current money-lending system unconstitutional. See Julliard v. Greenman ("The Legal-Tender Cases"), 110 U.S. 421, 447-48, 4 S. Ct. 122, 28 L. Ed. 204 (1884) (holding that Congress has the power of making the notes of the United States a legal tender in payment of private debts, and that such power is not restricted by the fact that its exercise may affect the value of private contracts); United States v. Ri[f]en, 577 F.2d 1111, 1113 (8th Cir. 1978) (art. I, § 10 of the Constitution does not "limit Congress' power to declare what shall be legal tender for all debts," and the fact that the type of money in use is neither gold nor silver does not render a loan unconstitutional); Foret v. Wilson, 725 F.2d 254 (5th Cir. 1984) (dismissing plaintiff's argument that only gold and silver coin may be constituted legal tender by the United States); Edgar v. Inland Steel Co., 744 F.2d 1276, 1277 (7th Cir. 1984) (finding untenable plaintiff's argument that federal reserve notes are not "money" because they are not backed by gold and silver specie); L.R. Nixon v. Phillipoff, 615 F. Supp. 890 (N.D. Ind. 1985) (finding that plaintiff's [sic] misinterpreted art. I, §§ 8 and 10 of the Constitution, and holding that Section 10 acts only to "remove from the states the inherent sovereign power to declare currency, thus leaving Congress the sole declarant of what constitutes legal tender"); Kolb v. Naylor, 658 F. Supp. 520 (N.D. Iowa 1987) (finding that the loans to plaintiffs constituted the lending of money and the creation of a debt, rather than the creation of money); United States v. Schiefen, 926 F. Supp. 877 (D.S.D. 1995) (noting that Schiefen's argument that United States currency is unconstitutional "unbacked paper" has been rejected by numerous courts); State ex rel. White v. Mack, 93 Ohio St. 3d 572, 757 N.E.2d 353, 355 (Ohio 2001) (citing Baird v. Cty. Assessors of Salt Lake & Utah Ctys., 779 P.2[2d] 676, 680 (Utah 1989)) (finding that the provision in art. I, § 10 of the United States Constitution is not a directive to states to use only gold or silver coins, but is "merely a restriction preventing states from establishing their own legal tender other than gold or silver coins").
Nixon v. Phillipoff provides a thorough analysis of why courts consider federal reserve notes to be a constitutional form of legal tender." In Nixon, a debtor sued a lender that had foreclosed on him. "The court, however, rejected Nixon's argument, concluding ...
Nixon has misinterpreted the import of § 10's prohibition. Courts have uniformly interpreted § 10 as prohibiting [THE] STATES from declaring anything other than gold or silver coin as legal tender ... yet ["The Legal-Tender Cases"] do not interpret § 10 as requiring states to accept only gold and silver coin as tender, nor could they, as they both recognize the unrestricted power of Congress to declare what shall constitute legal tender, including bills of credit, treasury notes, and federal reserve notes. In short, § 10 acts only to remove from THE STATES the inherent sovereign power to declare currency, thus leaving Congress the sole declarant of what constitutes legal tender. Thus ... the states are constitutionally compelled to accept [federal reserve notes] as legal tender.
In this case, where Plaintiff's arguments all rest on his assertion that, according to art. I, §§ 8, and 10 of the constitution, Defendant created money, his argument fails as a matter of law. Private parties may enter into transactions to trade whatever they agree upon as having equal value, and they are not limited to gold and silver coins. . . . Though Plaintiff asserts that Defendants' loans were unlawful because they did not provide him with any "real, gold or silver backed money" as constitutionally mandated, as evidenced above, Courts have long held that such transactions are both legal and constitutional. Hence, Plaintiff's claims are entirely without merit.
(citations omitted). (at section "a." beginning at about 45%).
7). New Century TRS Holdings, Inc. v. new Century Mortgage, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7559490608550942578&q=untenable+baseless+dismissed+insufficient+"absolutely+no+merit"+rejected++frivolous+hopeless+"federal+reserve+notes"+"not+money"+"are+legal+tender"+"as+legal+tender"&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006. In this case, a debtor sued a lender and asked the court to relieve his debt. The court wrote:
It is Petitioner's contention that the United States is and has been in a bankruptcy since at least 1933 and evidence of such can be found in the Congressional Record and the United States Code. As part of the "New Deal" the United States borrowed 33 million non-redeemable Federal Reserve Notes from the Federal Reserve and at that time a new form of currency entered into circulation in the system of commence.
As a result today, as contained in numerous case decisions, a debt can no longer be discharged as a matter of law. Meaning, Federal Reserve Notes have no intrinsic value [meaning are "not money"], and as such, are negotiable instruments under the negotiable instruments law and when used to, in the common vernacular, "pay" a debt it is like paying a $2 debt owed with a $2 I.O.U. The net result is that one ends up with $4 of debt and therefore, the debt is not paid but merely discharged as a matter of law. The original debt still exists but the nature of debt changes and is no longer collectible. (Note that this is the identical rhetorical argument used by Goldhedge above.).
As a matter of practice and usage the only functional currency in circulation and use today is non-redeemable Federal Reserve Notes. When Petitioner applied for a loan and was funded on the loan he understood and believed he was being loaned "money", meaning money of exchange, that was redeemable and had intrinsic value when in reality he was purchasing credit from the Federal Reserve through the lender in the form of Negotiable Instruments or specifically Federal Reserve Notes.
But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "Faced with similar arguments in Sneed v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, 2007 WL 1851674 (S.D.Cal. June 27, 2007), the Court determined that such arguments are "legally frivolous," writing:
It has long been established that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and that legal tender need not consist of silver or gold coin. See generally Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 294 U.S. 240, 303, 55 S.Ct. 407, 414, 79 L.Ed. 885 (1935) (explaining the validity and effect of federal acts providing for the issuance of currency, and affirming the status of Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations as legal tender); Foret v. Wilson, 725 F.2d 254, 254-55 (5th Cir.1984) ("[The] argument, that only gold and silver coin may be constituted legal tender by the United States, is hopeless and frivolous, having been rejected by the United States Supreme Court one hundred years ago.") (citing Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, 4 S.Ct. 122, 28 L.Ed. 204 (1884)). Furthermore, it is equally well established that checks and instruments redeemable for Federal Reserve notes have value. United States v. Wangrud, 533 F.2d 495, 495 (9th Cir.1976) (affirming conviction of defendant who refused to pay taxes on the ground that he received checks, not money, and noting that the defendant's arguments had "absolutely no merit.").
Sneed, 2007 WL 1851674 at *3. Similarly, in Rene v. Citibank NA, 32 F.Supp.2d 539 (E.D.N.Y.1999),.. ..See also Khangura v. American Mortgage Express, 2009 WL 1604764, *2 (E.D.Cal. June 5, 2009) (The Court dismissed a complaint because the underlying claims, based on an assertion that the bank had failed to lend the plaintiff "real money," were "untenable, frivolous and must be rejected outright."); Tuttle v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, 2008 WL 4919263 (D.Utah Nov.17, 2008) (The Court dismissed a complaint asserting that the mortgagee failed to lend valuable consideration to the plaintiffs because the plaintiffs theory and similar theories "have been dismissed by the courts as baseless and insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).").
8). Callow v. Amerace Corp., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13457230164550911078&q="the+award+of+attorney+fees+was+an+appropriate+deterrent+to+future+frivolous+suits"+"has+been+rejected+by+every+court+considering+the+claim"+"the+claim+that"+"federal+reserve+notes"+"are+not+valid+money"&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an employee sued his employer for a refund of income taxes that the employer had withheld from the employee's paychecks. The employee argued that he incurred no tax liability to the IRS because he was paid with Federal Reserve notes which are "not money". But, the court ruled otherwise and wrote, "The claim that federal reserve notes are not valid money, presented under a variety of theories, has been rejected by every court considering the claim. See, e.g., Stonecipher v. Bray, 653 F.2d 398 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 102 S.Ct. 1006, 71 L.Ed.2d 297 (1982); United States v. Carlson, 617 F.2d 518 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1010, 101 S.Ct. 564, 66 L.Ed.2d 468 (1981); United States v. Smith, 484 F.2d 8 (10th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 978, 94 S.Ct. 1566, 39 L.Ed.2d 874 (1974); Eagle v. Kenai Peninsula Burough, 489 F.Supp. 138 (D.Alaska, 1980); Rap v. Peper, 80-1 U.S. Tax Cases § 9204 (D.Alaska, 1979); Chandler v. Perini Power Constructors, Inc., 520 F.Supp. 1152 (D.N.H.1981). " (in the 4th paragraph at about 70% through the text).
I hope this helps.
Again, I oppose the Federal Reserve and so-called "fraction reserve" lending, which is pure fraud and theft and which s causes "debt slavery".
All The Best,