Word Play

[ziero0]

A military man has a 6 year service obligation. He enters this obligation with an oath. He serves 4 years active duty and 2 years of inactive duty. Precisely at 6 years from the date of his oath he is issued a DD214 as a DISCHARGE of service. This is not an EXTINGUISHMENT of his oath. That still exists. The DD214 discharges him from his service requirement.


EXTINGUISHMENT, contracts. The destruction of a right or contract, the act by which a contract is made void.

If this still isn't clear then consider why the Veterans Administration exists. If the enlistment contract were EXTINGUISHED by a discharge then there is no contract on which to base future veterans benefits. If a discharge were the same as an extinguishment there would be no need for a VA because there would be no contract to base benefits on.

For the benefit of any ex-military out there in possession of a DD214 ... bear in mind that the contract (the oath) is not extinguished (void). If you thought the VA was a free lunch I hope this helps rethink your status.

Now apply the same concepts to a Federal Reserve note. The note DISCHARGES a debt. The debt is not EXTINGUISHED. Prior to 1933 when a note was based on gold or when paying in gold or silver this EXTINGUISHED the transaction when an item changed hands.

[midnight rambler]

The vast majority of people suffer the delusion that they are able to pay for anything using FRNs aka Federal Commercial Paper. Nothing could be further from the truth. The irony is that when one attempts to point out that it’s impossible to pay a debt with a debt to those holding onto that cherished delusion the delusional treat the truthteller like they’ve lost their mind.

[ziero0]

The vast majority of people suffer the delusion that they are able to pay for anything using FRNs aka Federal Commercial Paper.

If this principle were taught the fractional reserve banking system would not be in existence. People really think you are off your meds when you point out that they have never paid for a single item in their entire lives. It is like mentioning that you don't believe the earth is round and you don't believe it is flat. Instead it is a pyramid (scheme).


pyr·a·mid scheme
noun

a form of investment (illegal in the US and elsewhere) in which each paying participant recruits two further participants, with returns being given to early participants using money contributed by later ones.

[Bigjon]

If this principle were taught the fractional reserve banking system would not be in existence. People really think you are off your meds when you point out that they have never paid for a single item in their entire lives. It is like mentioning that you don't believe the earth is round and you don't believe it is flat. Instead it is a pyramid (scheme).

Well then there is Lawful Money, which does the job of a US Note.

[midnight rambler]

Well then there is Lawful Money, which does the job of a US Note.

Yeah, when was the last time you tendered Lawful Money and they accepted it at spot?

[Bigjon]

Yeah, when was the last time you tendered Lawful Money and they accepted it at spot?

It is not a matter of what the price is, it is a matter of what the payment is, a discharge or an exchange. If I use lawful money then there can be no claim the debt remains.

[midnight rambler]

It is not a matter of what the price is, it is a matter of what the payment is, a discharge or an exchange. If I use lawful money then there can be no claim the debt remains.

Of course, but you failed to answer my question.

[ziero0]

Yeah, when was the last time you tendered Lawful Money and they accepted it at spot? Don't be confusing constitutional money with lawful money. Certainly constitutional specie is a class of lawful money but not necessarily the only class. 12 USC 411 states all you have to do to get lawful money is to exchange your FRN for it. You do it and are given another FRN. Point being it looks like a FRN but is now lawful. Q.E.D.

On the other hand if you tender an ounce of gold to extinguish a debt and that payment is refused ... you are done. You don't owe diddly.

[golddust]

Afraid your premise over lawful money doesn't hold in court, state nor federal.


"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.

At the time, some currency was not considered legal tender, although it could be used by national banking associations as "lawful money reserves." Thus, the term "lawful money" had a broader meaning than the term "legal tender."

In 1933, Congress changed the law so that all U.S. coins and currency (including Federal Reserve notes), regardless of when issued, constitutes "legal tender" for all purposes. Federal and state courts since then have repeatedly held that Federal Reserve notes are also "lawful money." Milam v. U.S., 524 F.2d 629 (9th Cir. 1974), is typical of the federal and state court cases holding that Federal Reserve notes are "lawful money." In Milam, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed a judgment denying relief to an individual who sought to redeem a $50 Federal Reserve Bank Note in "lawful money." The United States tendered Milam $50 in Federal Reserve notes, but Milam refused the notes, asserting that "lawful money" must be gold or silver. The Ninth Circuit, noting that this matter had been put to rest by the U.S. Supreme Court nearly a century before in the Legal Tender Cases (Juilliard v. Greenman), 110 U.S. 421 (1884), rejected this assertion as frivolous and affirmed the judgment.

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

[ziero0]

Afraid your premise over lawful money doesn't hold in court, state nor federal.

My 'premise' is that when I ask for lawful money I will be given lawful money and if that means a FRN is lawful then so be it. But it wasn't lawful until I demanded lawful.

You will have to point out where my explanation is out of synch with all the courts in the universe that have ruled on this issue.

[golddust]

My 'premise' is that when I ask for lawful money I will be given lawful money and if that means a FRN is lawful then so be it. But it wasn't lawful until I demanded lawful.

You will have to point out where my explanation is out of synch with all the courts in the universe that have ruled on this issue.

A better idea would be for you to read the two court cases in the link to get the idea why frns are already lawful money.
The website is trying to help you understand why going to a bank and demanding frns be redeemed in lawful money and all you get is more frn's.

[ziero0]

A better idea would be for you to read the two court cases in the link to get the idea why frns are already lawful money.
The website is trying to help you understand why going to a bank and demanding frns be redeemed in lawful money and all you get is more frn's.
And I am telling you I agree that a FRN CAN be lawful money but not until you DEMAND it. This view is not in opposition with anything you have posted. Citing an 1884 Supreme Court when a FRN did not exist is nonsense. A 1974 case that holds that Federal Reserve notes are "lawful money" is nonsense unless 12 USC 411 is considered (you may demand lawful money at any Federal Reserve Bank ... this excludes a FRN from lawful money unless a demand is made).

Who makes the demand? Since it seems I am the only one with an interest in lawful money then it becomes apparent that I make the demand.

Have you considered model airplanes as a hobby?

[midnight rambler]

A better idea would be for you to read the two court cases in the link to get the idea why frns are already lawful money.
The website is trying to help you understand why going to a bank and demanding frns be redeemed in lawful money and all you get is more frn's.

Please enlighten me as to how evidence of debt* can be regarded as money.

Only those lacking lucidity think that one can 'pay' a debt with a debt.

*FRNs on their face are evidence of debt

[golddust]

Please enlighten me as to how evidence of debt* can be regarded as money.

Only those lacking lucidity think that one can 'pay' a debt with a debt.

*FRNs on their face are evidence of debt
How on their face are they evidence of debt?

[golddust]

And I am telling you I agree that a FRN CAN be lawful money but not until you DEMAND it. This view is not in opposition with anything you have posted. Citing an 1884 Supreme Court when a FRN did not exist is nonsense. A 1974 case that holds that Federal Reserve notes are "lawful money" is nonsense unless 12 USC 411 is considered (you may demand lawful money at any Federal Reserve Bank ... this excludes a FRN from lawful money unless a demand is made).

Who makes the demand? Since it seems I am the only one with an interest in lawful money then it becomes apparent that I make the demand.

Have you considered model airplanes as a hobby?
The second court case cites that demanding frns be redeemed in lawful money is frivolous because they already are lawful money.
You argue that frns aren't lawful money only to be shown that the government says they are lawful money to reverse argue then that frns arent?

Reality is a fine line that defines the truly genius from the delusional.

[midnight rambler]

How on their face are they evidence of debt?

Federal Reserve ​Note.

[ziero0]

You argue that frns aren't lawful money only to be shown that the government says they are lawful money ...If they already are lawful money then why would congress say they may be CONVERTED to lawful money?


12 U.S. Code § 411 - Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption

US Code
Notes

prev | next

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.

The thing about judicial rulings on the subject is ALL THESE GUYS ARE PAID IN FRNs. Their retirements are PAID IN FRNs. There is a maxim that a man may not be a judge in his own cause. Guess what cause these judges have?


Reality is a fine line that defines the truly genius from the delusional.
In your case I am beginning to suspect early onset Alzheimer's began at puberty. Have you ever considered Origami?

[Bigjon]

The second court case cites that demanding frns be redeemed in lawful money is frivolous because they already are lawful money.
You argue that frns aren't lawful money only to be shown that the government says they are lawful money to reverse argue then that frns arent?

Reality is a fine line that defines the truly genius from the delusional.

FRN's have two seals one for the Federal Reserve System that issues it's private elastic script and the Seal of the United States Treasury. When one demands lawful money it serves the function of a United States Note, but if no demand is made it remains as the private script of the Fed as elastic expandable currency.

[golddust]

If they already are lawful money then why would congress say they may be CONVERTED to lawful money?


The thing about judicial rulings on the subject is ALL THESE GUYS ARE PAID IN FRNs. Their retirements are PAID IN FRNs. There is a maxim that a man may not be a judge in his own cause. Guess what cause these judges have?


In your case I am beginning to suspect early onset Alzheimer's began at puberty. Have you ever considered Origami?
You really should read the link.
Congress did not say frns can be redeemed into lawful money.
The phrase was written in tbe fexeral reserve act. Congress as you know or should know didnt write the federal reserve act.
Furthermore, the same act didn't define what lawful money as.
As the link points out frns and treasury notes are both obligations of the same government.
When the treasury issues frns they are in essence ordering up printed money on the credit of the US. Therefore they are just as 12usc 411 says they are , obligations of the federal government. Again as the link points out the government ruled they are lawful money in 1972 referencing a court case from the late 1800s that used another fiat script as money.

[cheka.]

A military man has a 6 year service obligation. He enters this obligation with an oath. He serves 4 years active duty and 2 years of inactive duty. Precisely at 6 years from the date of his oath he is issued a DD214 as a DISCHARGE of service. This is not an EXTINGUISHMENT of his oath. That still exists. The DD214 discharges him from his service requirement.


If this still isn't clear then consider why the Veterans Administration exists. If the enlistment contract were EXTINGUISHED by a discharge then there is no contract on which to base future veterans benefits. If a discharge were the same as an extinguishment there would be no need for a VA because there would be no contract to base benefits on.

For the benefit of any ex-military out there in possession of a DD214 ... bear in mind that the contract (the oath) is not extinguished (void). If you thought the VA was a free lunch I hope this helps rethink your status.

Now apply the same concepts to a Federal Reserve note. The note DISCHARGES a debt. The debt is not EXTINGUISHED. Prior to 1933 when a note was based on gold or when paying in gold or silver this EXTINGUISHED the transaction when an item changed hands.

every negro i know (ex-mil) is getting a disability check. there's a HUGE scam in the negro underground re this topic. extinguished? and then re-stinguished?

[ziero0]

Congress did not say frns can be redeemed into lawful money.

What part of They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand is ambiguous?

And you are correct in that lawful money is undefined. We can be pretty sure that this phrase encompasses constitutional money (specie ... gold and silver) but the definition is left up to whosoever demands it. After all, if you didn't know what lawful money is then any money in any form will do.

Here is my definition of lawful money: It comes to me without any strings attached. I might contract with someone who has the status to contract (not infants, not insane, not women under coverture) to exchange this lawful money for things or services. In the case of things they must be things that are capable of being owned. Frankly there are very few things left in the world that actually are capable of being owned. For other things the lawful money simply reverts back to its' alternate reality of FRNs.

A car is incapable of being owned. Try it and you will be slammed on the road and in court routinely.

Land is incapable of being owned. Engage the county in the benefit of letting them record it and then don't pay their tariff (annual rent called PROPERTY TAX) and see how long they let you keep it.

You cannot even own a FRN so all those papers lining your wallet are owned by someone other than you. No wonder cops seize them when you have too many in your possession. You might raise the issue that the notes seized are lawful but good luck getting a zombie judge to rule that you are not a member of the un-dead and give 'em back. If you lack the status to hold lawful money then you don't hold it even if you demand it. There is more to the situation than just demanding lawful money. You actually have to be able to behave as if you deserved it. I don't know too many people with this status or even whether I have the proper status.

[ziero0]

every negro i know (ex-mil) is getting a disability check. there's a HUGE scam in the negro underground re this topic. extinguished? and then re-stinguished?
If they are getting a benefit they earned it.

What value do you place on your life on the battlefield?

[golddust]

What part of They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand is ambiguous?

And you are correct in that lawful money is undefined. We can be pretty sure that this phrase encompasses constitutional money (specie ... gold and silver) but the definition is left up to whosoever demands it. After all, if you didn't know what lawful money is then any money in any form will do.

Here is my definition of lawful money: It comes to me without any strings attached. I might contract with someone who has the status to contract (not infants, not insane, not women under coverture) to exchange this lawful money for things or services. In the case of things they must be things that are capable of being owned. Frankly there are very few things left in the world that actually are capable of being owned. For other things the lawful money simply reverts back to its' alternate reality of FRNs.

A car is incapable of being owned. Try it and you will be slammed on the road and in court routinely.

Land is incapable of being owned. Engage the county in the benefit of letting them record it and then don't pay their tariff (annual rent called PROPERTY TAX) and see how long they let you keep it.

You cannot even own a FRN so all those papers lining your wallet are owned by someone other than you. No wonder cops seize them when you have too many in your possession. You might raise the issue that the notes seized are lawful but good luck getting a zombie judge to rule that you are not a member of the un-dead and give 'em back. If you lack the status to hold lawful money then you don't hold it even if you demand it. There is more to the situation than just demanding lawful money. You actually have to be able to behave as if you deserved it. I don't know too many people with this status or even whether I have the proper status.

12usc411 is a statute derived from the federal reserve act which congress did not write.
There are a lot of court cases that challenge statutes. One such case is the 1972 case in the link I provided. Court challenges clear up any obscurity statutes cause.
Its clearly been ruled by the state and federal courts that frns are indeed lawful money or legal tender.
I doubt the redeemer can decide on what lawful money is when redeeming since lawful money has never been defined. The money isn't issued by you or any private individual to determine what "that" is. I suspect if you kept going into a bank and repeatedly kept demanded they be redeemed into your choice of pipe dream you'll be escorted out eventually in cuffs.

I don't know what your problem is with lawful money but one thing is for certain you are not satisfied if the courts say frns are lawful money as the link instructs. And your not happy because you cant redeem.
You're just a flat out angry person in my book. And reasoning is out of the question with you.
Personally I think you are greedy and wanting something for nothing or next to nothing. You want to exchange your paper for gold and silver, you cant, and your upset about it.
Go out west and spend a week panning for it...you'll be happier if you got your gold and silver that way.

[Bigjon]

12usc411 is a statute derived from the federal reserve act which congress did not write.
There are a lot of court cases that challenge statutes. One such case is the 1972 case in the link I provided. Court challenges clear up any obscurity statutes cause.
Its clearly been ruled by the state and federal courts that frns are indeed lawful money or legal tender.
I doubt the redeemer can decide on what lawful money is when redeeming since lawful money has never been defined. The money isn't issued by you or any private individual to determine what "that" is. I suspect if you kept going into a bank and repeatedly kept demanded they be redeemed into your choice of pipe dream you'll be escorted out eventually in cuffs.

I don't know what your problem is with lawful money but one thing is for certain you are not satisfied if the courts say frns are lawful money as the link instructs. And your not happy because you cant redeem.
You're just a flat out angry person in my book. And reasoning is out of the question with you.
Personally I think you are greedy and wanting something for nothing or next to nothing. You want to exchange your paper for gold and silver, you cant, and your upset about it.
Go out west and spend a week panning for it...you'll be happier if you got your gold and silver that way.

The difference is night and day.
12 usc 411 is the remedy which allows Americans to opt out of using private script, by redeeming lawful money which is the non-fractional reserve brand called United Stated Notes.

Lawful money incurs no income tax.
By accepting the benefit of expandable currency obligates one to a return in the form of a tax on income.

U.S.Notes have nothing to do with species.

[ziero0]

Go out west and spend a week panning for it...you'll be happier if you got your gold and silver that way.
The lure of gold and silver is not the mineral but the relationship between buyer, seller and rem. Society frowns on using specie in this manner so I generally opt for throwing in a one dollar fox stamp as my token substance. Even that little symbol is mostly misunderstood. It is a pity people mistake equity for law but I suppose it gives them something to complain about.

[ziero0]

France experimented with fiat money backed by noblemen real estate. The experiment ended around 1850 in a disaster. Here is an exciting expo-see giving all the gory details:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/6949/6949-h/6949-h.htm


The old remedy immediately and naturally recurred to the minds of men. Throughout the country began a cry for another issue of paper; thoughtful men then began to recall what their fathers had told them about the seductive path of paper-money issues in John Law's time, and to remember the prophecies that they themselves had heard in the debate on the first issue of assignats less than six months before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Law_(economist)


John Law (baptised 21 April 1671 – 21 March 1729) was a Scottish economist who believed that money was only a means of exchange that did not constitute wealth in itself and that national wealth depended on trade. He was appointed Controller General of Finances of France under the Duke of Orleans, regent for the youthful king, Louis XV.

In 1716 Law established the Banque Générale in France, a private bank, but three-quarters of the capital consisted of government bills and government-accepted notes, effectively making it the first central bank of the nation. He was responsible for the Mississippi Company bubble and a chaotic economic collapse in France, which has been compared to the early-17th century tulip mania in Holland.[1] The Mississippi Bubble was contemporaneous with the South Sea Company bubble of England.

Law was a gambler and a brilliant mental calculator. He was known to win card games by mentally calculating the odds. He originated economic ideas such as the scarcity theory of value and the real bills doctrine. Law held that money creation will stimulate the economy, that paper money is preferable to metallic money, and that shares are a superior form of money since they pay dividends.[2]

[golddust]

The difference is night and day.
12 usc 411 is the remedy which allows Americans to opt out of using private script, by redeeming lawful money which is the non-fractional reserve brand called United Stated Notes.

Lawful money incurs no income tax.
By accepting the benefit of expandable currency obligates one to a return in the form of a tax on income.

U.S.Notes have nothing to do with species.

What remedy? And remedy from what?
The reserve act came into existence because The US went insolvent on its debts, not the first time.
Redeeming is not the non-fractional brand. You get the same frns. To this date there hasn't been one single individual that's redeemed frns to gold or silver or even US notes. All frns, weather you believe it or not, redeemed or not, will be collected and lent out under the fractional reserve system.
I would suffice to say the internal revenue code would be a source to determine what's taxed and what's not.
Words of wisdom, before the reserve act came into existence Americans were being taxed on their incomes.
Americans were being taxed during the time of the articles of confederation.

[monty]

^ . . .

https://s19.postimg.cc/ulkz8sy77/IMG_1071.jpg

[golddust]

^ . . .

https://s19.postimg.cc/ulkz8sy77/IMG_1071.jpg

What do you suppose the bearer gets when the gold standard has been suspended?

I don't think any note passed the date of 1933 will say pay the bearer on demand.
20yrs between 1913 and 1933.

[cheka.]

If they are getting a benefit they earned it.

What value do you place on your life on the battlefield?

no. i know two of the scammers personally. one hurt his knee playing basketball 5 years after getting kicked out of mil. the other claims to have vertigo. neither saw a minute of combat

[monty]

What do you suppose the bearer gets when the gold standard has been suspended?

I don't think any note passed the date of 1933 will say pay the bearer on demand.
20yrs between 1913 and 1933.



I don’t know about you, but I am old enought to remember FRNs with the promise to be redeemed in lawful money. That promise was printed on FRNs until 1963, two years before the passage of the Coinage Act of 1965 when silver was removed from the coins.

Unrelated to FRNs, banks also issued notes:
9795https://www.coinworld.com/content/dam/cw/insights/2014/November/110314/PM%20Market%20Analysis/HA-Tonopah.jpg

Today the Federal Reserve makes no promise. Perhaps that might be considered a broken promise. The evolution of the Federal Reserve’s promises by JP Koning

https://jpkoning.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-evolution-of-federal-reserves.html



The evolution of the Federal Reserve's promises as recorded on their banknotes

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fNtQHW7Ggd0/WfOHnL8NrgI/AAAAAAAACWw/el-PeXpZSbIAZJwpmTni-ku6Rspo1TaEwCLcBGAs/s640/1914.PNG (https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fNtQHW7Ggd0/WfOHnL8NrgI/AAAAAAAACWw/el-PeXpZSbIAZJwpmTni-ku6Rspo1TaEwCLcBGAs/s1600/1914.PNG)

Since they began to be produced in 1914, Federal Reserve notes have always had a promise or obligation printed on their face. But over time this promise has changed. I thought it would be fun to go through the evolution of the promise as an exercise in understanding how the U.S.'s monetary plumbing has changed.

The original 1914 series of Federal Reserve notes had the above stipulation printed on it. It's tough to read, so I've reproduced it in full below:
"This note is receivable by all national and member banks and Federal Reserve Banks and for all taxes, customs and other public dues. It is redeemable in gold on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States in the city of Washington, District of Columbia or in gold or lawful money at any Federal Reserve Bank."
There were really four promises here. The first was that all banks who were members of the Federal Reserve system would accept notes at their counter, as would the Reserve banks themselves—i.e. the twelve district banks. The second promise was that the government would accept the notes in payment of taxes. This is what I described in last week's post (http://jpkoning.blogspot.ca/2017/10/an-example-of-tax-driven-money-during.html) as twintopt, or the MMT/Wicksteed idea of tax receivability. The third promise was to uphold the gold standard, both the Fed and the Treasury being obliged to redeem notes with the yellow metal. And the fourth and final promise was to redeem notes with something called lawful money.

-----
Let's focus on this last promise, which is the most curious. What does lawful money mean? The Fed gives a brief description (https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_15197.htm) in their FAQ, the summary of which is: it's complicated.

Before the Fed's founding in 1913, the U.S. issued a smorgasbord of different government currencies, as the chart below illustrates. The most important of these issues was United States notes, otherwise known as greenbacks. The Treasury was first authorized to issue them when the Civil War broke out, and only in 1994 was it relieved of its its obligation to redeem old United States notes with new ones.

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-p_Lbo4GweVU/WfOMmBZdx9I/AAAAAAAACXA/U5v0MczimtkouWXB-PQO__TMT8HZjJeMACLcBGAs/s1600/mongrelCurrency.jpg (https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-p_Lbo4GweVU/WfOMmBZdx9I/AAAAAAAACXA/U5v0MczimtkouWXB-PQO__TMT8HZjJeMACLcBGAs/s1600/mongrelCurrency.jpg)

The 1862 act that authorized United States notes declared them to be lawful money and a legal tender, phraseology that implied that to be lawful was distinct from being legal tender. While the act never explicitly defined lawful money, legal tender was already a well-known term—meaning any instrument that by default can be used to discharge a debt. So if James owns Judith $20, legal tender is any instrument that Judith cannot refuse to accept when James wants to discharge his debt.

People often assume that government money and legal tender are synonymous, but in actuality there are many examples of government banknotes that have not been legal tender. Take Scotland, for instance, where neither (http://jpkoning.blogspot.ca/2013/01/is-legal-tender-imposition-on-free.html) Scottish banknotes nor Bank of England notes currently have legal tender status. U.S. silver and gold certificates, two forms of circulating paper money that were issued by the Treasury through the 19th and 20th century, were not legal tender—at least not till 1919 in the case of gold, and 1934 for silver. Nor were National bank notes a form of legal tender. These were private banknotes issued by banks chartered under the National Bank Act (see chart above). The Treasury promised to accept National bank notes at par in discharge of most Federal taxes, effectively adopting them as their own IOU, yet refused to grant them legal tender status.

While there is no formal definition of lawful money in the 1862 act, we know that it wasn't necessarily legal tender, and we do know that greenbacks fell into said category. Thus a narrow reading of the lawful money promise on a 1914 Federal Reserve note simply meant that they were convertible into United States notes, which by chance happened to be legal tender.

A much broader definition of lawful money would emerge later. By 1935, Fed Chair Mariner Eccles included not only United States notes—greenbacks—but also silver certificates and National bank notes in the category of lawful money (see pdf (https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/scribd/?title_id=831&filepath=/files/docs/historical/congressional/1935hr_ba1935.pdf)). William McChesney Martin, who served as Chair from 1951 to 1970, defined lawful money as "any medium of exchange which frequently circulates from hand to hand as money under sanction of the law." (pdf (https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/scribd/?item_id=1281&filepath=/files/docs/historical/senate/sen_hearing_investigation_financial_p3_19570813.pd f)) By this generous definition, lawful money referred to the entire mongrel collection of government currencies, including legal tender United States notes and non-legal tenders such as silver/gold certificates and National bank notes, and finally legacy notes no longer being printed including Treasury notes of 1890, fractional currency, and old demand notes.

The upshot is that the original promise to redeem Federal Reserve notes with lawful money effectively linked what was then a novel currency to the medley of recognizable government currencies already in use. This promise would have provided the public with much-needed continuity between the familiar and not-so-familiar. After all, the Fed was a new institution that had not yet earned credibility. Tying its obligations closely together with greenbacks and/or every bit of paper then in existence would have helped its cause.

-----
Having dealt with the idea of lawful money. Let's go on to look at how the promises on Fed notes changed after 1914. I've included the 1928, 1934, and 1963 series:

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-P48obs1qIBk/WfOM1zlTb0I/AAAAAAAACXE/3PEcx77SOdobhwvmGcWrPVRv9y97o65HwCLcBGAs/s1600/evolutionsDollarPromise.jpg (https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-P48obs1qIBk/WfOM1zlTb0I/AAAAAAAACXE/3PEcx77SOdobhwvmGcWrPVRv9y97o65HwCLcBGAs/s1600/evolutionsDollarPromise.jpg)

You can see that the 1928 series no longer included either the first (receivability at banks) or second promises (tax receivability). This was probably for brevity's sake. Even though these promises no longer appeared on Fed notes, they continue to be enshrined in Section 16.1 (https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section16.htm) of the Federal Reserve Act. So when you do your taxes in 2018, the Treasury is obligated to accept notes as payment, just as they were in 1914, even though this isn't indicated on the face of a banknote.

When the 1934 series was printed, the third promise—to redeem in gold on demand—was dropped, both from the face of banknotes and the Federal Reserve Act itself. The U.S. had formally gone off the gold standard that year. Where before any member of the public could have walked into any Treasury office or Federal Reserve district bank and asked to have their banknotes redeemed with gold, neither institution was obligated to uphold this promise anymore. As of 1934, the Treasury would only buy gold from miners and other central banks at a rate of $35 per ounce—but this obligation didn't show up on the face of a Federal Reserve note, nor in the Federal Reserve Act. The promise to purchase gold at $35 was an informal one, with President Roosevelt remarking (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=14739) that the price "may be changed by the Secretary of the Treasury at any time without notice."

In addition to removing the gold redemption promise from the face of a Federal Reserve note, the 1934 series included a new feature: Federal Reserve notes were now legal tender for all debts public and private. It may seem strange to us now, but for the first twenty years of the Fed's existence, Federal Reserve notes could not legally discharge a debt. If James owed Judith $20, Judith could refuse to accept Federal Reserve notes from James, asking for something else instead, say United States notes which were legal tender. Thanks to the 1933 Thomas Amendment (pdf (https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/files/docs/historical/eccles/046_13_0002.pdf)), Judith was now obligated to accept James's Fed notes as payment for the debt. I can only speculate on why Federal Reserve notes weren't originally made legal tender, but one reason is probably due to the memories of the inflation in the 1860s caused by legal tender greenbacks. If something isn't granted legal tender status, it can't do as much damage to the price level.

For almost thirty years nothing changed on the face of Federal Reserve notes until 1963 when the redeemable in lawful money promise was dropped, leaving only the stipulation that a note was legal tender for all debts, public and private.

By 1963, America's mongrel currency was pretty much a thing of the past. Ever since 1934 it had been illegal for gold certificates to circulate publicly. As for National bank notes, they had begun to be retired in 1935. The effort to remove silver certificates in denominations of $5 and above was initiated by John F. Kennedy in 1961. Getting rid of the $1 silver certificate was a bit more tricky. Believe it or not, but at the time there was no such thing as a $1 Federal Reserve note. For decades the nation's entire demand for $1 notes had been met solely by the Treasury's silver certificates. However, in 1963 the Fed finally debuted its first $1 note, upon which the Treasury began to cancel $1 silver certificates.


With most of the government's parallel currencies retired, the promise to redeem Federal Reserve notes in lawful money probably seemed pointless, if not confusing. Thus it no longer shows up on bills, despite being still encoded in section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act. In 2017, you can bring your note to a Federal Reserve for redemption in lawful money, but they will only give you another Fed note in return. The category of lawful money is meaningless.

-----
Most members of the public don't know how the underlying monetary systems work, but they do see what is printed on its banknotes. To the public, the morphing set of promises on the face of a Federal Reserve note would have been one of the more visible manifestations of a shift from a mish mash of paper currencies issued by two different institutions and pegged to gold... to one single legal tender currency issued by the U.S.'s now-dominant monetary institution, the Fed—the Treasury receding into the background.

It's been over fifty years since the promise on Federal Reserve notes was last changed. What promises will be printed on U.S. money in the future? That's hard to say since we don't even know if paper money will be a part of the future. If the Fed were ever to update its currency by introducing a digital version to circulate along with its paper issue, those in charge of its design would have to think hard about the sorts of promises that will be granted to the bearer of those tokens. Would they be lawful money, tax receivable, and/or legal tender? These are questions that U.S. monetary authorities haven't had to ask themselves in a long time, not since the mongrel currency era when new money was introduced every decade or two.

[golddust]

Probably safe to assume that since the date that silver was removed as treasury backing, frns no longer have the phrase on the note.
The paper may no longer have the phrase and it just might still on legal books due to the precious metal being suspended and not done away with all together.
But that's my humble opinion.

[monty]

Probably safe to assume that since the date that silver was removed as treasury backing, frns no longer have the phrase on the note.
The paper may no longer have the phrase and it just might still on legal books due to the precious metal being suspended and not done away with all together.
But that's my humble opinion.

That is my thinking as well.

[ziero0]

That which I own I can destroy. This is one of the tests of ownership. Don't try destroying any FRNs. The real owner doesn't like it.

I don't believe they object to alternate currencies. Communities create local bucks and newspapers print coupons. Just don't make your personal currency green or label it ONE DOLLAR. That interferes with the monopoly.

[Bigjon]

Fun at the Oral Surgeon day, today, now short molar 15.

The reason for remedy is when the gov offers a new contract for us to volunteer into, there has to be a way to opt out for those of us who do not wish to take this contract of endorsing private expandable currency. If there is no remedy, they have a hard time claiming their new contract is voluntary and lawful.

This is not exactly verbatim text normally used when redeeming lawful money , but may shed some light on this arcane subject.

https://famguardian.org/Subjects/MoneyBanking/Money/CheckEndorsements.pdf


Re: Notes of Debt are not Income Recently, Levi Philos, whom I had asked about the e-mail below, did some searching of his own, and came up with the article by The Informer that follows below the e-mail.
I think you’ll find all of this to be very interesting AND useful!–Fred
Levi Philos wrote:Now I understand the full meaning of this message posted to yahoogroup tips_and_tricks (archives limited to members) where"brokenwrench" posted on Feb 10, 05:( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tips_and_tricks/message/7411 )"
The irs has never tried to collect, it has been over 25 years since I was audited, and then I got a refund. I have a stamp that prints

[DEPOSITED FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUNT OR EXCHANGED FOR NON-NEGOTIABLE FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES OF FACE VALUE] when I was audited, I produced the front and back copies of my paychecks to the irs man. He took a break and came back and told me that those checks endorsed that way were not taxable income. I got in a hurry and open signed 3 of my checks,those were the only ones I had that they said they could tax that is the last I heard from them."

[Horn]

You cannot even own a FRN so all those papers lining your wallet are owned by someone other than you. No wonder cops seize them when you have too many in your possession.

What sort of business you into Stillin, Palani?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txX-kPn3h6s

[golddust]

Fun at the Oral Surgeon day, today, now short molar 15.

The reason for remedy is when the gov offers a new contract for us to volunteer into, there has to be a way to opt out for those of us who do not wish to take this contract of endorsing private expandable currency. If there is no remedy, they have a hard time claiming their new contract is voluntary and lawful.

This is not exactly verbatim text normally used when redeeming lawful money , but may shed some light on this arcane subject.

https://famguardian.org/Subjects/MoneyBanking/Money/CheckEndorsements.pdf


Re: Notes of Debt are not Income Recently, Levi Philos, whom I had asked about the e-mail below, did some searching of his own, and came up with the article by The Informer that follows below the e-mail.
I think you’ll find all of this to be very interesting AND useful!–Fred
Levi Philos wrote:Now I understand the full meaning of this message posted to yahoogroup tips_and_tricks (archives limited to members) where"brokenwrench" posted on Feb 10, 05:( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tips_and_tricks/message/7411 )"
The irs has never tried to collect, it has been over 25 years since I was audited, and then I got a refund. I have a stamp that prints

[DEPOSITED FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUNT OR EXCHANGED FOR NON-NEGOTIABLE FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES OF FACE VALUE] when I was audited, I produced the front and back copies of my paychecks to the irs man. He took a break and came back and told me that those checks endorsed that way were not taxable income. I got in a hurry and open signed 3 of my checks,those were the only ones I had that they said they could tax that is the last I heard from them."

What contract?

The story with the irs man doesn't make any sense.
Simply put, businesses cannot avoid capital gains tax by endorsement of redeeming lawful money.

[Bigjon]

What contract?

The story with the irs man doesn't make any sense.
Simply put, businesses cannot avoid capital gains tax by endorsement of redeeming lawful money.

You make a perfect example of how "our" gov works they offer us "benefits" in the form of franchises (adhesion contracts) where we can opt out if we can find the remedy that must exist if they want to claim that we voluntarily signed up for xxx (Drivers License, Bank account, etc.)
Then they do their level best job of hiding the remedy and making noises like you are making.

How can I get a capital gain when there is no lawful money?

Lawful money is clearly defined in our Constitution as gold and silver coins.

[golddust]

You make a perfect example of how "our" gov works they offer us "benefits" in the form of franchises (adhesion contracts) where we can opt out if we can find the remedy that must exist if they want to claim that we voluntarily signed up for xxx (Drivers License, Bank account, etc.)
Then they do their level best job of hiding the remedy and making noises like you are making.

How can I get a capital gain when there is no lawful money?

Lawful money is clearly defined in our Constitution as gold and silver coins.

Sounds to me like you are admitting you're confused on the whole subject?

Ok show me where lawful money is defined in the constitution when Congress doesn't even know what that is.
Keep in mind lawful money was never heard of until the reserve act was written up.
And that act wasn't written by congress.

And note here I'm staying completely neutral on lawful money.
Many people claim they redeem lawful money and pay no taxes.
You can go here to savingstosuitorsclub.org and browse that site all you like.
They claim many full tax refunds from redeeming, but not one refund is shown or posted as evidence. A lot of claims but nothing.

[midnight rambler]

Sounds to me like you are admitting you're confused on the whole subject?

Ok show me where lawful money is defined in the constitution when Congress doesn't even know what that is.
Keep in mind lawful money was never heard of until the reserve act was written up.
And that act wasn't written by congress.

Unlike today's dumbed down inhabitants they did understand what debt is and how to extinguish debt, as in: "...a tender in payment of debt." The Satan worshipers had not yet fooled everyone into 'discharging' debt with limited liability.

[ziero0]

Keep in mind lawful money was never heard of until the reserve act was written up.
And that act wasn't written by congress.

If that is the extent of your history lessons then you should complain to your instructors (or handlers if that be the case)

https://books.google.com/books?id=0T5VAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA38&dq=%22lawful+money%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjt4afHwbfaAhUB64MKHfhfCo84ChDoAQg8MAQ#v =onepage&q=%22lawful%20money%22&f=false

Note that book starts with conversion of wampumeage to shillings. Also, reliance to foreign coinage was due to England prohibiting export of specie coins from England. Now if the colonies had been a part of England there would be difference (hence the reason for the revolutionary war).

[monty]

From Edwin M. Vieira Jr., Ph.D, JD, Constitutional attorney & author, Pieces of Eight among his many works


“Right of Redemption” of Paper “Money”





THE MONETARY CONJURER’S TRICK




“Right of Redemption” of paper “Money”: The Monetary Conjurer’s Trick

From the very first, Federal Reserve Notes were denominated “advances” and “obligations”—that

is, instruments and evidence of debt. True “money”, however, is the most liquid of all assets, not a

debt that might be repudiated, and certainly not a debt that has been serially repudiated. And if

Federal Reserve Notes were from the start to be “redeemed * * * in gold or lawful money”, they

obviously were never conceived to be either “gold” or “lawful money”. So, because by definition the

only official “money” the law recognizes is “lawful money”, by law Federal Reserve Notes were

never (and are not now) actual “money” at all, but at best only some sort of substitute for

“money”.


​http://constitutionalmilitia.org/right-of-redemption-of-paper-money/

[Bigjon]

Sounds to me like you are admitting you're confused on the whole subject?

Ok show me where lawful money is defined in the constitution when Congress doesn't even know what that is.
Keep in mind lawful money was never heard of until the reserve act was written up.
And that act wasn't written by congress.

And note here I'm staying completely neutral on lawful money.
Many people claim they redeem lawful money and pay no taxes.
You can go here to savingstosuitorsclub.org and browse that site all you like.
They claim many full tax refunds from redeeming, but not one refund is shown or posted as evidence. A lot of claims but nothing.

Sounds to me like you are ignorant.

The Constitution is the law of the United States and it defines money as gold and silver coins.

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 10 - Powers Prohibited of States<<Back (https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec9.html) | Table of Contents (https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst.html) | Next>> (https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A2Sec1.html)
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque (https://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#MARQUE) and Reprisal (https://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#REPRISAL); coin Money; emit Bills of Credit (https://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#CREDIT); make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder (https://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#ATTAINDER), ex post facto (https://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#EXPOST) Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility (https://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#NOBILITY).

[golddust]

Sounds to me like you are ignorant.

The Constitution is the law of the United States and it defines money as gold and silver coins.

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 10 - Powers Prohibited of States<<Back (https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec9.html) | Table of Contents (https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst.html) | Next>> (https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A2Sec1.html)
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque (https://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#MARQUE) and Reprisal (https://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#REPRISAL); coin Money; emit Bills of Credit (https://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#CREDIT); make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder (https://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#ATTAINDER), ex post facto (https://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#EXPOST) Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility (https://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#NOBILITY).
Article 1 is not the government's definition of lawful money.
Wish it were, but unfortunately it is not.
Article 1 is what the state's are prohibited to do.
Secondly, and most importantly, the constitution prohibits the states from accepting gold and silver as payment of debt is not the fedetal governments definition of money.
The term Lawful money didnt exist until the 1913 reserve act.

Unfortunately many like you wish not to see Article 1 for what it is. It's not a definition to money. And with a presidential swipe of a pen the gold standard was suspended. With that being done the Article 1 requirement of states only being able to use gold as payment of debt was also suspended.
The state's could not follow the strict rule of the law of the land and the feds never filed suit to make them as they, the feds, suspended the gold standard.
Sorry but I try not to be cynical or judgemental when listening. The truth just plain sucks sometimes.

[midnight rambler]

Article 1 is not the government's definition of lawful money.
Wish it were, but unfortunately it is not.
Article 1 is what the state's are prohibited to do.
Secondly, and most importantly, the constitution prohibits the states from accepting gold and silver as payment of debt is not the fedetal governments definition of money.
The term Lawful money didnt exist until the 1913 reserve act.

Unfortunately many like you wish not to see Article 1 for what it is. It's not a definition to money. And with a presidential swipe of a pen the gold standard was suspended. With that being done the Article 1 requirement of states only being able to use gold as payment of debt was also suspended.
The state's could not follow the strict rule of the law of the land and the feds never filed suit to make them as they, the feds, suspended the gold standard.
Sorry but I try not to be cynical or judgemental when listening. The truth just plain sucks sometimes.

What you're failing to pick up on is that the Constitution RESTRICTS the STATES as to what can be used as a tender in payment of debts within any state. There's NO avoiding this but the banksters did an end run around the Constitution by having EACH AND EVERY STATE adopt the Uniform Commercial Code so that now debt can be discharged with limited liability. This move essentially fully removed any ready option to PAY debts AT LAW (as in EXTINGUISH debts).

[Horn]

From Edwin M. Vieira Jr., Ph.D, JD, Constitutional attorney & author, Pieces of Eight among his many works


​http://constitutionalmilitia.org/right-of-redemption-of-paper-money/

China can still purchase any citizen or representative of a citizen that it wants to with its stash.

[ziero0]

with a presidential swipe of a pen the gold standard was suspended.
If you believe the office holder has this power then you believe in a king. Fortunately the executive branch has not the authority to change law except for those inferior to him.

In 1948 Harry Truman attempted to extend the authority of the executive branch by signing a bill into law while congress was on a major break. As you are no doubt aware the executive branch does have some legislative function (acknowledging acts of congress) while they are in session but this authority evaporates the instant they adjourn. This particular act was to extend federal district courts into the several states. Immediately after signing this legislation Harry brought congress back in emergency session. He gave 'em an opportunity to impeach his ass. They chose not to and a new chapter in government was established (not a good one). As Trump is finding out in Syria he believes he has the authority to implement a new police action when under the constitution all he had to do was ask congress for a declaration of war.

[Bigjon]

Article 1 is not the government's definition of lawful money.
Wish it were, but unfortunately it is not.
Article 1 is what the state's are prohibited to do.
Secondly, and most importantly, the constitution prohibits the states from accepting gold and silver as payment of debt is not the fedetal governments definition of money.
The term Lawful money didnt exist until the 1913 reserve act.

Unfortunately many like you wish not to see Article 1 for what it is. It's not a definition to money. And with a presidential swipe of a pen the gold standard was suspended. With that being done the Article 1 requirement of states only being able to use gold as payment of debt was also suspended.
The state's could not follow the strict rule of the law of the land and the feds never filed suit to make them as they, the feds, suspended the gold standard.
Sorry but I try not to be cynical or judgemental when listening. The truth just plain sucks sometimes.

Where in the Constitution do you read that?

"the constitution prohibits the states from accepting gold and silver as payment of debt"

That is debatable, looks like a definition of money to me as the preceding entry states ​coin Money.
Sometimes the truth is staring you in the face.

[golddust]

Where in the Constitution do you read that?

"the constitution prohibits the states from accepting gold and silver as payment of debt"

That is debatable, looks like a definition of money to me as the preceding entry states ​coin Money.

Mobile phone did an auto correct on me.
The constitution says the state are to accept gold, silver as payment of debt.
My phone says it's sorry for the confusion.

[golddust]

If you believe the office holder has this power then you believe in a king. Fortunately the executive branch has not the authority to change law except for those inferior to him.

In 1948 Harry Truman attempted to extend the authority of the executive branch by signing a bill into law while congress was on a major break. As you are no doubt aware the executive branch does have some legislative function (acknowledging acts of congress) while they are in session but this authority evaporates the instant they adjourn. This particular act was to extend federal district courts into the several states. Immediately after signing this legislation Harry brought congress back in emergency session. He gave 'em an opportunity to impeach his ass. They chose not to and a new chapter in government was established (not a good one). As Trump is finding out in Syria he believes he has the authority to implement a new police action when under the constitution all he had to do was ask congress for a declaration of war.

Did not Roosevelt suspend the gold standard?

[midnight rambler]

Did not Roosevelt suspend the gold standard?

No, Rosenfelt stole ('confiscated') the gold at gunpoint.

[golddust]

What you're failing to pick up on is that the Constitution RESTRICTS the STATES as to what can be used as a tender in payment of debts within any state. There's NO avoiding this but the banksters did an end run around the Constitution by having EACH AND EVERY STATE adopt the Uniform Commercial Code so that now debt can be discharged with limited liability. This move essentially fully removed any ready option to PAY debts AT LAW (as in EXTINGUISH debts).

When you make your final vehicle payment does the loaning bank or financial institution expect you to continue making payments?

[midnight rambler]

When you make your final vehicle payment does the loaning bank or financial institution expect you to continue making payments?

This question indicates to me that you are totally clueless as to history and the nature of the UCC.

First of all regarding automobiles, the state refers to them as 'motor vehicles' (i.e. they are regarded as being in commerce aka 'traffic') and one is paying rent on the automobile they *think* they 'own' since the actual owner of any automobile is the state*.

*i.e. unless one manages to retain the MSO, and if that's the case there is no registration and therefore no 'license' plate on the automobile - if an automobile has a state issued license plate attached to it that is prima facie evidence that it is owned by the state

ETA: FYI a whole chapter of the UCC is all about financing motor vehicles, this is how important a matter it is for the banksters

[golddust]

No, Rosenfelt stole ('confiscated') the gold at gunpoint.

To answer your comical and yet childish reply it was June 5 1933 when the us went off the gd standard.
And it was 1879 when the US went on the gold standard.
Do the math and you'll see the US was on the gold standard for 54 years. Roughly 100 after the US came into existence.

[Bigjon]

This question indicates to me that you are totally clueless as to history and the nature of the UCC.

First of all regarding automobiles, the state refers to them as 'motor vehicles' (i.e. they are regarded as being in commerce aka 'traffic') and one is paying rent on the automobile they *think* they 'own' since the actual owner of any automobile is the state*.

*i.e. unless one manages to retain the MSO, and if that's the case there is no registration and therefore no 'license' plate on the automobile - if an automobile has a state issued license plate attached to it that is prima facie evidence that it is owned by the state

ETA: FYI a whole chapter of the UCC is all about financing motor vehicles, this is how important a matter it is for the banksters

The remedy for this one is really buried. It would be nice if someone found it.

[ziero0]

Did not Roosevelt suspend the gold standard?
Those notices were placed in federal post offices (federal territory). They have little application to me (not on federal territory).

[ziero0]

The remedy for this one is really buried. It would be nice if someone found it.
The communist plane was invented by Karl Marx in 1840 something. The capitalist plane was created to combat communism in 1857. In the communist plane it is not possible to own anything. In the capitalist plane you are permitted to own something as long as you pay a tariff on that ownership.

I refuse to either be a communist or a capitalist. Things that cannot be owned are not owned and no tax is paid on my non-ownership. Let both sides wallow in their own definitions of HELL.

[Bigjon]

The communist plane was invented by Karl Marx in 1840 something. The capitalist plane was created to combat communism in 1857. In the communist plane it is not possible to own anything. In the capitalist plane you are permitted to own something as long as you pay a tariff on that ownership.

I refuse to either be a communist or a capitalist. Things that cannot be owned are not owned and no tax is paid on my non-ownership. Let both sides wallow in their own definitions of HELL.

I belong to the Viking Plane and what I take with my sword is mine.

[golddust]

The communist plane was invented by Karl Marx in 1840 something. The capitalist plane was created to combat communism in 1857. In the communist plane it is not possible to own anything. In the capitalist plane you are permitted to own something as long as you pay a tariff on that ownership.

I refuse to either be a communist or a capitalist. Things that cannot be owned are not owned and no tax is paid on my non-ownership. Let both sides wallow in their own definitions of HELL.

Remedy to What?
Insolvency?

Like it or not, but you are a member of the insolvency.
Count your blessings where you live in a insolvent country that went the paper route.
Without paper this country wouldn't be the super power it is today's.
Gold would have never made this country as powerful as it is.

[Horn]

The remedy for this one is really buried. It would be nice if someone found it.

Have ziero0, does not travel.

Be sure not to chop down an unnecessary Buddhist monks while traveling or even any under-monks who may have a slight inclination.

We'll need those to create our own temple of mind only travelers battling capitalists and communists.

[ziero0]

Remedy to What?
Remedy is not my thing. If I find one I take it. If not then I don't have the right.

Insolvency?
Insolvency did precede bankruptcy from history.

Like it or not, but you are a member of the insolvency.
Have you seen the docket of the court that decided this?


Count your blessings where you live in a insolvent country that went the paper route.
Without paper this country wouldn't be the super power it is today's.
Gold would have never made this country as powerful as it is.
I carry SCISSORS with me since PAPER floats while ROCK sinks.

[ziero0]

I belong to the Viking Plane and what I take with my sword is mine.

Alloidal is a viking concept but don't get old or left your sword get dull. Valhalla doesn't come with 50 virgins.

[Bigjon]

Alloidal is a viking concept but don't get old or left your sword get dull. Valhalla doesn't come with 50 virgins.

50 virgins, sounds like hell to me, I prefer one cute blond viking lady.

[Horn]

..don't get old or left your sword get dull.Valhalla doesn't come with 50 virgins.

And I suck at tellin war stories, I can't remember past french fries baked on aluminum foil last night.

Fuggin heros.

[ziero0]

I can't remember past french fries baked on aluminum foil last night.

Dump the aluminum. It is toxic. They even include it in underarm deodorant.

[ziero0]

We'll need those to create our own temple of mind only travelers battling capitalists and communists. It is impossible to discuss the concepts of capitalism and communism without emotion entering the scene. Here is a concept though. Rather than learn the individual theories examine the principles of your own law. Once you put your law into principle(s) then you don't have to worry about what others promote. Likely they only promote some of these ideas in order to gain either wealth or power.

[Horn]

That works well, unless your principle law is: to battle other capitalists and also communists...

[ziero0]

That works well, unless your principle law is: to battle other capitalists and also communists...
No. That is not one of my principles. That falls under another principle. Agree with everyone until I am 1.5x out of the range of their longest range weapon. Much longer if they are mobile.

[Horn]

No. That is not one of my principles. That falls under another principle. Agree with everyone until I am 1.5x out of the range of their longest range weapon. Much longer if they are mobile.

I've tried this principle and only found multilpe deaths from 2x longer than expected weapons.

[Bigjon]

Because United States Notes serve no function that is not already adequately served by Federal Reserve Notes, their issuance was discontinued
From the horses mouth:https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx

It is my contention that they perform the same function as U.S. Notes only when you demand lawful money, otherwise you are screwed by the Fed into paying their tax.

FRN's are expandable elastic currency used in fractional reserve banking
U.S. Notes are non-expandable, non-negotiable money.

[golddust]

Because United States Notes serve no function that is not already adequately served by Federal Reserve Notes, their issuance was discontinued
From the horses mouth:https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx

It is my contention that they perform the same function as U.S. Notes only when you demand lawful money, otherwise you are screwed by the Fed into paying their tax.

FRN's are expandable elastic currency used in fractional reserve banking
U.S. Notes are non-expandable, non-negotiable money.
If you don't mind me asking. But what tax are you referring to when you say screwed into paying their tax?
What tax?
How much?
And when do you pay this tax?

[Bigjon]

If you don't mind me asking. But what tax are you referring to when you say screwed into paying their tax?
What tax?
How much?
And when do you pay this tax?

Income tax, pays the interest on the borrowed fractional reserve frn currency. April 15.

[golddust]

Income tax, pays the interest on the borrowed fractional reserve frn currency. April 15.
Are you self-employed or just emoyed?

[Bigjon]

Are you self-employed or just emoyed?

Long time retired from Univac.

[golddust]

Long time retired from Univac.

You're lucky to be retired. Wish I had that time.
I only have time on the weekends. But it doesn't take much to type in a search about taxes.
What I found on a quick search was that income taxes fall under employment taxes.
Do you have any links or material I can see that link taxes to the fed?

[Horn]

Income tax, pays the interest on the borrowed fractional reserve frn currency. April 15.

Which is the same tax the FRofNs is attempting to employ around the globe.

The people of the planet are normally and ofcourse abhorrent to.

[Bigjon]

You're lucky to be retired. Wish I had that time.
I only have time on the weekends. But it doesn't take much to type in a search about taxes.
What I found on a quick search was that income taxes fall under employment taxes.
Do you have any links or material I can see that link taxes to the fed?

No links, just have read about how income tax is tied in with the use of frn's. Long time ago also.

Employment is one of those Franchises.
In my opinion FamilyGuardian is the best place to find truthful info. The gov and it's agencies lie all the time.

https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Freedom/Freedom.htm#Right_To_Contract:

[golddust]

No links, just have read about how income tax is tied in with the use of frn's. Long time ago also.

Employment is one of those Franchises.
In my opinion FamilyGuardian is the best place to find truthful info. The gov and it's agencies lie all the time.

https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Freedom/Freedom.htm#Right_To_Contract:

Been to familygardian.
Not really all that impressed. Notice a lot of the material is basically the same as other sites.
Employment a franchise?
How is employment a franchise?

[ziero0]

Employment a franchise?
How is employment a franchise?
Employment is a trust relationship. The employee is the fiduciary.

Ref Hutches vs Maxicenter https://www.leagle.com/decision/19881159541so2d61811098

An employee steals money from his employer and uses it to purchase an automobile with the legal title in the employee's name. Can the employer recover possession of the automobile from the employee by an action at law for replevin? The answer should be no.

Replevin is a possessory law action. The employer does not have legal title to the automobile1 and is not otherwise entitled to the immediate possession of it. The employee, of course, has violated substantive legal rights of the employer and the employer does have the choice of several LEGAL REMEDIES to redress the violation of these rights.

[golddust]

Employment is a trust relationship. The employee is the fiduciary.

Ref Hutches vs Maxicenter https://www.leagle.com/decision/19881159541so2d61811098

Read through the link.
Do you take stuff out of context on a regular basis?

[midnight rambler]

The issuance and monopoly circulation of FRNs is the Death Cult's means of extracting substance from the producers in order to enslave all of mankind via banksters' wars.

[ziero0]

Do you take stuff out of context on a regular basis?
Who do you work for? Your lack of reading comprehension can't be a mistake. Nobody is that stupid.


The essential issue is whether the 1954 merger of law procedure and equity procedure has resulted in an amalgamation of the theory and substance of those two bodies of law to the extent that a strictly law remedy, such as replevin, can now be used to directly enforce a strictly equitable cause of action, such as an action to establish a constructive trust.

Equity and trusts are inseparable. The trust is constructive when the chancellor (not judge) creates it in his own mind. You combat a trust with another trust. The only way to keep these constructive trusts at bay is to deal with real ones.

[golddust]

Who do you work for? Your lack of reading comprehension can't be a mistake. Nobody is that stupid.



Equity and trusts are inseparable. The trust is constructive when the chancellor (not judge) creates it in his own mind. You combat a trust with another trust. The only way to keep these constructive trusts at bay is to deal with real ones.
Excuse me but I find your reply to my reply to bigjon about how his opinion about taxes is related to a franchise way off.
Your court cite has really nothing to do with what I asked bigjon.

[ziero0]

Your court cite has really nothing to do with what I asked bigjon.
Whose thread do you think you are camped on?

The topic is word play. You want another topic open your own thread.

[golddust]

Whose thread do you think you are camped on?

The topic is word play. You want another topic open your own thread.

I don't care.

So is this thread about your word play or theirs?
Or does it matter.
Seems your word play is trickier than theirs.

[ziero0]

Seems your word play is trickier than theirs.
Thanks. I had good instructors. The best!!!

Now, who is 'they'?

[golddust]

Thanks. I had good instructors. The best!!!

It's shows.