Federal reserve notes...redeemed in lawful money on demand?

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...1----000-.html

TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 3 > SUBCHAPTER XII > § 411

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

Release date: 2005-07-21

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.

[David Merrill]

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...ot_dollars.jpg
http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...rs_reverse.jpg

From your writing on trusts free_martha, I deduce you will understand that HJR-192 commissions us owners of substance to be trustees, or responsible fiduciaries of the States' property (gold jewelry a fine example) as a supersedeas bond that keeps us out of jail for counterfeiting. After all it is a good presumption we paid nothing for the necklace or ring - only presented evidence of debt.


Regards,

David Merrill.

Originally Posted by David Merrill

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...ot_dollars.jpg
http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...rs_reverse.jpg

From your writing on trusts free_martha, I deduce you will understand that HJR-192 commissions us owners of substance to be trustees, or responsible fiduciaries of the States' property (gold jewelry a fine example) as a supersedeas bond that keeps us out of jail for counterfeiting. After all it is a good presumption we paid nothing for the necklace or ring - only presented evidence of debt.


Regards,

David Merrill.

David: Though Free_Martha may have the understanding you ascribe to her, I am still a little bit confused.

In you statement regarding that understanding, you use the terms 'owners' and 'states property' in a manner that is seemingly conflicting, as 'owner' would imply that this entity known as 'owner' would have title to said object of 'owner'-ship while at the same time, 'states property' would also carry the same connotation. How can two separate entities have the same right of title without a major conflict?

Jerry.

[David Merrill]

Yes. The perfect examples are your home and car.

You have a warranty deed on the former and a certificate of title on the latter. Using either to prove your claim simply makes claim for the State.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by free_martha

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...1----000-.html

TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 3 > SUBCHAPTER XII > § 411

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

Release date: 2005-07-21

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.

Ok, then does a question of what is LAWFUL MONEY perhaps arise?

As well as the meanings of "redeemed," as well as "on demand?"

And perhaps the term "obligation" as it applies to "of the United States" is defined somewhere?

(I have read, and I will try to track down the case cite, that the S.Ct. has held that the term "shall" can or may mean or be defined as meaning "may.")

I saw a lot of "shalls" in that quote.

Now if FRN's are LAWFUL MONEY, why would TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 3 > SUBCHAPTER XII > § 411 need to make an apparent distinction between the "Federal reserve" "notes, and "lawful money"?

Where in TITLE 12 are the definitions of terms to be found?

And, if there are definitions, are the definitions clear and concise, or do they base on tautology as so many legislative "definitions" often do?

The quote seems to say that there is but one purpose only for the issuance of FRN's:

"for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose..."

If one examines the first sentence one will find that "notes" is the subject of the sentence (along with the qualifying modifiers "Federal reserve"), the predicate is "are authorized," and the object of the sentence is a string of prepositional phrases "for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks" "and for no other purpose."

The sentence is a complex sentence with an independent clause , which may be understood on its own, and a dependent clause which relies on the independent clause for comprehension.

Independent clause: "Federal reserve notes" "are authorized" "for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks" "and for no other purpose."

Dependent clause: "to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System" "through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth"

The dependent clause has as predicate, "to be issued," and an adverbial phrase "set forth" modifying a prepositional phrase and acting as a quasi-predicate, or pseudo predicate.

The dependent clause otherwise consists of prepositional phrases which are dependent for any meaning upon the simple sentence acting as the independent clause of a complex sentence.

The legal consultants who set the words have cleverly woven the dependent clause into and around the independent clause which is a simple sentence: subject, predicate, object, by the use of a comma following the subject, placing the predicate of the simple sentence independent clause at the very end of the complex sentence, and the object following the first prepositional phrase of the dependent clause with the clarifying comma omitted.

It would perhaps be possible to substitue the phrase "ceverly woven" in the immediately preceding sentence with "cunningly twisted."




Are there not some contradictions between the first sentence, and the second and third sentences?

FRN's are defined as "obligations of the United States," it would appear.

Yet they also appear, according to the code to be "receivable...for all taxes..."

If so, to whom are the Federal Income Taxes (or "all" the rest of the "other taxes") "receivable" by?

Do the taxes go to "The United States?"

Are federal income taxes an obligation of the "taxpayer" to the United States?

If both are true, how can an obligation of the taxpayer to the United States, be paid with "obligations of the United States?"

How can the United States "receive" "obligations of the United States" for "all taxes?"

Especially, if any and "all taxes" are also "obligations" of those who by law are obligated to make them "receivable?"

If the taxes are paid in "notes" that are "obligations of the United States," and are "receivable...for all taxes," do not go to the United States (how can an obligation to pay taxes be paid to the entity with that which is an obligation of said entity?), then where are, and by whom are these "obligations of the United States" "receivable?"

Originally Posted by free_martha

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...1----000-.html

TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 3 > SUBCHAPTER XII > § 411

§ 411.

(Three topics covered?)

[1.] Issuance to reserve banks;

[2.] nature of obligation;

(as "in the nature of," or "under color of?")

[3.] redemption

Release date: 2005-07-21

Federal reserve notes,

to be issued

("to be" is an infinitive applied to past tense of "issue")

at the discretion

of the Board of Governors

("of" used as a preposition first, and then as an article attached to the proper noun Governors to form a compound proper noun)

of the Federal Reserve System

for the purpose

of making advances

(prepositional phrase with a predicate and a noun as its object)

to Federal reserve banks

through the Federal reserve agents

("agents" is the object of the preposition, "Federal reserve" is a compounded modifier of the object.)

as hereinafter set forth

and for no other purpose,

are authorized.

(finally the predicate)



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.

Now a theorist, through a simple and accepted method of discovery (which I have detailed elsewhere) might, by applying this method, arrive at a plausible theory (theory being penultimate to law, and law being proven theory, which is rare), that lawmakers, (theory provers?) and (largely lawyers) who have widely and publically admitted to a laxity concerning the actual reading of the laws they "pass," employ expert legal consultants (lawyers?) to construct "Statutes" which are presumed to be law, which are then stripped of enabling clauses and codified into prima facie evidence of what is presumed, but not "proven" "law," for the purpose of being so grammatically and syntactically convoluted, as to be arguably subject to "interpretation," by another group of lawyers who have presumed by decree and tacit acceptance or "acquiescence" (threat of violence, or force of violence?) to be constitutionally empowered to "interpret" what is inaccurately, but commonly, referred to as "law."

If this suggested penultimate to "law" is methodically applicable might one not further theorize, that certain "sepapration of powers" might be somewhat less than separate, and, perhaps, in fact, or theory (penultimate to law) joined in concert by the legislators?

If so, how would this activity bear upon the relationship of those acting in concert upon the letter of the Constitution?

[idknow]

Thanks Martha.

Originally Posted by free_martha

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...1----000-.html

TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 3 > SUBCHAPTER XII > § 411
§ 411. Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption

Release date: 2005-07-21

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.

That's the plain structure reformat.

Now for the clausal restructing.

Originally Posted by 12 usc 3.XIIa.411

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

Release date: 2005-07-21

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.

how's that?

[idknow]

Please find below and review my restructuring of the section which is
discussed above and in this quote block

Originally Posted by mrg

Ok, then does a question of what is LAWFUL MONEY perhaps arise?

As well as the meanings of "redeemed," as well as "on demand?"

And perhaps the term "obligation" as it applies to "of the United States" is
defined somewhere?

(I have read, and I will try to track down the case cite, that the S.Ct. has
held that the term "shall" can or may mean or be defined as meaning "may.")

I saw a lot of "shalls" in that quote.

`q
Now if FRN's are LAWFUL MONEY, why would TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 3 > SUBCHAPTER XII
> § 411 need to make an apparent distinction between the "Federal reserve"
"notes, and "lawful money"?
q`

Where in TITLE 12 are the definitions of terms to be found?

And, if there are definitions, are the definitions clear and concise, or do
they base on tautology as so many legislative "definitions" often do?

The quote seems to say that there is but one purpose only for the issuance of
FRN's:

"for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks
through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other
purpose..."

If one examines the first sentence one will find that "notes" is the subject of
the sentence (along with the qualifying modifiers "Federal reserve"), the
predicate is "are authorized," and the object of the sentence is a string of
prepositional phrases "for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve
banks" "and for no other purpose."

The sentence is a complex sentence with an independent clause , which may be
understood on its own, and a dependent clause which relies on the independent
clause for comprehension.

Independent clause: "Federal reserve notes" "are authorized" "for the purpose
of making advances to Federal reserve banks" "and for no other purpose."

Dependent clause: "to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of
the Federal Reserve System" "through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter
set forth"

The dependent clause has as predicate, "to be issued," and an adverbial phrase
"set forth" modifying a prepositional phrase and acting as a quasi-predicate,
or pseudo predicate.

The dependent clause otherwise consists of prepositional phrases which are
dependent for any meaning upon the simple sentence acting as the independent
clause of a complex sentence.

The legal consultants who set the words have cleverly woven the dependent
clause into and around the independent clause which is a simple sentence:
subject, predicate, object, by the use of a comma following the subject,
placing the predicate of the simple sentence independent clause at the very end
of the complex sentence, and the object following the first prepositional
phrase of the dependent clause with the clarifying comma omitted.

It would perhaps be possible to substitue the phrase "ceverly woven" in the
immediately preceding sentence with "cunningly twisted."


Are there not some contradictions between the first sentence, and the second
and third sentences?

FRN's are defined as "obligations of the United States," it would appear.

Yet they also appear, according to the code to be "receivable...for all
taxes..."

If so, to whom are the Federal Income Taxes (or "all" the rest of the "other
taxes") "receivable" by?

Do the taxes go to "The United States?"

Are federal income taxes an obligation of the "taxpayer" to the United States?

If both are true, how can an obligation of the taxpayer to the United States,
be paid with "obligations of the United States?"

How can the United States "receive" "obligations of the United States" for "all
taxes?"

Especially, if any and "all taxes" are also "obligations" of those who by law
are obligated to make them "receivable?"

If the taxes are paid in "notes" that are "obligations of the United States,"
and are "receivable...for all taxes," do not go to the United States
(how can an obligation to pay taxes be paid to the entity with that which is an
obligation of said entity?), then where are, and by whom are these "obligations
of the United States" "receivable?"

By the "oranisation" being discussed, that is, the FedRB

also, as the courts all agree, an impossibility cannot be done:
it would be impossible for the US to recieve since they are not the subject of the section.

Originally Posted by mrg

Now a theorist, through a simple and accepted method of discovery (which I have
detailed elsewhere) might, by applying this method, arrive at a plausible
theory (theory being penultimate to law, and law being proven theory, which is
rare), that lawmakers, (theory provers?) Theorom Provers. --idknow
and (largely lawyers) who have widely
and publically admitted to a laxity concerning the actual reading of the laws
they "pass," employ expert legal consultants (lawyers?) to construct "Statutes"
which are presumed to be law, which are then stripped of enabling clauses and
codified into prima facie evidence of what is presumed, but not
"proven" "law," for the purpose of being so grammatically and
syntactically convoluted, as to be arguably subject to "interpretation," by
another group of lawyers who have presumed by decree and tacit
acceptance or "acquiescence" (threat of violence, or force of violence?) to be
constitutionally empowered to "interpret" what is inaccurately, but commonly,
referred to as "law."

Very WELL!!! writ, mrg!!! very well!!!

Originally Posted by mrg

If this suggested penultimate to "law" is methodically applicable might one not
further theorize, that certain "sepapration of powers" might be somewhat less
than separate, and, perhaps, in fact, or theory (penultimate to law) joined in
concert by the legislators?

If so, how would this activity bear upon the relationship of those acting in
concert upon the letter of the Constitution?

this is too good a post to abridge, LOL
you know this is written to some one ;)~

…words of art, ‘what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive”

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Mone...eyIsTaxing.htm

We know that the paper itself has no value other than the value it achieves by the pledge of the United States to pay one dollar. Once that pledge is removed, the paper then no longer represents value; it is no longer representing the dollar. This "pledge" of redemption was officially removed on October 28, 1977 with Public Law 95-147 (91 Stat. 1229) at subsection (c):
"(c) The joint resolution entitled "Joint resolution to assure uniform value to the coins and currencies of the United States," approved June 5, 1933 (31 USC 463), shall not apply to obligations issued on or after the date of enactment of this section."

Congress may have declared that the payment in Currency, dollar for dollar in any Currency, is legal tender payment for debts; but Congress has not, and in fact Congress could not, declare that receiving of payment in any Currency constitutes a payment for debts in dollars.

It can not be permitted that a government ordained to establish justice can continually repudiate its obligations. When the government withdraws its pledge, it must necessarily exempt its obligations from all forms of taxation.

The "Federal Reserve Note," being at best the evidence of an imposed tax, is exempt from all further taxation.
That "Note" or "tax receipt" does not constitute "income" but actually constitutes the giving of goods and serves labor and commodities without compensation.

Justice Field, the lone dissenter in Julliard v. Greenman, had a tremendous insight and understanding for what was to come as stated in his eloquent opinion:

"From the decision of the court I see only evil likely to follow. There have been times within the memory of all of us when the legal tender notes of the United States were not exchangeable for more than one-half of their nominal value, the possibility of such depreciation will always attend paper money. This inborn infirmity no mere legislative declaration can cure, if Congress has the power to make the notes a legal tender and to pass as money or its equivalent, why should not a sufficient amount be issued to pay the bonds of the United States as they mature? Why pay interest on the millions of dollars of bonds now due, when Congress can in one day make the money to pay the principal? And why should there be any restraint upon unlimited appropriations by the government for all imaginary schemes of public improvements, if the printing-press can furnish the money that is needed for them?"
Dissenting opinion of Justice Field, Julliard v. Greenman, 110 US 421

The wise Justice foresaw what is happening today; let us expand upon his theory. If Congress, by the means of a printing press, can print all the money it needs for any imaginary scheme, and it has in fact evolved to a time in the history of the United States when it can make something of value out of nothing; then any political body, who uses this Colonial system of taxation, can no longer justify taxing its Citizens by means of the so******tic tax on bankers' paper.

The mere printing of the paper with unlimited restraint would serve as a new form of tax. The continuation by Congress to tax its Citizens in any other manner, when it professes to have this ability, is nothing less than plunder in the form of unlawful confiscation of private property to unlawfully pay the unnecessary interest on an unnecessary government debt because of the purported delegation of creating demand deposit "money" to bankers under the fractional-reserve "National Bank Act" and the "Federal Reserve Act."