David Merrill, question for you about US Notes vs. FRNs

[dragonriot]

I just finished watching your video about Private Credit vs. Public Money, and in it you said that FRNs and US Notes look the same... So there are a few questions that must be asked...

1. If I go into my bank with a check, and demand my cash in "Public Money" how do I know they aren't just giving me FRNs and disregarding my demand for public money?

2. What determines if the cash in my pocket is Public Money or Private Credit?

3. I just took a $4000 Cash Advance from a credit card at 3.99% interest to pay off some bills... the $4000 is being direct deposited into my checking account. Could I also demand to withdraw this "loan" as "Public Money" since it is in a bank account?

4. Again, how do I know for sure that the money I receive is "Public Money" unless it is in denominations of US Bonds or Postal Money Orders?

I have other questions, but these should pretty much cover the rest.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by dragonriot

I just finished watching your video about Private Credit vs. Public Money, and in it you said that FRNs and US Notes look the same... So there are a few questions that must be asked...

1. If I go into my bank with a check, and demand my cash in "Public Money" how do I know they aren't just giving me FRNs and disregarding my demand for public money?

2. What determines if the cash in my pocket is Public Money or Private Credit?

3. I just took a $4000 Cash Advance from a credit card at 3.99% interest to pay off some bills... the $4000 is being direct deposited into my checking account. Could I also demand to withdraw this "loan" as "Public Money" since it is in a bank account?

4. Again, how do I know for sure that the money I receive is "Public Money" unless it is in denominations of US Bonds or Postal Money Orders?

I have other questions, but these should pretty much cover the rest.

The easiest way to comprehend lawful money is to start with a paycheck from your boss and you walking into your boss's bank for cash in that amount of pay. When the concept of non-endorsement is fully understood then you may move into direct deposit and verbiage on Withdrawal Slips - Signature Cards, Authorizing Signature on ATMs and ATM cards, Credit Cards etc...

The further you get away from the basic scenario, the more difficult it is to defeat the presumption you want private credit instead of lawful money.

2. What determines if the cash in my pocket is Public Money or Private Credit?

Public money is obligations of the US. Private credit is obligations of the taxpayer as FDR's Government bond (1933). I consider it would have been better to use different terms in hindsight - allow me:

2. What determines if the cash in my pocket is lawful money or elastic currency?

That more clearly outlines the choice offered in 1913 when Congress ratified the Federal Reserve Act. Note the wording on the Act: attached.

In other words, elastic currency is illegal unless endorsed, like your boss's bank wants you to do to the backside of your paycheck - Endorse it please. Since your boss signed the front - authorizing signature - there is no reason for you to sign the back. All you need to do is positively identify yourself to be the employee for whom the pay is intended.

However your boss's bank; regardless of which one it is, wants the privilege from you to fractional lend funds:

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...y_of_Money.zip

That is the elasticity. Counterfieting is quit against the law otherwise; they want you to bond yourself for the money created out of thin air. That is the Income Tax for you. The Sixteenth Amendment brought any disputes about this private agreement between you the taxpayer and the Fed into the US court system.

Remedy was offered from the beginning. Title 12 U.S.C. §411 which is mentioned repeatedly in the 1984 article.

I went back for more information about the history of the statute today. Interestingly only caddycorner to the campus and federal repository in the video is the Numismatic Museum and library. I am preparing an informed question much like yours based in the wording...

They [FRNs] shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...

And I will leave it with the reference librarian there for a few days. Meanwhile, since the remedy is there, what we need to be doing is simply showing our desire to redeem lawful money in every instance. The courts blended law with equity in 1938 and this means that all bad faith arguments will stand in the new contract forums.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[quasimodo]

“Federal”-“Reserve”-“Note”
Find out where the closest fed bank branch office is to you and look for it in that city’s telephone book. If it is indeed federal it will be in the blue pages as is every government office. It’s not there. You will find it listed in the private business pages along with federal express. That tells us that it is NOT federal.
The US dollar is backed by nothing but someone’s promise that the money(sic) that was borrowed by someone else in your name will be paid back by you with interest. So, there is NO reserve.
And finally it is not a ‘note’ as it lack all essential elements of a note.

The FRN equates a textbook definition of indentured servitude which equates to slavery.
Q

[quasimodo]

“Federal”-“Reserve”-“Note”
Find out where the closest fed bank branch office is to you and look for it in that city’s telephone book. If it is indeed federal it will be in the blue pages as is every government office. It’s not there. You will find it listed in the private business pages along with federal express. That tells us that it is NOT federal.
The US dollar is backed by nothing but someone’s promise that the money(sic) that was borrowed by someone else in your name will be paid back by you with interest. So, there is NO reserve.
And finally it is not a ‘note’ as it lack all essential elements of a note.

The FRN equates a textbook definition of indentured servitude which equates to slavery.
Q

[quasimodo]

oops! sorry about the double post

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by quasimodo

“Federal”-“Reserve”-“Note”
Find out where the closest fed bank branch office is to you and look for it in that city’s telephone book. If it is indeed federal it will be in the blue pages as is every government office. It’s not there. You will find it listed in the private business pages along with federal express. That tells us that it is NOT federal.
The US dollar is backed by nothing but someone’s promise that the money(sic) that was borrowed by someone else in your name will be paid back by you with interest. So, there is NO reserve.
And finally it is not a ‘note’ as it lack all essential elements of a note.

The FRN equates a textbook definition of indentured servitude which equates to slavery.
Q

Thank you Quasi;


I looked it up over a decade ago and tend to consider that a forgone conclusion nowadays. Somebody investigating by phone heard that those banks are not open to the public for redeeming lawful money or even making change for that matter.

The federal reserve banks in 12 U.S.C. §411 are any banks on any corner USA. Attached.

Also I just finished processing the verbiage of the Act as it was between 1913 and 1934. There is a lot to be learned from the change. Keep in mind that the modern section is still on the books, offering remedy and in full force and effect today.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[clarkee]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

The easiest way to comprehend lawful money is to start with a paycheck from your boss and you walking into your boss's bank for cash in that amount of pay. When the concept of non-endorsement is fully understood then you may move into direct deposit and verbiage on Withdrawal Slips - Signature Cards, Authorizing Signature on ATMs and ATM cards, Credit Cards etc...

The further you get away from the basic scenario, the more difficult it is to defeat the presumption you want private credit instead of lawful money.



Public money is obligations of the US. Private credit is obligations of the taxpayer as FDR's Government bond (1933). I consider it would have been better to use different terms in hindsight - allow me:



That more clearly outlines the choice offered in 1913 when Congress ratified the Federal Reserve Act. Note the wording on the Act: attached.

In other words, elastic currency is illegal unless endorsed, like your boss's bank wants you to do to the backside of your paycheck - Endorse it please. Since your boss signed the front - authorizing signature - there is no reason for you to sign the back. All you need to do is positively identify yourself to be the employee for whom the pay is intended.

However your boss's bank; regardless of which one it is, wants the privilege from you to fractional lend funds:

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...y_of_Money.zip

That is the elasticity. Counterfieting is quit against the law otherwise; they want you to bond yourself for the money created out of thin air. That is the Income Tax for you. The Sixteenth Amendment brought any disputes about this private agreement between you the taxpayer and the Fed into the US court system.

Remedy was offered from the beginning. Title 12 U.S.C. §411 which is mentioned repeatedly in the 1984 article.

I went back for more information about the history of the statute today. Interestingly only caddycorner to the campus and federal repository in the video is the Numismatic Museum and library. I am preparing an informed question much like yours based in the wording...



And I will leave it with the reference librarian there for a few days. Meanwhile, since the remedy is there, what we need to be doing is simply showing our desire to redeem lawful money in every instance. The courts blended law with equity in 1938 and this means that all bad faith arguments will stand in the new contract forums.


Regards,

David Merrill.

So David, what you are saying is that by endorsing the back of a paycheck you are giving the bank permission to fractionalize your check in your name. Is this what you are saying? Also, I get a little confused about the term bond or bondind or bonded. Is this basically your signature being a promise? I guess one example I'll try to use is accepting something for value and releasing it with your bond. By this I mean a statement, bill, traffic citation or something to this effect and accepting it because it will be addressed in your COMMERCIAL NAME and you the natural person(human being) and adjusting and settling the account for closure and settlement. Am I sort of on the right track? When I hear about someone discharging with a bond is this what they mean? Sorry, I don't mean to sound so ignorant.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by clarkee

So David, what you are saying is that by endorsing the back of a paycheck you are giving the bank permission to fractionalize your check in your name. Is this what you are saying? Also, I get a little confused about the term bond or bondind or bonded. Is this basically your signature being a promise? I guess one example I'll try to use is accepting something for value and releasing it with your bond. By this I mean a statement, bill, traffic citation or something to this effect and accepting it because it will be addressed in your COMMERCIAL NAME and you the natural person(human being) and adjusting and settling the account for closure and settlement. Am I sort of on the right track? When I hear about someone discharging with a bond is this what they mean? Sorry, I don't mean to sound so ignorant.

Well now, somebody put "David Merrill" on the thread Title and now I am thinking...

Maybe the only ignorant questions are the ones that never get asked...

So now I am guessing I must have stolen that somewhere - but this is my thread so I figure I can get away with it.

...by endorsing the back of a paycheck you are giving the bank permission to fractionalize your check in your name.

In your legal name, which stands as a bond. There is an email that keeps getting dredged up. I am in the middle of a bunch of courts of competent jurisdiction and it seems every couple years I get this email, bouncing around in a group of people informing themselves and each other... I think it is the same one from six or eight years ago. (attached)

I took a look at that website mentioned at the beginning and am even posting there all registered and such. Cool.

http://sedm.org

The email is really something and I am not sure what to make of it. It sounds correct in many points but then again, some suitors were invited to watch the UCC lien process in action a few weeks ago and the UCC-supposed-expert got smeared. The defendant was told to work up a great big bill and the UCC guy would be paying it in full!

I am adding it so that maybe you will get a glimpse of how simple bonding is, as a promise. Since there is no precious metal backing our currency these days, everything is a bond/promise to pay. Even HJR-193 (1933) when they seized all the gold, was on a promise to pay like the suitor who sent me the email attached says.

The Birth Certificate is a bond. But it lies in contemplation that the baby will want a credit rating and credit with the Fed one day. As far as the convictions and hypothecation go, I have looked here and elsewhere for proof. I was offered to get in on some conference calls and emails with a suitor inside the SEC/CUSIP stuff but he wanted me to promise to stay quiet about what I learned in the esoteric there. Well, that felt like becoming a mason so I declined but I really believe there is some activity there and I just do not know how to dig up the information and interprete it.

I have shown you it is simple enough to explain to 10-year olds:

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...y_of_Money.zip

So maybe it is best to understand that Title 12 U.S.C. §411 was enacted in 1913 because the law required remedy against the elastic currency the Fed was going to issue. Another name for elasic currency is unlawful - counterfeit currency. Unless of course there is a bond behind it.

So get a look for yourself by forming a proper definition of lawful money in your mind. Use the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Congress' definition but more importantly understand why they had to hide it in two different cases and make it look like FRNs are lawful money when it was only so because Mr. Rickman had bonded his substance chattel for the FRNs he was paid - making them for all intents and purposes lawful money.

Originally Posted by US v Rickman; 638 F.2d 182

In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money.

and

Originally Posted by US v Ware; 608 F.2d 400

United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.

Block, cut and paste that definition to a Word file and save it. The definition for lawful money was repealed from the US Code in 1994.

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/f...20%20%20%20%20

But read in Rickman:

Defendant argues that the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, s 8, United States Constitution. We have held to the contrary. United States v. Ware, 10 Cir., 608 F.2d 400, 402-403. We find no validity in the distinction which defendant draws between "lawful money" and "legal tender." Money is a medium of exchange. Legal tender is money which the law requires a creditor to receive in payment of an obligation. The aggregate of the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution includes broad and comprehensive authority over revenue, finance, and currency. Norman v. B. & O. R. Co., 294 U.S. 240, 55 S.Ct. 407, 79 L.Ed. 885. In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money. Defendant received Federal Reserve Notes when he cashed his pay checks and used those notes to pay his personal expenses. He obtained and used lawful money.

The Supreme Court saw no distinction between lawful money and legal tender because the legal tender, FRNs, were bonded like lawful money. Bonded with the private obligations of Mr. Rickman, instead of like with US notes the obligations of the US.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[aksis]

Defendant argues that the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, s 8, United States Constitution. We have held to the contrary. United States v. Ware, 10 Cir., 608 F.2d 400, 402-403. We find no validity in the distinction which defendant draws between "lawful money" and "legal tender." Money is a medium of exchange. Legal tender is money which the law requires a creditor to receive in payment of an obligation. The aggregate of the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution includes broad and comprehensive authority over revenue, finance, and currency. Norman v. B. & O. R. Co., 294 U.S. 240, 55 S.Ct. 407, 79 L.Ed. 885. In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money. Defendant received Federal Reserve Notes when he cashed his pay checks and used those notes to pay his personal expenses. He obtained and used lawful money.

Broad enough to amend the Constitution without an ammendment?

Section. 10. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Guess they are looking at the "Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts" part of this section.

Yet, an unlawful contract is void, right? Like a contract to kill someone, for example.

[David Merrill]

I have had this explained to me by skeptics but here goes.

The section you resorted to applies to States. It would be functional if a particular state wanted to start its own currency system. It is up to Congress pursuant to Article I do define and regulate money for the nation. That section for the States does not apply to Congress and a national currency system.

But look at the first sentence and compare to my video history regarding Colorado Territory. Governor William GILPIN issued fiat drafts, not metal coins. At first he was in trouble for it - in fact it cost his office. But the drafts, notes, were honored by the US Treasury and then Congress seemed to realize that during times of necessity, emergency, that the nation could return to fiat currency. If they were going to honor the Territory of Colorado doing it, then they could just do it themselves.

The page is attached and much easier to read than in the video.



Regards,

David Merrill.