name mispelled on indictment?

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by indio007

FRN's have value? What value ?

You can buy goods and services with them.

Originally Posted by indio007

What makes a $100 bill more valuable than a $1 bill?

You can buy 100 times as many goods and services. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

By the way, did you find anything in the O'Malley decision even remotely referring to your argument? I thought not.

Originally Posted by indio007

Income tax is an administrative balancing of the books for and between private fiat currency users.

Uninformed babble.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

You can buy goods and services with them.
You can buy 100 times as many goods and services. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

By the way, did you find anything in the O'Malley decision even remotely referring to your argument? I thought not.

Uninformed babble.

Actually Mertensv16:

You are the one that is mistaken. At least according to the US Treasury Dept., and I place more credibility in them than I do someone with no credentials regarding the financing system of this country.

According to the US Treasury Dept., the relationship between 'goods and services' and the 'FRN' is this: The goods and services are the collateral that backs the FRN, therefore, the FRN does not pay for anything, but rather is dependent upon anything in the commercial arena. In other words, and again, according to the US Treasury, the FRN has no intrinsic value, and cannot be redeemed in gold, silver, or in goods and services.

"Federal Reserve notes represent a first lien on all the assets of the Federal Reserve Banks, and on the collateral specifically held against them.

Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy. In another sense, because they are legal tender, Federal Reserve notes are "backed" by all the goods and services in the economy."

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by Livefire

At the moment I think Euros are a much better deal than FRNs. Even better, gold and silver coin such as Krugerrands, Golden Eagles and the like.

By federal law, foreign currency such as Euros and Krugerrands are not legal tender.
Golden Eagles, issued by the US Mint, are legal tender - for face value - notwithstanding you have to pay a collector's price to get them.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

By federal law, foreign currency such as Euros and Krugerrands are not legal tender.
Golden Eagles, issued by the US Mint, are legal tender - for face value - notwithstanding you have to pay a collector's price to get them.

The same holds true for the 'Silver dollars' sold by the treasury... Buy 1 pay for 27... that sounds like a really prime deal.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[indio007]

apologies if I helped derail this thread from the topic

[Shoonra]

If you really believe that FRNs have no value, then I wonder why you begrudge sending some of them to the IRS.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

If you really believe that FRNs have no value, then I wonder why you begrudge sending some of them to the IRS.

REMINDER: It was the United States Treasury Department which made the statement that Federal Reserve Notes .."have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy."

It also must be pointed out, that when these 'notes' are used for the purpose of 'buy'ing , it also places a first lien on the property that was received through the act of 'buy'ing. Therefore, no title of ownership could be past, as the lien has not been settled/resolved/discharged/liquidated/dismissed/abandoned.

Example: a man (allegedly) borrows from a bank (allegedly in the form of FRN's), those notes are then used to 'buy' a home or car or stereo system or boat...

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

If you really believe that FRNs have no value, then I wonder why you begrudge sending some of them to the IRS.

I guess Shoonra just does not get it. What people begrudge is being fooled into thinking that endorsement of private credit for FRNs (elastic currency) is the only transaction form available. We have all been conditioned to endorse private credit instead of redeeming lawful money.

That conditioning is what people begrudge.

Remember Congress defines US notes as lawful money and that FRNs may be redeemed in 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.

Regards,

David Merrill.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

I guess Shoonra just does not get it.

SUSSMAN BERNARD J "gets it."

One would have to be quite stupid to "not get it."

I do not think "Shoonra" is stupid.

[Shoonra]

DiM knows, because he's been told, but won't let on, that Congress stopped designating United States Notes as "lawful money" back in 1982, when it repealed and replaced that entire chapter, eliminating the authorization for United States Notes and replacing it with an authorization for United States Currency Notes, identified as "legal tender"; those Currency Notes have not yet been issued.

He also knows, because it was he who introduced the Trebil**** decision to this forum, that United States Notes, even while they were current and designated "lawful money", could not be redeemed in gold or silver.

Gold and silver coinage, when current, was designated by Congress as legal tender, but not "lawful money". And in 1933 the US Treasury issued a legal opinion, quoted at length in a Senate Report, that lawful money and legal tender were different names for the same thing. Even the RIckman case, from which DiM quotes only a line from a statute that was repealed afterward, held that payment in FRNs constitutes payment in "lawful money".

Presently, no form of currency, including those no longer issued (such as silver certificates), is designated "lawful money"; they are all designated "legal tender"

FRNs, by law, are accepted by the federal and state governments, for fines, fees, and taxes, and everywhere accepted by banks. And if you think they are valueless then why are you reluctant to let the IRS have yours?