FRNs shall be redeemed in lawful money ...

[test]

I was reading a gold web site forum and a signature pointed to:

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/us...1----000-.html

What does that mean?

Can I go to Washington DC and get gold in exchange of fiat paper or where is the catch that I cannot see it?

Unfortunately no, you cannot exchange your FRN's for Gold at any of the places listed.

Here's an article that will shed some light on the issue:

The 'Lawful Money' Question

by Dr. Edward Flaherty



The constitution in Article I, section 10 reads "No state shall...coin money, emit bills of credit, make any thing but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts..." This means that the only constitutionally valid forms of money are gold or silver coin. This is called 'lawful money.' U.S. paper money used to be redeemable in lawful money, but no more. Our monetary system is based on unconstitutional forms of money. At least, this is how a few conspiracy theorists see it.

The source of their confusion is easy to see and, in this case, easy to understand. Simmons (1939) and Cross (1939) shed some light on the subject. The phrase 'lawful money' had appeared repeatedly in the money and banking laws of the U.S. in the first half of this century, but had never been explicitly defined. It first appeared on February 25, 1862 when Congress authorized the issue of greenbacks and declared them to be "lawful money and a legal tender" for all debts, public and private. 1 This terminology may have been adopted to promote the acceptability of the currency, since the occasion was the first in which Congress attempted to make a paper money a legal tender. 3 At this point in time, then, the terms 'lawful money' and 'legal tender' had no distinct meaning. They were they same thing.

During the Civil War era Congress gave several types of money the status 'lawful money.' On March 17, 1862 Congress declared that Treasury notes (not the T-note debt instrument we know by that name today) were lawful money. February 12, 1862 saw Congress make clearinghouse certificates a lawful money. After the Civil War, on July 12, 1870, Congress placed the U.S. back on the gold standard and specified what types of money national banks could count to meet their legal reserve requirements. "The terms 'lawful money' and 'lawful money of the United States," the Act read, "when applied to these banks shall be held and construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States." 1 So, by 1870 greenbacks, Treasury notes, clearinghouse certificates, and gold and silver coin were all 'lawful money.' The annoying part, though, is that Congress never stated exactly what lawful money was supposed to be. The only concrete conclusion that can be reached is that lawful money and legal tender were two separate things. Lawful money was money that banks could count toward satisfying their reserve requirements. Legal tender was any money that government would accept in payment of taxes. Some money was lawful money, but not all lawful money was legal tender. And vice versa. Confused?

One last example of the confusion Congress created on the lawful money topic concerns Federal Reserve notes. Prior to 1933-34, they were redeemable at any Federal Reserve bank "in gold or lawful money," and Federal Reserve banks were compelled to hold a 35% reserve "in gold or lawful money" behind their deposits. Congress did not use the phrase "in gold or in other forms of lawful money." It definitely set the terms in contrast to each other. This leads one to conclude that Congress did not deem gold to be lawful money, which at the time would have been absurd. 1

After 1933 all forms of U.S. money were conferred with legal tender status. This set up a paradox for currency redeemability. Federal Reserve notes and U.S. Notes, for example, were redeemable in "lawful money," but what was lawful money? Because redeemability had ended, there was no longer any distinction between lawful money and legal tender. Federal Reserve notes were therefore redeemable with other Federal Reserve notes, or with U.S. Notes, or with any other legal tender.

To illustrate how some people were confused by this, consider the following correspondence between the U.S. Treasury and citizen of Cleveland. 2



December 9, 1947

Honorable John W. Snyder
Sec. of the Treasury
Washington, D.C.

Dear Sir:

I am sending you herewith via registered mail one ten-dollar Federal Reserve note. On this note is inscribed the following:

"This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private, and is redeemable in lawful money at the United States Treasury or at any Federal Reserve bank."

In accordance with this statement, will you send me $10.00 in lawful money?

Very truly yours,
A.F. Davis

*****

December 11, 1947

Mr. A.F. Davis
12818 Colt Road
Cleveland 1, Ohio

Dear Mr. Davis,

Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of December 9th with enclosure of one ten dollar Federal Reserve note.

In compliance with your request, two five-dollar United States notes are transmitted herewith.

Very truly yours,
M.E. Slindee,
Acting Treasurer

*****

December 23, 1947

Mr. M.E. Slindee
Acting Treasurer
Treasury Department
Fiscal Service
Washington 25, D.C.

Dear Sir:

Receipt is hereby acknowledged of two $5.00 United States notes, which we interpret from your letter to be considered lawful money. Are we to infer from this that Federal Reserve notes are not lawful money?

I am enclosing one of the $5.00 notes which you sent me. I note that it states on the face,
"The United States of America will pay to the bearer on demand five dollars."

I am hereby demanding five dollars.

Very truly yours,
A.F. Davis

*****

December 29, 1947

Mr. A.F. Davis
12818 Colt Road
Cleveland 1, Ohio

Dear Mr. Davis:

Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of December 23rd, transmitting one $5 United States note with a demand for payment of five dollars.

Your are advised that the term "lawful money" has not been defined in federal legislation. It first came to use prior to 1933 when some United States currency was not legal tender but could be held by national banking institutions as lawful money reserves. Since the act of May 12, 1933, as amended by the Joint Resolution of June 5, 1933, makes all coins and currency of the United States legal tender and the Joint Resolution of August 27, 1935, provides for the exchange of United States coin or currency for other types of such coin or currency, the term "lawful money" no longer has such special significance.

The $5 United States note received with your letter of December 23rd is returned herewith.

Very truly yours,
M.E. Slindee,
Acting Treasurer

*****

It is understandable how reasonable people can become confused when studying the history of the terms 'lawful money' and 'legal tender' in U.S. history. The blame for this rests with Congress who never bothered to define lawful money when it first used the term. However, the line of thinking that it is defined by the constitution as only gold or silver coin is incorrect. The constitution makes no such definition. Moreover, the restriction that States not make anything but gold or silver a legal tender does not apply to Congress, only to the States. Congress may declare anything it wishes a legal tender. And as the history above shows, it certainly has.




References:

1. Cross, Ira B. (1938), "A note on lawful money," Journal of Political Economy, pp. 409-13.

2. Ritter, Lawrence (1961), Money and economic activity: Readings in money and banking, Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

3. Simmons, Edward C. (1938), "The concept of lawful money," Journal of Political Economy, pp. 108-18.

[theghost]

Thought this might be an appropriate thread for this info to reside. Thanks to Chris Hansen ( of Family Guardian, not the Dateline NBC guy) for this one!

http://www.independentamerican.org/blog.php?blog=864

SENATOR ENSIGN SENDS DEFINITION OF DOLLAR
VICTORY IS MINE!

Friday, December 21st 2007 — Christopher Hansen
Well, after years and years of writing government officials asking what a dollar is I finally got it. It is, surprisingly, a clear and unequivocal answer to the question: "What is a dollar."

Senator John Ensign of Nevada sent me the ANSWER written in a report by the Congressional Research Service. The most important part of the answer is found on page three (page two of the answer) when it states:

Ballentines Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition (1969)

dollar. The legal currency of the United States; State v Downs, 148 Ind 324, 327 ; the unit of money consisting of one hundred cents. The aggregate of specific coins which add up to one dollar. 36 Am Jlst Money A§ 8. In the absence of qualifying words, it cannot mean promissory notes, bonds, or other evidences of debt. 36 AM Jlst Money A§ 8.

American Jurisprudence, Volume 36, A§ 8 [T]he term "dollar" means money, since it is the unit of money in this country, and in the absence of qualifying words, it cannot mean promissory notes or bonds or other evidences of debt. The term also refers to specific coins of the value of one dollar. (27 Ohio Jur pp . 125, 126, A§ 3), (United States v. Van Auken, 96 US 366, 24 L ed 852)

Then the report defines Federal reserve notes:

Black's Law, Second Pocket Edition (1996)

Federal Reserve Note

Federal reserve note. The paper currency in circulation in the United States. The notes are issued by the Federal Reserve Banks, are effectively non-interest- bearing promissory notes payable to bearer on demand, and are issued in denominations of $1, $5, $10, $20, $50, $100, $500, $1,000, $5,000, and $10,000.

"Payable" in what? In dollars of course. You cannot pay with a "promissory note".

Therefore it is VERY CLEAR that Federal reserve notes ARE NOT dollars but should be able to be redeemed in "dollars." FRNs, however, cannot, presently, be redeemed in "money" but only in other notes. Remember that the "term 'dollar' means money" which CANNOT BE promissory notes according to the report.

Therefore, whenever you receive Federal reserve notes (promissory notes) issued in any "$" denominations you should calculate their "value" in REAL "dollars" such as the report describes as:

DOLLAR. The unit employed in the United States in*calculating money values.* Blacks Law Dictionary, 4th Edition Revised (1957)

If you are a Nevada citizen I highly recommend that you contact Senator Ensign's Las Vegas office at (702) 388-6605 and ask Special Assistant Mary Mason, to please send you a copy of the Congressional Research Service "report" concerning the definition of what a dollar is.

If you are in another State of this Union I highly recommend that you copy this letter from Senator Ensign's office and ask YOUR Senator or Representative to send you a copy of the Congressional Research Service "report" concerning the definition of what a dollar is.

Then, if I were you, I would send this "report" to the IRS and tell them that you are relying on this report from your Congressman as to what a "dollar" is and that you now know that a Federal reserve note is a "promissory note" and cannot be a dollar and so you will calculate the "value" of "Federal reserve notes" by the fair market "value" of the silver Liberty dollar coins.

I would tell them that you will do this unless the IRS can show you the LAW, not the IRS's opinion or the Department of the Treasury's opinion, but the law that clearly and unequivocally states that a Federal reserve note has been defined by Congress to be a "dollar" and not just "promissory notes" or "debt instruments" or "legal tender" (pennies are legal tender and not dollars) that are "issued in denominations" of "$s".

It is clear that these silver Liberty dollar coins, authorized by Congress at 31 USC Sec. 5112 (e) with the "value" of a dollar as per 31 USC Sec. 5112 (d)(1), meet all the legal requirements to be dollars as per the "report" while Federal reserve notes issued in various denominations of $s do not meet ANY of the legal requirements of a dollar but only those of, possibly, United States Securities and/or legal tender as per 31 USC Sec. 5103. But since they cannot be redeemed in "dollars" you are not even sure they meet those standards.

We Americans SHOULD have the right to know what the value of a dollar is in clear and unequivocal terms since, if we are liable for a tax by clear and unequivocal language, we must be able to calculate that tax using: "The unit (dollar) employed in the United States in calculating money values." Blacks Law Dictionary, 4th Edition Revised (1957) (See report). Because if we cannot use the dollar to calculate "income" (whatever that is) then we CANNOT know the "value" of whatever we accepted as payment.

Keeping in mind the well-settled rule that the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid … Spreckels Sugar Refining Co. v. McClain,192 U.S. 397, 24 S.Ct. 376, 418, U.S. 1904

It is time to stand up against the Federal Reserve Bankster's tyranny. This is your chance to do something. It may not be a lot but it is an opportunity to do something to stop this Federal Reserve Bank taxation (inflation is a tax) without representation. Did you elect the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank? NO! Does Congress audit the Federal Reserve Bank? NO! Is the Federal Reserve Bank the establishment of the Second Plank of the Communist manifesto? YES? Is the Income Tax the Establishment of the Second Plank of the Communist Manifesto? YES. Is Communism a religion? Professors and religious organizations around the country say that it is.

Stand up. Get a copy of the report from your Congressman/ Senator! Do it today.

And please forward a copy of what you receive to Christopher Hansen either by scanning it in and emailing it to me at Christopher@ independentameri can.org or mailing it to me at

Christopher Hansen

2657 Windmill PKY #107

Henderson, Nevada 89074

[Jerry Pitts]

What is the exact name of the report that was sent to you by the Senator?

Jerry

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

What is the exact name of the report that was sent to you by the Senator?

Jerry

Indeed, I can get it tomorrow at the federal repository.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...06869308133588

And Congress is the only authority to define 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.

Federal Reserve Notes are redeemable in lawful money. US notes are lawful money.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[theghost]

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

What is the exact name of the report that was sent to you by the Senator?

Jerry

It wasn't sent to me, this story came from Chris Hansen. Try following the link, or maybe Google it for more info. It is my understanding that anyone can write a congressman, or write directly to the congressional research department (don't think that's the real title) for information such as this, and they'll search the archives at the library of congress, and get you an answer. I don't think it's so much an official report, as it is more like an answer to a FOIA request. Although, I think you'll get faster results writing to the library of congress than waiting for a FOIA response. I did a FOIA here in Illinois once, took almost 10 months for a response. Letters to congressmen always seem to get at least some half-a#$ response pretty quickly.

[Extramural]

See this thread:

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/articl...tml#post126622

File is attached to this post.

[David Merrill]

Sadly Mary did not cite the Report clearly in the cover letter. I suspect she is referring to this Report attached though.

Extramural;


Thank you for that letter. I am keeping it close-in-mind with that Report. You are great!



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Jerry Pitts]

Yes Henry:

That is the correct pdf file pertaining to the letter from the Senator, however, upon reading the letter, it becomes apparent that the senator has stipulated that the 'definitions' were to be found on page 2 of the report, but does not give the name of the report or the report product number, either of which are required to get a copy from the office of the Congressional Reporting Services.

Also, upon closer examination of the page 2 and 3 of the pdf file you reference, at the bottom of each of those pages, is a notation showing where those two pages were already in existence within the computer system of belonging to or accessible to Chris Hansen, prior to the date of the letter from the Senator. This is not to say that there is any misrepresentation on the part of Chris, but it does show a need to have the a copy of the report in order to do away with any conceivable claims of misrepresentation.

Jerry

Originally Posted by Extramural

See this thread:

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/articl...tml#post126622

File is attached to this post.

[Extramural]

Agreed. Useless without that number.