FRN-Discharge-Taxes

[DCLXVI]

Originally Posted by dorkenbutt

One of the meanings of "make" is "cause to be." The fact is "make" does not mean create. Remember, there is already a prohibition against coining money, so make cannot mean create. Therefore this is referring to acceptance.

Nope. He who tenders makes the object money. He who accepts the money has merely agreed to accept what the offerer has put forth.

If you write up a promissory note and mail it to me, did I just "make" the note money? I don't think so. Did you make it money and tender it? I think so.

[dorkenbutt]

Originally Posted by DCLXVI

Nope. He who tenders makes the object money. He who accepts the money has merely agreed to accept what the offerer has put forth.

If you write up a promissory note and mail it to me, did I just "make" the note money? I don't think so. Did you make it money and tender it? I think so.

There must be agreement duffus! Just because I tender something does not make it money. It must be in conformity to law. FRNs are not money and I must agree that they are . The statutes are clear that FRNs are obligations.

Like I said previously, you can't argue with ignorance.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by dorkenbutt

FRNs are not money and I must agree that they are . The statutes are clear that FRNs are obligations.

Please cite the statutes that make clear that FRNs are obligations.

[dorkenbutt]

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > § 8

§ 8. Obligation or other security of the United States defined

The term “obligation or other security of the United States” includes all bonds, certificates of indebtedness, national bank currency, Federal Reserve notes, Federal Reserve bank notes, coupons, United States notes, Treasury notes, gold certificates, silver certificates, fractional notes, certificates of deposit, bills, checks, or drafts for money, drawn by or upon authorized officers of the United States, stamps and other representatives of value, of whatever denomination, issued under any Act of Congress, and canceled United States stamps. (Emphasis added)

TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 3 > SUBCHAPTER XII > § 411

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


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. (Emphasis added)

This ends my participation in this thread. I have shown what needed to be shown. Since you cannot argue with ignorance, I am done.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by dorkenbutt

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > § 8

§ 8. Obligation or other security of the United States defined

The term “obligation or other security of the United States” includes all bonds, certificates of indebtedness, national bank currency, Federal Reserve notes, Federal Reserve bank notes, coupons, United States notes, Treasury notes, gold certificates, silver certificates, fractional notes, certificates of deposit, bills, checks, or drafts for money, drawn by or upon authorized officers of the United States, stamps and other representatives of value, of whatever denomination, issued under any Act of Congress, and canceled United States stamps. (Emphasis added)

TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 3 > SUBCHAPTER XII > § 411

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


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. (Emphasis added)

This ends my participation in this thread. I have shown what needed to be shown. Since you cannot argue with ignorance, I am done.

Touche' Dorkenbutt;

Albeit you stir up a little homophobia with that handle.

Here is the issue that Shoonra will avoid - the definition of 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.

The reason she avoids it is because it gets to the heart of the obligations. Who is obligated? You or the US? Notes are notes and they are clearly defined in both the US Code and according to AmJur at that. No problem there.

Here is where the slight of hand is played. Federal Reserve Bank Notes are obviously stock certificates for the Fed. As with the remedy for elastic currency in full force and effect today. Read it attached and see that is for shareholders - what we call banks. Now look carefully and see that Federal Reserve Bank Notes were retired in 1945.

http://www.friesian.com/notes.htm

Federal Reserve Bank Notes,
National Currency

Identical to National Banks Notes in form and function but issued by Federal Reserve Banks, these notes were retired in 1945.

The stock certificates we carry today called Federal Reserve Notes are still the stock certificates and if you have any in your pocket, you are a banker vested in the Fed. That is what the endorsement is all about on the backside of your paycheck. Endorsement of private credit - making you the bond - therefore the obligation is removed from the US because you are not dealing in lawful money - you are dealing in Fed credit.

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ublicMoney.wmv
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...06869308133588



Regards,

David Merrill.

[DCLXVI]

So as I was asking which no one seems to even attempted to answer,

If a FRN is an obligation then why is not listed as a loss on a tax return. Should it not count as a loss. And is not possession of the note the proof that debt was discharged and the loss is still on the books?

After the loss is declared then the note has simply allowed for you to redeem the debtor’s debt as a tax write off. Then you have been paid once you claim the write off. You get paid when the FRB redeems their note. Now you have income because you also can discharge your debts with the notes.

So it seems to me that “income” only happens when the acceptance of notes is used as a tax write off.

[dorkenbutt]

Originally Posted by DCLXVI

So as I was asking which no one seems to even attempted to answer,

If a FRN is an obligation then why is not listed as a loss on a tax return. Should it not count as a loss. And is not possession of the note the proof that debt was discharged and the loss is still on the books?

After the loss is declared then the note has simply allowed for you to redeem the debtor’s debt as a tax write off. Then you have been paid once you claim the write off. You get paid when the FRB redeems their note. Now you have income because you also can discharge your debts with the notes.

So it seems to me that “income” only happens when the acceptance of notes is used as a tax write off.

I understand what you are saying, but it won't work the real world for political reasons. If you were allowed to do this the cat would be out of the bag. There are better ways to skin this cat. If you want to PM me I will tell you how to contact me and I can share with you.

David thanks for the complement regarding my handle. I really got as laugh out of it.

[DCLXVI]

Originally Posted by dorkenbutt

I understand what you are saying, but it won't work the real world for political reasons.

I guess what I am describing is double entry bookkeeping. I do not know though do appreciate any help.

: )

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by DCLXVI

I guess what I am describing is double entry bookkeeping. I do not know though do appreciate any help.

: )

And it really does work in the real world, according to many. However what I want to see is just one Treasury Check for the amount on a redeemed letter of credit. When I see that I will be convinced.

The obligation is called credit and cannot be taxed any more than credit can. I think that is why you keep asking if it is tax deductible. And that is why you keep missing the point in my opinion. Credit (obligations of the US) are not taxable. That is why they call it public money.

DEPOSITED FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUNT OR REDEEMED IN NON-NEGOTIABLE FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES OF EQUAL VALUE

While it is in credit form it is not taxable. That is what that clause is about.

When filing a Libel in Review against an IRS agent one simply writes "Redeemed in lawful money pursuant to Title 12 U.S.C. §411" above the signature:

True Name dba First Middle Last

On the withdrawal slip for the $350 filing fee with the bank and then puts a copy of that withdrawal slip into the case by attachment.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[dorkenbutt]

IMHO this is incorrect. There is no such thing as non-negotiable FRNs, but there are non-redeemable FRNs (see above post re Title 12 USC 411).

Instead of: "DEPOSITED FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUNT OR REDEEMED IN NON-NEGOTIABLE FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES OF EQUAL VALUE"

The correct endorsement is: "Deposited for credit on account or exchanged for non-redeemable federal notes."

I have been told that attorneys have told banks to close accounts with the wording "NON-NEGOTIABLE" in the endorsement.