FRN-Discharge-Taxes

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by 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.

That would be fairly recent intelligence too.

With so many people using the verbiage suggested, the banks are having some real problems with people redeeming lawful money.

Non-negotiable FRNs are the opposite of Non-redeemable FRNs. Non-redeemable FRNs are just plain FRNs - private credit from the Fed. Whereas non-negotiable FRNs are US notes in the form of FRN

The bank attorneys know this well as proven with one suitor who got a rubber paycheck. They had to return the instrument to him but tore off the non-endorsement verbiage first.

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

Slide to Minute Mark 29:30 for details why the bank has problems with people redeeming lawful money.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[dorkenbutt]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

That would be fairly recent intelligence too.

With so many people using the verbiage suggested, the banks are having some real problems with people redeeming lawful money.

Non-negotiable FRNs are the opposite of Non-redeemable FRNs. Non-redeemable FRNs are just plain FRNs - private credit from the Fed. Whereas non-negotiable FRNs are US notes in the form of FRN

The bank attorneys know this well as proven with one suitor who got a rubber paycheck. They had to return the instrument to him but tore off the non-endorsement verbiage first.

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

Slide to Minute Mark 29:30 for details why the bank has problems with people redeeming lawful money.


Regards,

David Merrill.

I know why banks do not like the endorsement. What does not make sense is FRNs are negotiated every day. There is no such thing as non-negotiable FRNs. I will watch what you are speaking of and get back to you. Thank you.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by dorkenbutt

I know why banks do not like the endorsement. What does not make sense is FRNs are negotiated every day. There is no such thing as non-negotiable FRNs. I will watch what you are speaking of and get back to you. Thank you.

The answer to your query was provided by Shoonra sometime back and is derived from the strict legal definition of negotiable. In other words the only thing that makes the Fed an instrumentality of the US instead of a completely independent cartel of international (central) bankers is that we all are able to hold certificates of stock - Federal Reserve Bank Notes (now FRNs since 1945). That is not the criteria if you look closely though. What makes the Fed an instrumentality is nobody owns the stock for gain or profit. Think about that; fractional lending means that the FRNs in your pocket today are going to be worth less when you trade them for any lawful substance tomorrow. FRNs go down in value.

The definition of negotiable is that the currency can be traded up. Of course! You better get some chicken and have a good meal today because tomorrow you will not reasonably expect to be able to buy more chicken with the same amount of Fed stock. The FRNs are negotiable because you can get a higher form of currency? Yes, you can get wealth. Energy. From the chicken - I am not going to suggest you try eating FRNs here.

However negotiable in banking terms is not dealing in non-currency like chickens. What non-negotiable means is the highest currency available. US notes are lawful money. FRNs are redeemable in US notes/lawful money. That law is on the books and is fully supported by the Supreme Court.

The verbiage is just to make cashing your checks go smoother. Suitors put "Redeemed in lawful money pursuant to Title 12 U.S.C. §411 on the Withdrawal Slip for the $350 filing fee in US court and we slip a copy of that slip into the case. Same thing.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[dorkenbutt]

Thank you David, I watched and listened and have a better understanding, but there is no difference in non-redeemable v. non-negotiable you cannot redeem the FRNs for any higher currency. So why is it that non-negotiable is better. I don't see it. Can you explain further?

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by dorkenbutt

Thank you David, I watched and listened and have a better understanding, but there is no difference in non-redeemable v. non-negotiable you cannot redeem the FRNs for any higher currency. So why is it that non-negotiable is better. I don't see it. Can you explain further?

Yes. I tried to keep the video short and it was really just a Sunday afternoon thing. I put the explanation about the currency just as we go into the droning 1984 article. Minute Mark 7:30.

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq...al-tender.html

The last paragraph reads:

United States notes serve no function that is not already adequately served by Federal Reserve notes. As a result, the Treasury Department stopped issuing United States notes, and none have been placed into circulation since January 21, 1971.

No US notes have been placed into circulation since 1971 because they have been replaced by Federal Reserve Notes. Appreciate that the article the video is about was written in 1984 when apparently, the author, if he researched was still able to get US notes physically from the Fed bank. I just got one a while back - a $2 US note for $12 but I could demand $2 worth of chicken with it. They were not pulled out of circulation or the obligations of the US in any way cancelled out.

So one has to accept that there is no remedy available anymore - remedy to the elastic currency of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. Title 12 U.S.C. §411 was enacted on the same day because there had to be remedy. That law is still on the books so one can still redeem lawful money. Note this 1970's case:

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ney_case_1.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ney_case_2.jpg

and this original case justifying US notes will remain issued and in circulation for the duration of the emergency...

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ll_juliard.jpg

There has never been any legislation taking the US notes out of circulation. Just a decree by the Fed based on the fact that FRNs will function just as well.

So if there is no remedy by redeeming US notes in their new form FRNs, then when did they take the remedy away? The remedy is still there in full force and effect! It is on the books, so to speak. If the Fed or anybody else is depriving Americans of remedy, they better be wary of people who can read.

Like in that case, there were a slew of patriots confusing lawful money with gold and silver coin. However that went asunder in 1861. So they would walk in with FRNs which they had already endorsed with private credit and walk out with US notes in the form of FRNs - confused as ever. You need to redeem the US notes in the form of FRNs in the first transaction if you want the benefits of redeeming lawful money.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[DCLXVI]

David.

You have yet to address the question of this thread. Please do so or kindly quit posting on it.

Your posts are curious and insightful, however belong elsewhere.

: )

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by DCLXVI

If a debt is merely discharged but not paid when FRN are used, then cannot one just claim the original debt as unpaid and file it as a loss on their tax return?

I thought this was the topic?

[David Merrill]

Maybe after a few hours it might sink in.

You said:

Thank you David, I watched and listened and have a better understanding, but there is no difference in non-redeemable v. non-negotiable you cannot redeem the FRNs for any higher currency.

People are doing it in droves. Judge Roy Bean even wrote an article on his blog to discourage members here from non-endorsement and redemption of lawful money. What you are saying, as logic and math dictates is that remedy is on the books but cannot be applied in court.

Relating Title 12 U.S.C. §411 directly to your opening thread may get things going again. See the attached image.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[dorkenbutt]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

You said:

I am the one that said the above. I just am having trouble with redeemable and non-negotiable. When you go into the fed. res. bank to redeem FRNs for lawful money all that happens is you get back FRNs. How is that redeeming lawful money? I know there is a difference or the statute would not read the way it does.

Although the statute (12 USC 411) states FRNs are redeemable in lawful money, that is not what you get when you go to redeem, so FRNs are non-redeemable. Is there any proof that FRNs are redeemable and have been redeemed?

I contend the wording on the endorsement should state non-redeemable, because what is stated is that FRNs have no value, as they are evidence of debt. The statute says you can exchange (redeem) them for lawful money, but since all you get back are FRNs they have not been redeemed at all and therefore worthless pieces of paper. If worthless obligations there can be no tax. This is much clearer to me than using the term non-negotiable.

Using the blanket term that FRNs are not negotiable, IMO, is incorrect. FRNs are negotiable instruments. I know what you are saying. I am just having a hard time with what you are saying.

[Shoonra]

12 USC 411 was first enacted in 1913, with the creation of the Federal Reserve System and was amended in 1934 to delete a reference to redemption in gold and last amended in 1935 to reflect a name change in the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. So the section hasn't been updated since 1935, when the US was still on the silver standard.

Until the US went off the silver standard in the mid-1960s, paper money -- including FRNs and Silver Certificates -- could be redeemed in silver coins. After the silver standard was abolished and silver certificates and silver coins ceased to be issued, paper money could be redeemed either in other paper money or in the (non-precious metal) coins.

The only other form of paper money, besides the FRNs, after silver certificates ceased, was United States Notes, which were printed in a very limited quantity pursuant to a Civil War era law. They looked very much like FRNs, but had the title "United States Note" and the seal and serial number in red ink. About the same time that we went off the silver standard, it was decised that United States Notes were merely redundant and so the govt stopped issuing them in January 1971. They are now collectors' items.

In terms of sec 411, since FRNs are now legal tender and there is no other current paper money and no precious metal coinage, the "lawful money" contemplated by sec 411 is whatever constitutes legal tender. It appears that the end of the silver standard erased whatever distinction existed between legal tender and lawful money. This boils down to "redeeming" FRNs with other FRNs or with current coins.

Several court decisions have explicitly held that FRNs are "lawful money", besides being legal tender, and that payment in FRNs is regarded as a gain, not a loss, and is a taxable event. E.g., Provenza v. Comptroller of the Treasury (1985) 64 Md.App 563, 497 A2d 831; People v. Ray (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1718, 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 612; Herald v. State (1984) 107 Ida 640, 691 P2d 1255; et al.

There is another statutory reference to "lawful money" which also predates the end of the silver standard, and my guess is that this hasn't created enough of a problem for Congress to fine tune the statutes.

Legal tender is always considered non-negotiable simply because it is the stuff for which other things are negotiated. This does not indicate any weakness in legal tender, rather it shows that legal tender is the ultimate goal of negotiation.