FRN-Discharge-Taxes

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by dorkenbutt

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.

Think back to when you heard:

Originally Posted by dorkenbutt

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

I am gathering this would have been in context to the non-endorsement verbiage we are talking about? Therefore you can tell us about why an attorney would be teling you this.

It is probably good intel meaning I believe you were told this. One suitor contacted me because he had been called into the bank under false pretenses about his wife's account. He got to the meeting to find that if he did not change his Signature Card back he would have to close down the account. He grabbed a copy of the law at Title 12 from my clerk while he was in town, went back to his bank with it and they allowed him to change the Signature Card back to a general non-endorsement.

Originally Posted by dorkenbutt

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?

The proof is that when a suitor writes the non-endorsement or better yet "Redeemed in lawful money pursuant to Title 12 U.S.C. §411" above his true signature on a Withdrawal Slip, he gets cash in Federal Reserve Notes. These are therefore lawful money and non-taxable because they are not private credit. FRNs double as US notes since 1971 according to the Treasury.

Originally Posted by dorkenbutt

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.

The obligations of Gary Rickman have value. That is what the chattel backing FRNs is; therefore the Supreme Court held that his bonding himself for the elastic currency made the FRNs lawful money (for all intents and purposes). The objective is to make the FRNs entirely obligations of the US and prevent fractional lending on your bond as chattel. If you endorse private credit you pledge yourself for that 10% or so and that is enough to obligate you to perform for the Tax Code.

Originally Posted by dorkenbutt

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.

According to the Supreme Court only US notes are lawful money. FRNs are redeemable in lawful money and if you bond them like Gary Rickman did, then for all intents and purposes FRNs are lawful money. In other words Rickman endorsed his FRNs by signing the back of his paycheck.

There is probably better verbiage but the intent in good faith is all that is needed to get the right to redeem lawful money.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

In hindsight I could have nipped a lot of the communication problems in the bud by simply pointing out that no Supreme Court case defines lawful money:

and

Before the quote I grabbed the Supreme Court already defines that power to be left to Congress. The two court cases actually quote Congress, not the Supreme Court.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[andrewmitch]

OK, I think we know that FRN are LEGAL. But are they lawful? And what does the phrase "redemable in lawful money" mean? That we can exchange the legal but unlawful FRN for a lawful money? My understanding is if you took your FRN's into a Bank or Federal Reserve Main Branch and told them you wanted lawful money or gold or silver they would laugh at you.

[Shoonra]

The Stanek decision, quoted midway through this thread, on the difference between payment and discharge, dealt with a discharge of debts via bankruptcy, in which the creditor gets (nearly) nothing but cannot enforce the debt. Being discharged this way was held not to be the legal or moral equivalent of having paid all of one's debts.

The Stanek decision did not touch on the nature of different forms of legal tender.

You will not find a case since the elimination of the silver standard in which a court held that FRNs discharged - but do not "pay" - a debt.

In tax cases and the like, "discharging" and "paying" have been used interchangeably.

[robhalford88]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The Stanek decision, quoted midway through this thread, on the difference between payment and discharge, dealt with a discharge of debts via bankruptcy, in which the creditor gets (nearly) nothing but cannot enforce the debt. Being discharged this way was held not to be the legal or moral equivalent of having paid all of one's debts.

The Stanek decision did not touch on the nature of different forms of legal tender.

You will not find a case since the elimination of the silver standard in which a court held that FRNs discharged - but do not "pay" - a debt.

In tax cases and the like, "discharging" and "paying" have been used interchangeably.

We aren't that stupid Shoonra. You should try harder. As if EVERYTHING has been decided by a court. You KNOW they would not give a decision on this anyway.
There are more of us watching your sleight of hand tricks than is needed to make sure you don't trick any of the newcomers.

[Shoonra]

You'd better hope for a court decision. Because, if you refuse to pay your debts or your taxes with legal tender then you are gonna end up in court.

[robhalford88]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

You'd better hope for a court decision. Because, if you refuse to pay your debts or your taxes with legal tender then you are gonna end up in court.

So YOU say. As I said to you before, anyone would think that you don't know about settling controversies outside of the court.
I don't believe for a second that you don't know, you just don't want others to know.

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

You'd better hope for a court decision. Because, if you refuse to pay your debts or your taxes with legal tender then you are gonna end up in court.

So what you're saying is that it's high time that we drag the USG itself into court and hold it acconutable for its criminal actions? After all, the USG has run up collossal debts and I don't see how in the world its ever going to be able to pay those debts in legal tender (i.e., gold and silver).

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by andrewmitch

OK, I think we know that FRN are LEGAL. But are they lawful? And what does the phrase "redemable in lawful money" mean? That we can exchange the legal but unlawful FRN for a lawful money? My understanding is if you took your FRN's into a Bank or Federal Reserve Main Branch and told them you wanted lawful money or gold or silver they would laugh at you.

The primary understanding that opens the floodgates may be that the Federal Reserve Act was written to provide elastic currency to banks. §16 of the Act was and is still codified at Title 12 U.S.C. §411. That is where you find if you are holding stock in the Fed, Federal Reserve (Bank)* Notes, you may redeem them on demand in lawful money - in US notes.

The only distinction about the private banking cartel - the Federal Reserve - that keeps it an instrumentality of the US Government is that the stock certificates (FRNs) are understood to depreciate in value (over time); due to fractional lending practices. Therefore there must be some other upside to endorsing private credit from the Fed?

You betcha! You are presumed to be getting the benefit of fractional lending like any other bankers around. The IRS collecting the Return of Income for the benefit of private credit does not come ask you where is your building? - Your tellers? Where is the DriveThru? It is simply presumed that you endorsed the private credit because you knew already. The only upside to elastic currency is to fractional lend your stock out as another bank.


Regards,

David Merrill.


* Technically FRBNs were retired in 1945 and FRNs serve as stock certificates in the Fed since then.

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

[fulltitle]

Without Prejudice.
If the FRN can double as a United States Note then it woud appear that redemption of an FRN would at least result in specific accounting entries on the US Treasury and at the FRB. Based on some analysis, one could perhaps say that a redeemed FRN isnt necessarily a U.S. Note, but is instead a redeemed FRN' but for all practical purposes its a United States Note because of the accounting entries. Despite all the hype, folks seem to overlook the notion that everything the FRB has came from the United States Treasury rather than the notion of everything the US has coming from the FRB.

Also, to clear up something: the word 'pay' is in various dictionaries held to be synonymous with 'discharge'. I hope this positively clears up the various internet babblings about pay/discharge/appease/satisfy.

pay (v.)
c.1200, "to appease, pacify, satisfy," from O.Fr. paiier (12c.), from L. pacare "to please, pacify, satisfy" (especially a creditor), from pax (gen. pacis) "peace." Meaning "to give what is due for goods or services" arose in M.L., was attested in Eng. by c.1225; sense of "please, pacify" died out in Eng. by 1500. Sense of "suffer, endure" (a punishment, etc.) is first recorded 1387. Payday first attested 1529. Payphone first attested 1936.

Webster, 1913


American Heritage Dictionary (what thefreedictionary.com may be based on)

Wordsmyth (shows it as a synonym)

Also re: "Debt money" or "Debt instrument". It has been alluded to in another thread (through a link discussing bills of exchange) that BoEs primarily in international trade were used to cancel debts.

Consider the following:

Country A owes Country B $100M
Country B owes Country C $100M
Country C owes Country A $100M

Country C owing Country A $100M with Country A owing Country B $100M means in some frameworks of thought that Country C effectively owes Country B $100M. Clearly Country B owes Country C $100M. Therefore the mutual debts can be offset and therefore zeroed out. In otherwords, debt instruments can be used for cancel out or set off other debt instruments.

While there might be something worth looking into regarding "debt money" or "negative money" vs "positive money" or diverse metaphysical constructs pertaining to money, clearly debt instruments can be used to cancel one another out.