FRN-Discharge-Taxes

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

(b) Some twit came up with the notion that a debt cannot be paid with a "debt instrument". Not true. A US Treasury Bond is undeniably a debt instrument, and I would (and almost any sensible person would) accept it for payment infinitely faster than the worthless POMCs that DiM tries to pass.

Whether or not there is any (so-called) "legal" justification for taking such a view, my own sense of logic and reason have impelled me to believe that while yes - it's true that a "debt" can be "paid" with another "debt" - the only people who engage in such chicanery (knowingly, at any rate) are (by definition) slaves.

* Gold is the currency of kings;
* Silver is the currency of gentlemen and nobility;
* Barter is the currency of a peasant;
* Debt is the currency of a slave;

The "twit" you refer to above, no doubt, mostly likely regarded himself to be a sovereign freeman.

[mrg]

"Pay" and "discharge" have different effects on debt, and exchange.

To "pay" is apparently counter to Public Policy, and likely impossible using fiat currency circulated by war financiers.

BAR agents of the foreign occupation junta use the terms interchangeably as tactical brainwashing propaganda "and for other ppurposes."

[robhalford88]

Originally Posted by psholtz

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).

It wouldn't be possible, for the frn only creates the principal and not the total amount.

[SaveUncleSam]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

(a) It is not at all clear that an FRN is, in law, a "debt instrument". The statutes describe FRNs as "legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues." 31 USC sec 5103.
At least two unpublished court decisions have rejected the tax dodge founded on the notion that FRNs are "debt instruments": Galbreath v. Dept of Revenue (Ore. Tax Magis. Div. 7/24/07), and US v. Jungles (ND IL 6/7/88) aff'd 903 F2d 468, 66 AFTR2d 5048, 90 US Tax Cases para 50289.

(b) Some twit came up with the notion that a debt cannot be paid with a "debt instrument". Not true. A US Treasury Bond is undeniably a debt instrument, and I would (and almost any sensible person would) accept it for payment infinitely faster than the worthless POMCs that DiM tries to pass.

(c) The courts have said, repeatedly, that FRNs are money - countable for the purposes of taxation - and, perhaps more important, the medium with which taxes are to be paid.

Federal Reserve NOTE -

Barron's 5th Edition Law Dictionary states:
'note' - a writing acknowledging a debt and promising payment. For the instrument to be negotiable it must be signed by the maker and contain an unconditional promise to pay a sum certain in money on demand or at a definate time to order or to bearer. A note is not payment but only a promise to pay.

So now, are you still saying that FRNs are "money"?

[Shoonra]

This was my comment on another thread:

The mere fact that the govt has titled FRNs with the word "Note" does NOT mean that they are promissory notes or other debt instruments as the UCC uses the word "note". Beery v. County of Los Angeles (1953) 116 Cal.App.2d 290, 253 P2d 1005; Hatfield v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1977) 68 Tax Ct. 895.

Courts have held that FRNs actually PAY, not merely "discharge", taxes and other debts. Rene v. Citibank (EDNY 1999) 32 F.Supp.2d 539; Nixon v. Individual Head of Saint Joseph Mortgage Co. (ND Ind 1985) 615 F.Supp 898; US v. Slater (D.Del 1982) 96 FRD 53.
-------

I will add the obvious fact: If you pay a tax debt, a fine, or a conventional mortgage or other debt with FRNs, in the stated amount and in the stated deadline, they don't come after you for the same debt any more. It's paid. On the other hand, if you try paying off in DiM's "Certified Promissory Notes" or other kinds of funny money, they will come back and frequently demand a larger amount than originally. The funny money has neither paid nor discharged your debt.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by 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.



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.

Ergo HJR-192 functions as a supersedeas bond to keep us from having to build a jail for everybody, including those of you still endorsing elastic currency from the Fed. Every single one of you endorsing private credit from the Fed is admittedly a counterfeiter.

Here is you providing the bonding:

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

And here is one of us redeeming his bond to pay for his wife's hospital bill in 1999: (attached)



Regards,

David Merrill.

[robhalford88]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I will add the obvious fact: If you pay a tax debt, a fine, or a conventional mortgage or other debt with FRNs, in the stated amount and in the stated deadline, they don't come after you for the same debt any more. It's paid. On the other hand, if you try paying off in DiM's "Certified Promissory Notes" or other kinds of funny money, they will come back and frequently demand a larger amount than originally. The funny money has neither paid nor discharged your debt.

Ok, prove it. Go on, you opened your mouth, here is your chance.

[fulltitle]

Originally Posted by psholtz

...it's true that a "debt" can be "paid" with another "debt" - the only people who engage in such chicanery (knowingly, at any rate) are (by definition) slaves.

Without Prejudice.
Interestingly enough, I believe it was a text on ancient banking in Greece or Rome that indicated that banking was primarily for slaves or former slaves.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by fulltitle

Without Prejudice.
Interestingly enough, I believe it was a text on ancient banking in Greece or Rome that indicated that banking was primarily for slaves or former slaves.

Very interesting indeed!

So Freemen are protected by the law; ergo can carry money to their destination. Only when that destination involves travel over sea or highway, where the protection of law wears thin, did the Knights Templar and Muslims develop a code/account number to designate that the gold would be good far away as well...

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...re_Islamic.wmv
PBS clip about checks



Regards,

David Merrill.

[fulltitle]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Very interesting indeed!

So Freemen are protected by the law; ergo can carry money to their destination. Only when that destination involves travel over sea or highway, where the protection of law wears thin, did the Knights Templar and Muslims develop a code/account number to designate that the gold would be good far away as well...

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...re_Islamic.wmv
PBS clip about checks



Regards,

David Merrill.

Without Prejudice.
Bingo. If you were a prince and the captain of a ship was required to carry 1 tonne of your gold across thousands of miles of seas, would you not want a pledge of some sort that the gold would get to its destination? Might that pledge be in the form of some kind of commercial, maritime or non-negotiable instrument? What framework of jurisprudence could possibly tend to support enforcement of such agreements as between captain of a ship and a king? Admiralty?