Stop endorsing the fed - redeem lawful money instead

[deadlizard]

My American friends, this video on the fed is awsome.
even though you can't redeem fed notes for gold and silver coin you can redeem them for united states notes which are reedeemable in gold and silver coin
congress stoped printing united states notes but didn't take them out of circulation. you can still deposit them in a bank in the form of a cheque
Thats how they get around the constitution and use private credit as money and also why they started minting bullion coins again

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9010856874304912516#

32 minutes, very dry but very informative and if you get paid in fed notes very liberating

[Jered Kenna (TradeHill)]

Either the guys mic is horrible or my headphones don't like it.
I'm going to give it another shot when I have it on speakers and don't have to hear the buzz right in my ears.
Sounds interesting though. Thanks for the link.

[deadlizard]

Either the guys mic is horrible or my headphones don't like it.
I'm going to give it another shot when I have it on speakers and don't have to hear the buzz right in my ears.
Sounds interesting though. Thanks for the link.

No problem I hope it helps some people. I didn't notice any buzz over my computer fans 
I'm hoping to find a similar thing in my own country. Time to hit the books I think.

[Jered Kenna (TradeHill)]

Either the guys mic is horrible or my headphones don't like it.
I'm going to give it another shot when I have it on speakers and don't have to hear the buzz right in my ears.
Sounds interesting though. Thanks for the link.

No problem I hope it helps some people. I didn't notice any buzz over my computer fans 
I'm hoping to find a similar thing in my own country. Time to hit the books I think.

Which country are you in?

[barbarousrelic]

My American friends, this video on the fed is awsome.
even though you can't redeem fed notes for gold and silver coin you can redeem them for united states notes which are reedeemable in gold and silver coin

United States Notes were never redeemable in gold or silver coin.

Gold and silver certificates were redeemable but the government canceled redemptions on the former after 1933 and the latter stopped after 1964.

[deadlizard]

I'm in Australia ... and it's well past my bedtime  

[deadlizard]

United States Notes were never redeemable in gold or silver coin.

Didn't know that. I thought gold and silver coin was the only lawful money in America...
At the very least they can't use them for fractional reserve banking. Thats a bonus right.

Gold and silver certificates were redeemable but the government canceled redemptions on the former after 1933 and the latter stopped after 1964.

I thought everything from the greenback on was still recognised as circulating currancy. or is it recognised but just not redeemable.
because US notes have not been taken out of circulation they just stoped issuing them.

[barbarousrelic]

United States Notes were never redeemable in gold or silver coin.

Didn't know that. I thought gold and silver coin was the only lawful money in America...
At the very least they can't use them for fractional reserve banking. Thats a bonus right.

Gold and silver certificates were redeemable but the government canceled redemptions on the former after 1933 and the latter stopped after 1964.

I thought everything from the greenback on was still recognised as circulating currancy. or is it recognised but just not redeemable.
because US notes have not been taken out of circulation they just stoped issuing them.

They are recognized currency, but they are not redeemable.

I don't know about any law that prevents US Notes from being used in fractional reserve banking. If there was I doubt it's enforced. I'll have to watch your video when I have time.

[deadlizard]

They are recognized currency, but they are not redeemable.

thought so

I don't know about any law that prevents US Notes from being used in fractional reserve banking. If there was I doubt it's enforced. I'll have to watch your video when I have time.

Only the treasury can issue them ergo the fed cant lend out more than they have. and I think the treasury needs the permision of congress to increass the supply (it's in the video somewhere fixed in the billions of dollars range or somthing like that)
Even if it's just another fiat currancy at least it's lawful money issued by the government (and good for the payment of debts) and not private credit (good for the discharge of debts)
"My" only recourse seems to be using Government issued coins exclusively. try carrying $50 in cupro-nickle coins on your person and see how far you get 

[barbarousrelic]

Only the treasury can issue them ergo the fed cant lend out more than they have.

Is there a law that says this?

[deadlizard]

Only the treasury can issue them ergo the fed cant lend out more than they have.

Is there a law that says this?

I belive it says in the video there is a law limiting the amount that can be issued
so in order for the treasury to inflate the supply they would have to repeal that law and also start issuing them again which would draw everybodys attention
and with the current sentiment towards the fed everyone would be out of fed notes and into US notes the next day.
Just think of them like low denomonation treasury bonds and you won't be too far from the mark.

[trentzb]

Even if it's just another fiat currancy at least it's lawful money issued by the government (and good for the payment of debts) and not private credit (good for the discharge of debts)

I may be wrong but I am not so sure US notes would suffice as payment of a debt. Tender of gold/silver certificates I am confident constitutes payment of a debt but I believe US notes and FRNs both would be a discharge.

[Jered Kenna (TradeHill)]

Even if it's just another fiat currancy at least it's lawful money issued by the government (and good for the payment of debts) and not private credit (good for the discharge of debts)

I may be wrong but I am not so sure US notes would suffice as payment of a debt. Tender of gold/silver certificates I am confident constitutes payment of a debt but I believe US notes and FRNs both would be a discharge.

To the average person and in the end isn't that almost the same thing? I understand the difference and I'm sure you do but is it almost semantics?
In the end at least from the person that owes the debit he's out of the hole. I realize the notes are debt but they have a value.

[deadlizard]

Even if it's just another fiat currancy at least it's lawful money issued by the government (and good for the payment of debts) and not private credit (good for the discharge of debts)

I may be wrong but I am not so sure US notes would suffice as payment of a debt. Tender of gold/silver certificates I am confident constitutes payment of a debt but I believe US notes and FRNs both would be a discharge.

True a note is not a bill and the issuer (of the note) owns whatever is purchased with it
But using US notes you would owe that debt to your government and not a private bank

somehow this doesn't seem as good as i first thought. still a way to say "up yours" to the fed so it's not all bad
...then you can buy bitcoins and say "screw you" to the goverment too.  

In the end at least from the person that owes the debit he's out of the hole. I realize the notes are debt but they have a value.

snuck up on me while I was posting, lol

as long as the fed owns everything purchased with their notes the debt is theirs.
which is why I think making them pay their debt by redeeming your fed notes is worthwhile.
if you bought somthing on credit then the creditors can come and take it away.
They bought your country on credit, hell they bought the whole world on credit.
I would be demanding payment or forclose on them

[Jered Kenna (TradeHill)]

Even if it's just another fiat currancy at least it's lawful money issued by the government (and good for the payment of debts) and not private credit (good for the discharge of debts)

I may be wrong but I am not so sure US notes would suffice as payment of a debt. Tender of gold/silver certificates I am confident constitutes payment of a debt but I believe US notes and FRNs both would be a discharge.

True a note is not a bill and the issuer (of the note) owns whatever is purchased with it
But using US notes you would owe that debt to your government and not a private bank

somehow this doesn't seem as good as i first thought. still a way to say "up yours" to the fed so it's not all bad
...then you can buy bitcoins and say "screw you" to the goverment too.  

In the end at least from the person that owes the debit he's out of the hole. I realize the notes are debt but they have a value.

snuck up on me while I was posting, lol

as long as the fed owns everything purchased with their notes the debt is theirs.
which is why I think making them pay their debt by redeeming your fed notes is worthwhile.
if you bought somthing on credit then the creditors can come and take it away.
They bought your country on credit, hell they bought the whole world on credit.
I would be demanding payment or forclose on them

Haha I like your thinking, go to bed though.

[trentzb]

I agree. To the average person they believe the debt to be paid and extinguished. This belief is sufficient for the majority of people I am sure, and yes it may seem to be semantics.

But if you really get down to the bottom line, it is quite a different situation. Suppose hypothetically that everyone (whomever) started calling in their notes/contracts/ious. The average person could have some serious problems. Not necessarily only because they discharged debts but because it is my understanding that those discharges do not convey pure property ownership and rights.

Am I worried that someone is going to call in my discharges and demand their toothbrush back? Not at all. I don't think it ever would happen. But when I purchase and pay for something at the store (most often discharge) I want to know that I have ultimate and supreme property rights and ownership of that item. And today it is not often at all that I have those rights.

Fortunately most of the folks on these forums and in this community are not average people which is probably what drove them to this community.

Snuck up on me while posting also...

[Jered Kenna (TradeHill)]

I agree. To the average person they believe the debt to be paid and extinguished. This belief is sufficient for the majority of people I am sure, and yes it may seem to be semantics.

But if you really get down to the bottom line, it is quite a different situation. Suppose hypothetically that everyone (whomever) started calling in their notes/contracts/ious. The average person could have some serious problems. Not necessarily only because they discharged debts but because it is my understanding that those discharges do not convey pure property ownership and rights.

Am I worried that someone is going to call in my discharges and demand their toothbrush back? Not at all. I don't think it ever would happen. But when I purchase and pay for something at the store (most often discharge) I want to know that I have ultimate and supreme property rights and ownership of that item. And today it is not often at all that I have those rights.

Fortunately most of the folks on these forums and in this community are not average people which is probably what drove them to this community.

Snuck up on me while posting also...

Pretty insightful and I agree with you 100%

Like you said it isn't going to matter until it all goes to shit. At that point I imagine that it will be moot.
When I've got some time I'll take a look at other economies that collapsed and how these "semantics" played out.
If people are starving and people are getting dragged off to be tortured and interrogated for crimes against the state then the line between pay and discharge will become less important (or more if you thought you had wealth)

[trentzb]

Yep, it is mostly moot in todays society. I just like understanding what is really happening so I can make sense of things when I hear of a judge/magistrate stating something like the Constitution is not applicable in his court. Now when I hear something like that or hear a ruling that sounds completely backwards and unfair I instead look at it from the standpoint of a simple contract enforcement and it makes much more sense. But this has strayed away from the OP topic...sorry.

[freecoin]

Wow, leave it to an Aussie bitcoiner to discover the American system of banker oppression ... carried out with Federal Reserve money.  I've been redeeming lawful money (public money) for years here in the US, and can confirm that 'deadlizard' is (mostly) correct.  US notes were discontinued but still in circulation.  Not a moot issue, trentzb, and very much on topic.  The judge says the Constitution is not applicable because he's enforcing a private agreement - you've endorsed private credit of the Federal Reserve backside of your paycheck.  You are contracting.  Make your demand for lawful money instead as written in Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act (codified at 12 USC 411) and you'll then be NON-contracting, operating outside the federal districts overlaid on the States.  If true, you realize that bitcoin operates outside their system too.  Bitcoin receipts are not income under the Revenue Acts, unless of course you consent to consider them so.  That's where the propaganda, psychology & conditioning come into play.

I haven't paid federal income taxes since 2007; no issues. Here's a company that beat the IRS using lawful money: http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?681-Company-beats-IRS-penalties-with-Lawful-Money

PS. beware.  There's a quatloser site out there that's disinfo - specifically setup by attorneys to steer you away from this.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Wow, leave it to an Aussie bitcoiner to discover the American system of banker oppression ... carried out with Federal Reserve money.  I've been redeeming lawful money (public money) for years here in the US, and can confirm that 'deadlizard' is (mostly) correct.  US notes were discontinued but still in circulation.  Not a moot issue, trentzb, and very much on topic.  The judge says the Constitution is not applicable because he's enforcing a private agreement - you've endorsed private credit of the Federal Reserve backside of your paycheck.  You are contracting.  Make your demand for lawful money instead as written in Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act (codified at 12 USC 411) and you'll then be NON-contracting, operating outside the federal districts overlaid on the States.  If true, you realize that bitcoin operates outside their system too.  Bitcoin receipts are not income under the Revenue Acts, unless of course you consent to consider them so.  That's where the propaganda, psychology & conditioning come into play.

I haven't paid federal income taxes since 2007; no issues. Here's a company that beat the IRS using lawful money: http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?681-Company-beats-IRS-penalties-with-Lawful-Money

PS. beware.  There's a quatloser site out there that's disinfo - specifically setup by attorneys to steer you away from this.

So you are saying that the introduction of the Federal Reserve Notes is what enabled the Federal government to apply Federal Income Taxes?

It seems more than a coincident that both arrived around the same time.

Edit : here's the Fed. Res. view on it ... http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_15197.htm

Edit : and here's how the de-linking "legal tender" from "lawful money" was done, over the years. http://www.the-privateer.com/paper.html
 For judges to dismiss challenges to such treasonous banking acts as "frivilous" is a disgusting crime against society, complicit in the looting.