redeem lawful money

[David Merrill]

Do not be fooled about precious metals. The current definition for lawful money by Congress is expressed by the Supreme Court:

In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money.

and

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.

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_public_money_case_1.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_public_money_case_2.jpg


The courts recognize the entitlement to redeem lawful money pursuant to the remedy enacted with the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 - Title 12 U.S.C. §411:

http://goldismoney.info/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=26637&d=1176137303

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00000411----000-.html

and amended in 1934 to accomodate the 1933 gold seizure:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00000411----000-notes.html

They (Federal Reserve Notes) shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...

If you continue endorsing private credit from the Federal Reserve you rob Ron Paul of a constituency supporting his bills to abolish the Fed. Think about it. Give him all the lip service you want but if you are signing the backside of your paychecks in support of the Fed, what stands in law? Your lip service or your signature?

Look at Ron Paul's bills:

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c108query.html
Search for "HR 2778"

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c110query.html
Search for "HR 2755"

And if you look closely you will see these attempts to abolish the Fed, without your support (non-endorsement of private credit = redemption of the national debt) they flop by the following day.

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_PublicMoney.wmv
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1054706869308133588



Regards,

David Merrill.

 

[Jennifer Reynolds]

///

 

[David Merrill]

What are you suggesting? You don't want me to redeem my paycheck? Last time I looked RP's campaign was happy to receive Federal Reserve Notes.

I am not sure what you think people should do.

Thanks for asking. Remedy is still in full force and effect. The Article in my video was written in 1984 so it still implies US notes and coins, which may have been around. However, these days, I just bought a $2 US note for $12. It is still honored for the $2 and when if ever it hits a bank it will be destroyed as old bills are.

What that means really is that US notes are still around, just in the form of Federal Reserve Notes. The difference is whether or not you endorse your paycheck. The verbiage suggested is non-endorsement. Non-redeemable FRNs are US notes because they are lawful money - US notes, even in the form of FRNs. It is a little bit difficult to fathom but you have to comprehend that nobody is going to force you to take your remedy in law. I am likely the only one you will meet even suggesting you take your remedy in law.

This suitor:

"...the United States, ... within their respective districts, as well as upon the high seas; (a) saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land,..." The First Judiciary Act; September 24, 1789; Chapter 20, page 77. The Constitution of the United States of America, Revised and Annotated - Analysis and Interpretation - 1982; Article III, §2, Cl. 1 Diversity of Citizenship, U.S. Government Printing Office document 99-16, p. 741.

This suitor got two years back just for beginning to demand remedy. That is to say, "If I had in good faith known I could have been demanding lawful money instead of private credit, I would have done that from my very first paycheck ever." And he is a state employee.

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_affidavit_of_public_money.jpg

I suggest you get a published copy of the law from my clerk at (719) 520-6200 by Reception # on its face:

http://goldismoney.info/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=26637&d=1176137303

Show that to reluctant bank tellers etc.


Regards,

David Merrill.

 

[David Merrill]

Saw the video...

SeekLiberty watched the video linked from my signature and asked:

How do I convert private federal reserve notes to public money?

Many patriots have tried that. And they walk away with FRNs again not realizing that the simplicity of having the remedy in full force and effect means that if you endorse your paycheck, you get FRNs. If you non-endorse your paycheck you get US notes in the form of FRNs.

By walking into the bank admitting you are carrying FRNs by trying to redeem them in lawful money US notes, you admit to the tax burden of the private credit in your hand!

What do I get instead of federal reserve notes?

In 1971 the Treasury decided that FRNs function well for US notes so they quit putting any more US notes into circulation. However my $2 US notes ($12 at a coin shop) is still good for $2 worth of merchandise anywhere. Whether or not you are carrying FRNs is up to you. You can still get remedy - lawful money - the difference is whether you bond the currency yourself or make the US obliged to bond it.

Also, when I cash a check that's drawn on a federal reserve bank that's from, say, MoneyTree, am I taking private credit from them in the form of federal reserve notes thus I'm contractually binding myself into this private system by excepting those federal reserve notes from MoneyTree?

I doubt MoneyTree has any public money to give me. Do I just go to a federal reserve bank and exchange the federal reserve notes for public money there?

Like I said above. You must get public money/lawful money in the first instance. Forget about trading FRNs for it because that means if you got the FRNs honestly you endorsed private credit from the Fed to get them in your hand.

One instance is where a suitor cashed a rubber paycheck at his own bank. It was a rubber paycheck and when his bank gave the instrument back, they had torn the non-endorsement verbiage off the end! They had fractionalized on the funds anyway and had to cover that up - without the man's bond, that is counterfeiting.

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/attac...o-non-endorsement-stamp-torn.jpg?d=1164383731


Regards,

David Merrill.

 

[Horatio Negersky]

OK Well in that case:

---Mr. Merrill,

In re: the US Notes being instead re-issued as "lawful Fed Notes"

Do you have access to an overarching code-section/case reference as you have with other items above that lawfully enacts the subrogation of the USN's to Federal Reserve Notes?

Who controls issuance of these USNs and who prints them, at what interest rate are these items printed versus FRNs?

If there is no "grandfather"/overarching clause to this _assignment_ for notes of debt, then are the assignments conducted on a serial # basis much like the serial #s appear on a Federal Reserve Note whereupon the signatory would appear? If so, whose signatory appears on a US Note?

If not, are any assignments at all conducted any level?

If no assignments of these note transactions were to occur and through accounting no particular serial # on any one US Note could be matched to any one or any group of Federal Reserve Note serial #s through a ledger entry or otherwise signed agreement to transfer, would that not create a massive series of fraudulent transactions?

In the instance of group reassignment, wherein is it lawful to deplete the value of a dollar from its original to the now roughly 4% face value we experience today?


And for Ron's Campaign platform clarification purposes:
Explain how this can still be enabled to circumvent the inflation tax which you have not yet disputed in any posts above as a standing system of monetary value depletion unit by unit?

Hopefully you can either enlighten me or we'll find a loophole somewhere..
-
Negersky

 

[SeekLiberty]

SeekLiberty watched the video linked from my signature and asked:

Many patriots have tried that. And they walk away with FRNs again not realizing that the simplicity of having the remedy in full force and effect means that if you endorse your paycheck, you get FRNs. If you non-endorse your paycheck you get US notes in the form of FRNs.

By walking into the bank admitting you are carrying FRNs by trying to redeem them in lawful money US notes, you admit to the tax burden of the private credit in your hand!

In 1971 the Treasury decided that FRNs function well for US notes so they quit putting any more US notes into circulation. However my $2 US notes ($12 at a coin shop) is still good for $2 worth of merchandise anywhere. Whether or not you are carrying FRNs is up to you. You can still get remedy - lawful money - the difference is whether you bond the currency yourself or make the US obliged to bond it.

Like I said above. You must get public money/lawful money in the first instance. Forget about trading FRNs for it because that means if you got the FRNs honestly you endorsed private credit from the Fed to get them in your hand.

One instance is where a suitor cashed a rubber paycheck at his own bank. It was a rubber paycheck and when his bank gave the instrument back, they had torn the non-endorsement verbiage off the end! They had fractionalized on the funds anyway and had to cover that up - without the man's bond, that is counterfeiting.

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/attac...o-non-endorsement-stamp-torn.jpg?d=1164383731

Regards,

David Merrill.

Thank you very much for your reply.

Maybe if I explain my situation more it will be easier.

I don't get a paycheck. I get a commission check each month in my business.

I refuse to use regular banks as I don't want to support them. So I use MoneyTree to cash my checks.

If I don't endorse my check on the back, they will not cash it.

So what do I do, write, or say so they'll cash my checks?

- SL

 

[Horatio Negersky]

Oh, And:

How does the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation fit into this equation?

Does this mean that in acceptance of a privately insured debt note through transaction with your bank you are a proxy member of FDIC?

In said case, would I be likely to receive a mild shitstorm from my local Bank of America branch office when attempting to redeem lawful monies because they are covered by FDIC and, more importantly, ONLY covered by FDIC - who would then be a private insurer? .. [note their name is Federal Deposit Insurance _Corporation_]

-
Negersky

 

[David Merrill]

Thank you very much for your reply.

Maybe if I explain my situation more it will be easier.

I don't get a paycheck. I get a commission check each month in my business.

I refuse to use regular banks as I don't want to support them. So I use MoneyTree to cash my checks.

If I don't endorse my check on the back, they will not cash it.

So what do I do, write, or say so they'll cash my checks?

- SL

The verbiage is on the image and in the video. That is much more complicated than "Redeemed in lawful money - Title 12 U.S.C. §411" because it works just the same and the bank tellers are usually okay with it.

How does the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation fit into this equation?

Does this mean that in acceptance of a privately insured debt note through transaction with your bank you are a proxy member of FDIC?

In said case, would I be likely to receive a mild shitstorm from my local Bank of America branch office when attempting to redeem lawful monies because they are covered by FDIC and, more importantly, ONLY covered by FDIC - who would then be a private insurer? .. [note their name is Federal Deposit Insurance _Corporation_]

-
Negersky

I love it! A proxy member of FDIC?? Sounds crazy but that is exactly right!

More accurately FRNs are now the stock certificates for the Federal Reserve and they are the evidence you are a shareholder in that private corporation. That used to be Federal Reserve Bank Notes but those 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.

So FRNs - Federal Reserve notes became the stock certificates for the Fed since then and get this; the only requirement for you to be a bank is that you own stock in the Fed. You can loan out your FRNs to your buddy, right? And you can even make him pay you back interest on the loan, right?

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_public_money_case_1.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_public_money_case_2.jpg

But first note what this Court says in 1974 about Federal Reserve Bank notes - long after the FRBNs have been retired and replaced by FRNs!

...holder of $50 Federal Reserve Bank Note, while entitled to redeem his note, was not entitled to do so in precious metal...

If you could legally make more stock than in your wallet, you could even fractionalize - lend out more notes than you have - in theory. So suppose you had insurance to keep your pals from all "running" you, the bank... to cover all obligations in full. [Albeit this only applies for true money where all the noteholders redeem their substance; not applicable with notes on notes.] Well you would have to bond the extra notes for one thing. So you get your friends to sign their substance "endorsement" for bonding that extra 10% you fractionalize and the other thing - that insurance company in case you got robbed or lost cash - that is FDIC.

The Fed is not an agency of the US, being a private bank, according to the Supreme Court. However it is an instrumentality of the US because the US formed the Federal Reserve and allows it to operate here, albeit central banks are international by nature. According to the Supreme Court the only thing that makes the Fed an instrumentality of the US instead of a private banking corporation is - - get this; the stock certificates of the Fed are never purchased with the intent of gain or profit. Remember that the FRNs in your pocket are the stock certificates? Imagine anybody storing FRNs in their mattress hoping that they will be worth more in at some future date? Pretty stupid huh?

Why can we count on FRNs being worth less tomorrow? Because we can count on banks fractionally lending upon our endorsement. If the bankers fractionalize on a non-endorsement they are counterfeiting money without a bond. The obligations of the US will only cover the amount of the check.


Regards,

David Merrill.

 

[Horatio Negersky]

I love it! A proxy member of FDIC?? Sounds crazy but that is exactly right!

More accurately FRNs are now the stock certificates for the Federal Reserve and they are the evidence you are a shareholder in that private corporation. That used to be Federal Reserve Bank Notes but those were retired in 1945...

Regards,

David Merrill.

Okay so what about that whole bevy of other questions I left above?

It's nice to confirm a hunch but I'm much more interested in where all of this debt and collateral reassignment occurs because while your points make sense they have not yet touched ground with what I know about commercial overlaying of the personal monetary system.

As far as I can tell most of this blowback and subsequent windfall for others in certain positions is not consensual in any capacity and I'd like to see where this is actually lawful to convert.

Thanks
-
Negersky

 

[David Merrill]

Okay so what about that whole bevy of other questions I left above?

It's nice to confirm a hunch but I'm much more interested in where all of this debt and collateral reassignment occurs because while your points make sense they have not yet touched ground with what I know about commercial overlaying of the personal monetary system.

As far as I can tell most of this blowback and subsequent windfall for others in certain positions is not consensual in any capacity and I'd like to see where this is actually lawful to convert.

Thanks
-
Negersky

The paradigm shift I explained is that you are a banker. You are the certificate holder - with FRNs in your pocket. The process of redeeming lawful money has to happen just prior to your acquiring the currency - the US notes in the form of FRNs. If you endorse private credit to acquire the notes - they are FRNs and fractionalized:

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_Story_of_Money.zip

If you non-endorse the private credit then you acquire by law, redemption in lawful money - US notes and since they are in the form of FRNs, if that bank decides to fractionalize the funds, which they almost certainly do, it does not matter because you are the shareholder in the Fed. The evidence here is the rubber paycheck that came back to the suitor:

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/attac...o-non-endorsement-stamp-torn.jpg?d=1164383731

The bank attorneys were hiding they had not treated the non-endorsement any differently than all the endorsements they routinely handle.

Otherwise, just because at first blush, you do not understand your position and the importance of your perspective as the bank does not mean I failed to answer your questions. Additionally, I am simply reiterating on points already made in the 1984 article in my video. You have to consider that the author in 1984 had access to US notes whereas in 2007 we have to seach them out in coin shops as a rarity.

You want the law?

http://goldismoney.info/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=26637&d=1176137303

I keep hitting you with it - just like the Article. You can copy it out of any current US Code book but I suggest you get the extra bells and whistles, and mark up the embossment in red ink too. Order it from my clerk by the Reception # on its face - (719) 520-6200.

They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...

Regards,

David Merrill.

 

[Horatio Negersky]

Okay so when I walk into my credit union or our business' Bank of America/Wachovia Branches to redeem lawful money with this code section you have provided and they tell me they don't know what I'm talking about [I have a reputation for disrupting their environment enough as is but I doubt they'd expect this from me], what is going to be the cosmetic difference between them handing me more FRNs and me being handed official lawful money, if they even comply?

What recourse do I have against a financial institution who would refuse to provide this redemption to me? I'm not in doubt that this entitlement exists but I know organizations like BoA and I know their reputation for wholly ignoring UCC regulations, unlawfully demanding excess identification, barring people's access to money that is not theirs to control, etc.

I'm trying to pull up the suijuris link below but it is timing out repeatedly, is the verbiage for non-endorsement of said private credit short enough to post up here in text form?

I'll probably end up phoning your offices this week regardless but I'd like to see how exactly you print this non-endorsement just for edification because I _WILL_ try it with my banks most definitely.

How does this system differ when I go to a Credit Union? I see that they have a different insurer..

-
Negersky

 

[foofighter20x]

WAY over my head...

 

[David Merrill]

Okay so when I walk into my credit union or our business' Bank of America/Wachovia Branches to redeem lawful money with this code section you have provided and they tell me they don't know what I'm talking about [I have a reputation for disrupting their environment enough as is but I doubt they'd expect this from me], what is going to be the cosmetic difference between them handing me more FRNs and me being handed official lawful money, if they even comply?

If they will not cash the check, then they have disrupted your right to redeem lawful money. It does not matter if they say they do not know what you are talking about. Most find it a bit fun that the bank runs around trying to figure it out and the attorneys at Corporate or whatever always say "Okay".

What recourse do I have against a financial institution who would refuse to provide this redemption to me? I'm not in doubt that this entitlement exists but I know organizations like BoA and I know their reputation for wholly ignoring UCC regulations, unlawfully demanding excess identification, barring people's access to money that is not theirs to control, etc.

If they refuse to cash a paycheck while knowing the funds are there in the account, your boss has the usual recourse. Mainly switching to a bank that cashes paychecks for employees.

I'm trying to pull up the suijuris link below but it is timing out repeatedly, is the verbiage for non-endorsement of said private credit short enough to post up here in text form?

Something wrong there. When it comes back up try:

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/videos/10326-public-money-video-2.html?highlight=non-endorsement

for an anecdote from a suitor who spent a half-hour cashing his checks at a BoA in California.

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

but maybe

REDEEMED IN LAWFUL MONEY PURSUANT TO TITLE 12 USC §411

I'll probably end up phoning your offices this week regardless but I'd like to see how exactly you print this non-endorsement just for edification because I _WILL_ try it with my banks most definitely.

Quit looking for the perception of your bank or credit union. In 1913 they enacted the Federal Reserve Act which furnished an elastic currency for the US. That is when Title 12 U.S.C. 411 was enacted for remedy. It is still on the books because you still have remedy.

What matters is that you redeem lawful money instead of accepting by endorsement, private credit from the Fed.

How does this system differ when I go to a Credit Union? I see that they have a different insurer..

Since you are getting US notes in the form of FRNs the insurer for the fractionalizing, loss and theft does not really apply. The "insurer" is the US since US notes are the obligations of the US. And of course when they are notes in hand, regardless of US notes or FRNs, the bank's insurer does not cover any claim should you lose or get them stolen.


Regards,

David Merrill.

 

[Horatio Negersky]

WAY over my head...

So am I!

I'm learning as quickly as I can, this guy Mr. Merrill has me taking notes.

That in and of itself is pretty rare.
-
Negersky

 

[David Merrill]

Since you are getting US notes in the form of FRNs the insurer for the fractionalizing, loss and theft does not really apply. The "insurer" is the US since US notes are the obligations of the US. And of course when they are notes in hand, regardless of US notes or FRNs, the bank's insurer does not cover any claim should you lose or get them stolen.


Regards,

David Merrill.

Maybe a better way to explain that is that I doubt any banks are making the differentiating between US notes in the form of FRNs and FRNs. Since they look the same, they are all insured until they are in your hands. And also once they are in your hands, they are no longer insured, whether they are FRNs or US notes in the form of FRNs. Even if they were actual US notes by name - they are no longer insured by your bank or credit union.

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

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.

 

[David Merrill]

Hi; David Merrill here. Thanks for sharing the good news. I recently decided to align my communications resources:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_hixqP24lE

Please recommend Lawful Money Trust dot COM to your neighbors too!

https://nextdoor.com/pages/lawful-money-trust-raleigh-nc/recommend/