abolish the Fed - now, ourselves

I have been explaining redemption of lawful money for quite some time here. Since Ron Paul's attempt to pass legislation to abolish the Fed fail, due to lack of constituency, I really feel it is important to explain how to non-endorse the Fed's private credit.

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

One law student responded to a previous post and it would seem that he was contesting the Congress' definition of "lawful money".

_______________________

US v Rickman; 638 F.2d 182

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

and

US v Ware; 608 F.2d 400

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.
_______________________

KPage3 said:
_______________________

"We may only redeem federal reserve notes for more of the same
On August 14th, 2007 kpage3 says:

David,

If I understand your post and video correctly, you believe that when 12 U.S.C. § 411 states that Federal Reserve Notes “shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank,” that this means that we can actually redeem our Federal Reserve Notes for something other than more Federal Reserve notes (particularly, United States Notes – though it is my understanding that no United States Notes have been issued since 1971, though I’ll have to check this). As a law student I can assure you that this simply is not the case.

The courts have repeatedly been presented with the argument that Federal Reserve Notes are not “lawful money,” and the courts have summarily rejected the argument.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Rickman, 638 F.2d 182 (10th Cir. 1980), stated: "Defendant argues that the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, s 8, United States Constitution. We have held to the contrary. United States v. Ware, 10 Cir., 608 F.2d 400, 402-403. We find no validity in the distinction which defendant draws between “lawful money” and “legal tender.” Money is a medium of exchange. Legal tender is money which the law requires a creditor to receive in payment of an obligation. The aggregate of the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution includes broad and comprehensive authority over revenue, finance, and currency. Norman v. B. & O. R. Co., 294 U.S. 240, 55 S.Ct. 407, 79 L.Ed. 885. In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money. Defendant received Federal Reserve Notes when he cashed his pay checks and used those notes to pay his personal expenses. He obtained and used lawful money."

The Idaho Court of Appeals in Hearld v. State, 691 P.2d 1255 (Idaho App. 1984), similarly held that “federal reserve notes are legal tender and lawful money of the United States.” The Court continues: “Consistent with the majority of the courts presented with this question, and in view of the tacit approval evidenced by the United States Supreme Court by refusing certiorari of those rulings when review has been requested, we hold that federal reserve notes are lawful money." For additional direction, see also 53A Am. Jur. 2d Money § 7 ("Federal Reserve notes constitute lawful money").

Also, according to 31 U.S.C §§ 5118(b) & 5119(a), the United States government is statutorily prohibited from paying out any gold coin. The Secretary of the Treasury cannot redeem United States currency in gold, except to the extent authorized in regulations approved by the President.

Sadly, we may only legally redeem our Federal Reserve Notes for more Federal Reserve Notes. Don’t you just love your government?!

Regards,

kpage3"
___________________

This seems in error more than attorney sophistry, being that Kpage3 is a law student yet. But the mistake is that he allows the court system to be defining lawful money by opinion. Note with Rickman:

___________________

"In the exercise of that power [to define lawful money] Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money."
___________________

The US Supreme Court's definition of money simply does not matter. It is the Congress that sets the definition of money according to the Constitution. I wish I had thought to approach the debate so simply back on the 14th.

Regards,

David Merrill.