37 votes

US Code: Federal Reserve Notes Shall Be Redeemed in Lawful Money on Demand

USC › Title 12 › Chapter 3 › Subchapter XII › § 411

12 USC § 411 - Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption

Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They 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.

Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/411

Gold and silver coin must be lawful money since the United States Constitution declares, in Article I, Section 10, "No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts".

Furthermore we have evidence about the original intent of the framers at the constitutional convention:

The eighth clause of the seventh article, in the first draft of the constitution, was as follows: "The legislature of the United States shall have the power to borrow money and emit bills on the credit of the United States." The journal of the convention for August 16th makes this record: "It was moved and seconded to strike out the words 'and emit bills,' "and the motion to strike out these words "passed in the affirmative. Yeas: New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia — 9. Nays: New Jersey, Maryland — 2." So the convention, by a vote of more than four to one, refused to grant to the legislature of the United States the power "to emit bills on the credit of the United States."

For the interpretation of this record, Madison, the best possible witness, has left this note: "Striking out the words cut off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts."



Wounded in the House of Its Guardians

by George Bancroft



For further historical reference and perspective I recommend reading all of Bancroft's plea as well as the following:

NOTES ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A MONEY UNIT, AND OF A COINAGE FOR THE UNITED STATES - Thomas Jefferson, The Works, vol. 4 (Notes on Virginia II, Correspondence 1782-1786) [1905] Source: http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=s...

What Is A "Dollar"? An Historical Analysis Of The Fundamental Question In Monetary Policy by Edwin Vieira, Jr.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.




One thing to say

End the Fed!

Getting a full refund of

Getting a full refund of withholdings is like getting a 30% pay raise!

Double that raise!

If the government would get out of the theft market services and products would be cheaper if they were not taxed and regulated. (non government sponsored businesses.)

Talk about a stimulus package!!

These thieves need to be arrested.

Iceland did it!

We can too.

I have seen paperwork similar

I have seen paperwork similar to this. It is true that you can sue the treasury secretary for not redeeming the notes. In fact, the FED used to have a window to do it until it became apparent that they had nothing to redeem.

All rights reserved and no rights waived.

Help with word meanings, please.

"In 1731 the legislature of Maryland would have emitted bills of credit but for the negative of the proprietary of the province."

Here: http://www.constitution.org/gb/gb-plea.htm

What, precisely, is "the negative of the proprietary of the province," and is it possible to actually have a list of names of people who resisted the criminal effort to make fraudulent money legal, and among that list of people are there any who have clearly stated by what authority they resist, and by what power they resist, and by what reasoning they resist the effort to legalize fraudulent money; and having done so successfully?


"In 1745 they took the largest part in the brilliant enterprise which ended in the reduction of Louisburg, and were to receive from the British parliament some payment for their extraordinary expenses in the expedition."

Is that a reference to a war of aggression for profit? What exactly do those words mean, please?


"We have a record of what was spoken and of what was done in the federal convention kept by Madison, who took upon himself the most solemn engagement to preserve the truth for the instruction of coming generations, and whose opportunity, capacity, and integrity no one questions. His report of what was said and done on the 16th of August in the federal convention preserves the testimony of many witnesses, taken down as it were by the most capable notary."

The claims being made by George Bancroft clearly prove his ignorance concerning money (meaning currency not meaning ONLY coins made of precious metals of a specific design and a specific weight enforced by a specific group of enforcers) and as to his claim in quotes above there are words written by Luther Martin himself that bear witness as a counter claim of nebulous authority claimed by George Bancroft.




To those who may want to know better I can offer words to the wise, perhaps not enough, perhaps too many.

Blaming a thing for the crimes perpetrated by criminals is a common routine perpetrated by criminals so as to allow the criminals to continue their crimes upon their targeted victims.

Paper money is being blamed for having done so much destruction.


When there is impending doom, whereby a large army of criminals are invading the country, raping, pillaging, torturing, and murdering, the people being attacked have discovered a means by which the people can organize and defend themselves, and paper money can be a means by which the defenders accurately account for who is credited for their contributions, and paper money, if it is accurate, can account for who has done nothing, and who has done worse than nothing, in defending against the army of war profiteers as the war profiteers perpetrate crimes against humanity: routinely.

Returning to George Bancroft and his monopolistic angle of view:

"No state shall coin money, nor emit bills of credit, nor make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts," making the prohibition absolute. Roger Sherman, animated by zeal for the welfare of the coming republic of countless millions, exclaims in the debate: "This is the favorable crisis for crushing paper money." His word was the will of the convention, and the states, by a majority of eight and a half against one and a half-that is, by more than five to one — forbade the states, under any circumstances, to emit bills of credit. This is the way in which our constitution "shut and barred the door against paper money" and "crushed" it.

Note: The Central Bankers were not actually against issuing fraudulent money, extortion payments included, they were against anyone other than their exclusive group doing so, and that is well understood by more and more people as the obvious facts gain currency.


"There is a contest for money as well as empire, as I have said before. The Eastern States have speculated chiefly in this money. As there can be no congressional scale, their speculations will be extremely profitable. Not satisfied with a majority in the legislative councils, they must have all our property. I wish the southern genius of America had been more watchful."



"A number of characters, of the greatest eminence in this country, object to this government for its consolidating tendency. This is not imaginary. It is a formidable reality. If consolidation proves to be as mischievous to this country as it has been to other countries, what will the poor inhabitants of this country do? This government will operate like an ambuscade. It will destroy the state governments, and swallow the liberties of the people, without giving previous notice. If gentlemen are willing to run the hazard, let them run it; but I shall exculpate myself by my opposition and monitory warnings within these walls. But then comes paper money. We are at peace on this subject. Though this is a thing which that mighty federal Convention had no business with, yet I acknowledge that paper money would be the bane of this country. I detest it. Nothing can justify a people in resorting to it but extreme necessity. It is at rest, however, in this commonwealth. It is no longer solicited or advocated."

Extreme necessity involves the need to borrow from the future when the future is threatened by an invading army of war profiteers that are pillaging, raping, torturing, mass murdering, and enslaving as their war machine marches onward into the country.

It is not the THING that is bad, what is bad is accurately discovered by following the money to the source of it, as the criminals create the fraudulent money (inaccurate on purpose) and those people are employing that money they alone make so as to profit from war, and so as to profit from extortion, and so as to profit from their LEGAL crimes, that they alone make LEGAL, according to their actions, but NOT according to their false words.

The thieves point to the evil of a thing, but is is the thing that they alone control, once their lies fool their victims into giving up their liberty for that false security.



"But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.

"To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter."

So far as I read the "work" of George Bancroft in the link offered in the Original Post above, I see no mention of Shays's Rebellion.


Here is more from George Bancroft:

"Nothing is wanting to the perfect strength of the truth, that the constitution put an end to paper money in all the United States and in all the several states; and yet a lawyer, who, but for his own refusal, would twelve years ago have become chief justice of the United States, in the line of succession from Ellsworth, further "finds in the legislative history of the country affirmative authority of the highest kind": "No suggestion of the existence of a power to make paper a legal tender," such are his words, "can be found in the legislative history of the country. Had such a power lurked in the constitution, as construed by those who ordained and administered it, we should find it so recorded. The occasion for referring to it has repeatedly arisen; and had such a power existed, it would have been recognised and acted on. It is hardly too much to say, therefore, that the uniform and universal judgment of statesmen, jurists, and lawyers has denied the constitutional right of congress to make paper a legal tender for debts to any extent whatever."

How does that "information" compare to the willful use of a Conscripted National Army led by George Washington in 1792, to CRUSH a money competitor in Western Pennsylvania, as Hamilton knew how dangerous COMPETITION is to a MONOPOLY POWER?

The reason for the fraudulent "Congress" that secretly created The Dirty Compromise, and the NATIONAL Constitution (Monopoly of Constitutions) was to avoid another Rebellion such as Shays's Rebellion. Under the Articles of Confederation there was no LEGAL way to Conscript a National Army of aggression for profit, by which money competitors are CRUSHED, and there was no way under The Articles of Confederation to make it a crime to do what the Rebels did during The Revolution, which was the duty of free people according to common sense and common law and The Declaration of Independence.

The so called Shays's Rebellion was merely a continuation of The Revolution, and after the Massachusetts criminals occupying fraudulent Government CRUSHED the so called Rebellion, the concept of a Democratic Federated Republic was proven to be a valid concept, as the defeated defenders of Liberty, the so called Rebels, as they retreated they found sanctuary in a neighboring, freer, higher quality, and lower cost State; which was Vermont.

Free Market Government, or a Voluntary Union of Sovereign States into a Democratic Federated Republic works, as proven by the precedent known as Shays's Rebellion.

Here is an explanation:


Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.

Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government,the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely.

The evidence of how Free Market Government works, as consumers force Governors to raise the quality and lower the cost of Government, was proven with Shays's Rebellion. The Criminals running Massachusetts were claiming ownership of the people, and so those people did their duty, altering or abolishing that criminal government, failing to do so, they ran like runaway slaves will do, given or taking the opportunity to do so, and there was no enforced "Federal" Army to threaten Vermont, and make Vermont to return those slaves that ran away from slavery in Massachusetts.

It was another Central Banker War, that Shays's Rebellion, so called, conflict, but in that case what was proven was the genius of the Democratic Federated Republic design of Voluntary Union among Sovereign Constitutionally Limited Republics.

Why does George Bancroft manage to ignore the significance of Shays's Rebellion?

Back to Bancroft:

"In Britain from the revolution in 1688 to 1788, no issue of irredeemable currency or debased coin as legal tender was made by the government or suffered to be made under its authority."

How does that quote compare to an earlier quote in the same work by Bancroft as follows.

"In the autumn of 1690 an expedition, sent by Massachusetts to capture Quebec, returned without success. To defray its cost, which amounted to forty thousand pounds, and to satisfy complaints of "the want of an adequate measure of commerce," the general court, in December, 1690, ordered the issue of "seven thousand pounds of printed bills of equal value with money;" and of the remainder in May, 1691. In July, 1692, within nineteen months of the earliest emission, the first legislature under the new charter which transformed the self-governing colony of Massachusetts Bay into a direct dependency of Great Britain, made "all" these "bills of public credit current within this province in all payments equivalent to money, excepting specialties and contracts made before the publication" of this new law. Their credit was supported by receiving them in all public payments at a premium of five percent."

The MONEY MONOPOLY POWER uses fraudulent money to destabilize, divide, and conquer. How is it not abundantly clear that the agents of the LEGAL MONOPOLY MONEY POWER were inventing, producing, and employing fraudulent money so as to conquer the targeted people where that fraudulent money flows?

The agents of the LEGAL MONOPOLY MONEY POWER have no cause to be loyal to any Nation, that is patently absurd, so claiming that England was NOT producing and using fraudulent money misses the point.

England just happened by accident to benefit from the use of fraudulent money in the Colonies?

What do you think is happening right now? Who is behind the destabilization of these Consolidated States of America?

What do you think is going to happen, and do you really think that it is accidental?

If it is not accidental, then who is pulling the strings?

If the money is followed to the source, do you really think the end of that rainbow lands on Ben Bernanke all alone in his office?

This current version of the Money Hegemony goes all the way through Wall Street, The Federal Reserve, The Consolidated Nation State (falsely labeled The Federal Government), and on to The World Bank, The FUND, the so called International Monetary Fund, The U.N. and beyond.

They are currently using the POWER taken out of America to FUND all sides in World War III and the "winner" (probably China as Russia and U.S.A. Inc. destroy each other) will be the new, TA DA, Big Surprise, World Reserve Currency Power.

What do you think was that Giant Sucking Sound warned against by Ross Perot back in 1992?


Capital Flight? Arming the Communist (what a laugh) Chinese Government; and not, precisely, the World Reserve Currency POWER, not matter what false trademark, flag, or sign they print on the stationary?


Screw US. Code. "Fiat money" is a "taking" without compensation

It is time to sue the US government and the Federal Reserve for conspiracy in Felony Grand Theft. RICO could be used to seize all Federal Reserve and US Corporation assets. This is an issue worth fighting for. It is time to "bring out the whips".

gold in vault

On the SW Corner the fiat formally began.



On the SE Corner we find the gold backing the US notes still in circulation.



If you look at page 453 and 490 of the 2009 Annual Financial Report of the Federal Reserve (CAFR) you will see there actually is collateral held against Federal Reserve Notes. This means the money we use is backed by something.

(LINK – http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/annual09...)

What is it backed by?

There is the Gold Certificate Account (The Fed has the gold and the Treasury has the certificates.)

How much gold?

$11,037,000,ooo. Worth of gold. This can also be found on page 61 of the Federal Government’s CAFR.
(LINK - http://www.gao.gov/financial/fy2010/10notes.pdf)

How many (troy) ounces (of gold) is backing the Federal Reserve Notes? On page 62, the last paragraph reads:

“Gold is valued at the statutory price of $42.2222 per fine troy ounce. The number of fine troy ounces was 261,498,900 as of September 30, 2010, and 2009. The market value of gold on the London Fixing was $1,307 and $996 per fine troy ounce as of September 30, 2010, and 2009, respectively. Gold totaling $11.1 billion as of September 30, 2010, and 2009, was pledged as collateral for gold certificates issued and authorized to the FRBs by the Secretary of the Treasury. Gold certificates were valued at $11.0 billion as of September 30, 2010, and 2009, which are included in Note 19—Other Liabilities. Treasury may redeem the gold certificates at any time. Foreign currency is translated into U.S. Dollars at the exchange rate at fiscal year-end. The foreign currency is maintained by various U.S. Federal agencies and foreign banks.”

gold claims

The amount of gold they claim to have is not enough by a longshot to back the federal reserve notes outstanding even at current market rates. According to the documents you cite over 95% of the fed notes outstanding in 2009 were collaterized with government sponsored entity debt. Not to mention the fact that the gold they claim to have may have been leased out or sold off for all we know.

False claims are the rule?

The exception to the rule is what, your claims?


Where is the pots of gold (controlling portions), precisely, and who claims to own (control) them?

You are going to inform us?



Just saying... I spent a lot of time reading a site posted earlier. Only to see Jesus Victor have it dismissed.. Im sure there is more to learn. Is there ANYONE that has been successful in this whom did not already attend law school?

Ahem. In a word,


"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

The point of the post is not to get you try to redeem your notes

As I have said elsewhere that is impossible as the Federal Reserve and the treasury are bankrupt and have no money in their vaults. The point is to educate you about some historical facts. I suggest you read through the material I linked to if you are actually interested in learning.

You could be totally right,

You could be totally right, but they violate the Constitution and any other law they please on a daily basis, without repercussions, and you won't get anywhere even with rock solid proof that you're right. We need to stand up and remove these people from power, lock them up, and make the point that our leaders are not royalty.

Who will stand up with me and remove them from power?

The point of this post is to raise awareness of these facts. If more people become aware of what is going on it makes it more likely that enough people will stand up and remove these people from power. By opening even just one mind to the facts I believe I have gotten somewhere. Like Ron Paul my goal is to educate.


you have to do it all on your OWN and then come here and tell us, or better yet - post it to youtube. We need you to save us, obi-wan

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

I am only one

I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something, and what I can do I should do and by the grace of God I will do.

p.s. Thanks for the bumps buddy every little bit helps. Can you do me a favor and make even more lame comments so that this thread gets seen by more people? I appreciate what you are doing here for me, every comment you make lets me make a reply and thereby keeps this topic on the front page every day that you continue making your asinine remarks. I think it is important for people to learn about what happened at the constitutional convention and what James Madison said about it so I want to sincerely ask that you continue commenting, and while I would much prefer to engage in a rational discussion with you about the facts on this matter I understand that you will most likely just carry on making inane comments. That is okay too in its own way I guess we all play our part. Have fun!

Drafting Remedy

I have been drafting remedy according to law for over 15 years now. I have been adapting Are You Lost at C? The Libel of Review sets up an effective evidence repository for the new suitor to form a published record of his demand for lawful money, mostly through Refusal for Cause.



About seven years ago I came across this article, written in 1984 it does not cover the remedy in paper but explains remedy well about coins. This helps one understand why one ends contract with the Fed by making the demand for lawful money.



Convincing Congress to Abolish the Fed
Freedom League, Sept/Oct 1984

When Congress borrows money on the credit of the United States, bonds are thus legislated into existence and deposited as credit entries in Federal Reserve banks. United States bonds, bills and notes constitute money as affirmed by the Supreme Court (Legal Tender Cases, 110 U.S. 421), and this money when deposited with the Fed becomes collateral from whence the Treasury may write checks against the credit thus created in its account (12 USC 391). For example, suppose Congress appropriates an expenditure of $1 billion. To finance the appropriation Congress creates the $1 billion worth of bonds out of thin air and deposits it with the privately owned Federal Reserve System. Upon receiving the bonds, the Fed credits $1 billion to the Treasury's checking account, holding the deposited bonds as collateral. When the United States deposits its bonds with the Federal Reserve System, private credit is extended to the Treasury by the Fed. Under its power to borrow money, Congress is authorized by the Constitution to contract debt, and whenever something is borrowed it must be returned. When Congress spends the contracted private credit, each use of credit is debt which must be returned to the lender or Fed. Since Congress authorizes the expenditure of this private credit, the United States incurs the primary obligation to return the borrowed credit, creating a National Debt which results when credit is not returned.

However, if anyone else accepts this private credit and uses it to purchase goods and services, the user voluntarily incurs the obligation requiring him to make a return of income whereby a portion of the income is collected by the IRS and delivered to the Federal Reserve banksters. Actually the federal income tax imparts two separate obligations: the obligation to file a return and the obligation to abide by the Internal Revenue Code. The obligation to make a return of income for using private credit is recognized in law as an irrecusable obligation, which according to 'Bouvier's Law Dictionary' (1914 ed.), is "a term used to indicate a certain class of contractual obligations recognized by the law which are imposed upon a person without his consent and without regard to any act of his own." This is distinguished from a recusable obligation which, according to Bouvier, arises from a voluntary act by which one incurs the obligation imposed by the operation of law. The voluntary use of private credit is the condition precedent which imposes the irrecusable obligation to file a tax return. If private credit is not used or rejected, then the operation of law which imposes the irrecusable obligation lies dormant and cannot apply.

In 'Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR Co.' 240 U.S. 1 (1916) the Supreme Court affirmed that the federal income tax is in the class of indirect taxes, which include duties and excises. The personal income tax arises from a duty -- i.e., charge or fee -- which is voluntarily incurred and subject to the rule of uniformity. A charge is a duty or obligation, binding upon him who enters into it, which may be removed or taken away by a discharge (performance): 'Bouvier', p. 459. Our federal personal income tax is not really a tax in the ordinary sense of the word but rather a burden or obligation which the taxpayer voluntarily assumes, and the burden of the tax falls upon those who voluntarily use private credit. Simply stated the tax imposed is a charge or fee upon the use of private credit where the amount of private credit used measures the pecuniary obligation. The personal income tax provision of the Internal Revenue Code is private law rather than public law. "A private law is one which is confined to particular individuals, associations, or corporations": 50 Am.Jur. 12, p.28. In the instant case the revenue code pertains to taxpayers. A private law can be enforced by a court of competent jurisdiction when statutes for its enforcement are enacted: 20 Am.Jur. 33, pgs. 58, 59. The distinction between public and private acts is not always sharply defined when published statutes are printed in their final form: Case v. Kelly, 133 U.S. 21 (1890). Statutes creating corporations are private acts: 20 Am.Jur. 35, p. 60. In this connection, the Federal Reserve Act is private law. Federal Reserve banks derive their existence and corporate power from the Federal Reserve Act: Armano v. Federal Reserve Bank, 468 F.Supp. 674 (1979). A private act may be published as a public law when the general public is afforded the opportunity of participating in the operation of the private law. The Internal Revenue Code is an example of private law which does not exclude the voluntary participation of the general public. Had the Internal Revenue Code been written as substantive public law, the code would be repugnant to the Constitution, since no one could be compelled to file a return and thereby become a witness against himself. Under the fifty titles listed on the preface page of the United States Code, the Internal Revenue Code (26 USC) is listed as having not been enacted as substantive public law, conceding that the Internal Revenue Code is private law. Bouvier declares that private law "relates to private matters which do not concern the public at large." It is the voluntary use of private credit which imposes upon the user the quasi contractual or implied obligation to make a return of income. In 'Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co.' 158 U.S. 601 (1895) the Supreme Court had declared the income tax of 1894 to be repugnant to the Constitution, holding that taxation of rents, wages and salaries must conform to the rule of apportionment. However, when this decision was rendered, there was no privately owned central bank issuing private credit and currency but rather public money in the form of legal tender notes and coins of the United States circulated. Public money is the lawful money of the United States which the Constitution authorizes Congress to issue, conferring a property right, whereas the private credit issued by the Fed is neither money nor property, permitting the user an equitable interest but denying allodial title.

Today, we have two competing monetary systems. The Federal Reserve System with its private credit and currency, and the public money system consisting of legal tender United States notes and coins. One could use the public money system, paying all bills with coins and United States notes (if the notes can be obtained), or one could voluntarily use the private credit system and thereby incur the obligation to make a return of income. Under 26 USC 7609 the IRS has carte blanche authority to summon and investigate bank records for the purpose of determining tax liabilities or discovering unknown taxpayers: 'United States v. Berg' 636 F.2d 203 (1980). If an investigation of bank records discloses an excess of $1000 in deposits in a single year, the IRS may accept this as prima facie evidence that the account holder uses private credit and is therefore a person obligated to make a return of income. Anyone who uses private credit -- e.g., bank accounts, credit cards, mortgages, etc. -- voluntarily plugs himself into the system and obligates himself to file. A taxpayer is allowed to claim a $1000 personal deduction when filing his return. The average taxpayer in the course of a year uses United States coins in vending machines, parking meters, small change, etc., and this public money must be deducted when computing the charge for using private credit.

On June 5, 1933, the day of infamy arrived. Congress on that date enacted House Joint Resolution 192, which provided that the people convert or turn in their gold coins in exchange for Federal Reserve notes. Through the operation of law, H.J.R. 192 took us off the gold standard and placed us on the dollar standard where the dollar could be manipulated by private interests for their self-serving benefit. By this single act the people and their wealth were delivered to the bankers. When gold coinage was thus pulled out of circulation, large denomination Federal Reserve notes were issued to fill the void. As a consequence the public money supply in circulation was greatly diminished, and the debt-laden private credit of the Fed gained supremacy. This action made private individuals who had been previously exempt from federal income taxes now liable for them, since the general public began consuming and using large amounts of private credit. Notice all the case law prior to 1933 which affirms that income is a profit or gain which arises from a government granted privilege. After 1933, however, the case law no longer emphatically declares that income is exclusively corporate profit or that it arises from a privilege. So, what changed? Two years after H.J.R. 192, Congress passed the Social Security Act, which the Supreme Court upheld as a valid act imposing a valid income tax: 'Charles C. Steward Mach. Co. v, Davis' 301 U.S. 548 (1937).

It is no accident that the United States is without a dollar unit coin. In recent years the Eisenhower dollar coin received widespread acceptance, but the Treasury minted them in limited number which encouraged hoarding. This same fate befell the Kennedy half dollars, which circulated as silver sandwiched clads between 1965-1969 and were hoarded for their intrinsic value and not spent. Next came the Susan B. Anthony dollar, an awkward coin which was instantly rejected as planned. The remaining unit is the privately issued Federal Reserve note unit dollar with no viable competitors. Back in 1935 the Fed had persuaded the Treasury to discontinue minting silver dollars because the public preferred them over dollar bills. That the public money system has become awkward, discouraging its use, is no accident. It was planned that way.

A major purpose behind the 16th Amendment was to give Congress authority to enforce private law collections of revenue. Congress had the plenary power to collect income taxes arising from government granted privileges long before the 16th Amendment was ratified, and the amendment was unnecessary, except to give Congress the added power to enforce collections under private law: i.e., income from whatever source. So, the Fed got its amendment and its private income tax, which is a banker's dream but a nightmare for everyone else. Through the combined operation of the Fed and H.J.R. 192, the United States pays exorbitant interest whenever it uses its own money deposited with the Fed, and the people pay outrageous income taxes for the privilege of living and working in their own country, robbed of their wealth and separated from their rights, laboring under a tax system written by a cabal of loan shark bankers and rubber stamped by a spineless Congress.

Congress has the power to abolish the Federal Reserve System and thus destroy the private credit system. However, the people have it within their power to strip the Fed of its powers, rescind private credit and get the bankers to pay off the National Debt should Congress fail to act. The key to all this is 12 USC 411, which declares that Federal Reserve notes shall be redeemed in lawful money at any Federal Reserve bank. Lawful money is defined as all the coins, notes, bills, bonds and securities of the United States: 'Julliard v. Greenman' 110 U.S. 421, 448 (1884); whereas public money is the lawful money declared by Congress as a legal tender for debts (31 USC 5103); 524 F.2d 629 (1974). Anyone can present Federal Reserve notes to any Federal Reserve bank and demand redemption in public money -- i.e., legal tender United States notes and coins. A Federal Reserve note is a fixed obligation or evidence of indebtedness which pledges redemption (12 USC 411) in public money to the note holder. The Fed maintains a ready supply of United States notes in hundred dollar denominations for redemption purposes should it be required, and coins are available to satisfy claims for smaller amounts. However, should the general public decide to redeem large amounts of private credit for public money, a financial melt-down within the Fed would quickly occur. The process works like this. Suppose $1000 in Federal Reserve notes are presented for redemption in public money. To raise $1000 in public money the Fed must surrender U.S. Bonds in that amount to the Treasury in exchange for the public money demanded (assuming that the Fed had no public money on hand). In so doing $1000 of the National Debt would be paid off by the Fed and thus canceled. Can you imagine the result if large amounts of Federal Reserve notes were redeemed on a regular, ongoing basis? Private credit would be withdrawn from circulation and replaced with public money, and with each turning of the screw the Fed would be obliged to pay off more of the National Debt. Should the Fed refuse to redeem its notes in public money, then the fiction that private credit is used voluntarily would become unsustainable. If the use of private credit becomes compulsory, then the obligation to make a return of income is voided. If the Fed is under no obligation to redeem its notes, then no one has an obligation to make a return of income. It is that simple! Federal Reserve notes are not money and cannot be tendered when money is demanded: 105 So. 305 (1925). Moreover, the Ninth Circuit rejected the argument that a $50 Federal Reserve note be redeemed in gold or silver coin after specie coinage had been rescinded but upheld the right of the note holder to redeem his note in current public money (31 USC 392; rev., 5103): 524 F.2d 629 (1974); 12 USC 411.

It would be advantageous to close out all bank accounts, acquire a home safe, settle all debts in cash with public money and use U.S. postal money orders for remittances. Whenever a check is received, present it to the bank of issue and demand cash in public money. This will place banks in a vulnerable position, forcing them to draw off their assets. Through their insatiable greed, bankers have over extended, making banks quite illiquid. Should the people suddenly demand public money for their deposits and for checks received, many banks will collapse and be foreclosed by those demanding public money. Banks by their very nature are citadels of usury and sin, and the most patriotic service one could perform is to obligate bankers to redeem private credit. When the first Federal Reserve note is presented to the Fed for redemption, the process of ousting the private credit system will commence and will not end until the Fed and the banking system nurtured by it collapse. Coins comprise less than five percent of the currency, and current law limits the amount of United States notes in circulation to $300 million (31 USC 5115). The private credit system is exceedingly over extended compared with the supply of public money, and a small minority working in concert can easily collapse the private credit system and oust the Fed by demanding redemption of private credit. If the Fed disappeared tomorrow, income taxes on wages and salaries would vanish with it. Moreover, the States are precluded from taxing United States notes: 4 Wheat. 316. According to Bouvier, public money is the money which Congress can tax for public purposes mandated by the Constitution. Private credit when collected in revenue can fund programs and be spent for purposes not cognizable by the Constitution. We have in effect two competing governments: the United States Government and the Federal Government. The first is the government of the people, whereas the Federal Government is founded upon private law and funded by private credit. What we really have is private government. Federal agencies and activities funded by the private credit system include Social Security, bail out loans to bankers via the IMF, bail out loans to Chrysler, loans to students, FDIC, FBI, supporting the U.N., foreign aid, funding undeclared wars, etc., all of which would be unsustainable if funded by taxes raised pursuant to the Constitution. The personal income tax is not a true tax but rather an obligation or burden which is voluntarily assumed, since revenue is raised through voluntary contributions and can be spent for purposes unknown to the Constitution. Notice how the IRS declares in its publications that everyone is expected to contribute his fair share. True taxes must be spent for public purposes which the Constitution recognizes. Taxation for the purpose of giving or loaning money to private business enterprises and individuals is illegal: 15 Am.Rep. 39; Cooley, 'Prin. Const. Law', ch. IV. Revenue derived from the federal income tax goes into a private slush fund raised from voluntary contributions, and Congress is not restricted by the Constitution when spending or disbursing the proceeds from this private fund. It is incorrect to say that the personal federal income tax is unconstitutional, since the tax code is private law and resides outside the Constitution. The Internal Revenue Code is non-constitutional because it enforces an obligation which is voluntarily incurred through an act of the individual who binds himself. Fighting the Internal Revenue Code on constitutional grounds is wasted energy. The way to bring it all down is to attack the Federal Reserve System and its banking cohorts by demanding that private credit be redeemed, or by convincing Congress to abolish the Fed. Never forget that private credit is funding the destruction of our country. [Reprinted from `Freedom League', Sept/Oct 1984]

Yes, all true, but... They

Yes, all true, but... They don't care. We are dealing with a CRIMINAL enterprise. So, what are ya gonna do? Petition the criminals? Beg them to stop stealing and killing people?

"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan

I am going to try to do my little part to make people aware

Frankly I don't really care if "they" care. This post is not a petition to the criminals, I am speaking to an entirely different audience here. The goal is to educate people who may want to know the truth, you would be surprised how many people even within the liberty movement that are not familiar with this information. Some of them may be interested to learn more. I know I was.

Well, you're right of course.

Well, you're right of course. I'm just in one of those moods. ..sick and tired of it all.

"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan

That's the spirit.

There's no sense trying to change anyone's mind.
Just reach the ones who are thinking along common lines.
Change, based on fundamental truths, never happens overnight.
Such ideas have to be repeated, over and over,
and internalized at unconscious levels before they spring to life.


You seem to understand where I am coming from. It is nice to know I am not alone.

Redeeming lawful giblets

where can I redeem my giblets, which were originally issued as "chicken part certificates?"

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

How many times are you going to change your name?

Why do you do that?


I have a complex, multi-variable algorithm that tells me when to change my screen name. I estimate it will be changed AT LEAST 18 times this calendar year, just for shits and giggles. It's fun and it drives the crazies crazier.

But the real motivation came to when I attained true enlightenment.

I smoked the bejeezus bells out of my crazy aunt's front porch mat, then read the magna carta backwards while rubbing my stomach (counter clockwise!) while standing on my head, JUST LIKE THEY TOLD ME TO...and lo and behold, I became a true sovrun who is able to give myself titles here at the DP...yes that's right you mere serf beholden to a single name! I embrace FREEDOM! WHO'S WITH ME!

(yes, you;re being mocked)

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

What is your deal?

Your comments add nothing of value to the conversation. If you disagree with anything I have written we can have a reasonable discussion about it, but so far it appears clear that you are unwilling to do so.

I am a sovereign poultry

and therefore your mere peon human words do nothing to ruffle my pristine feathers. Be gone peasant!

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Are you capable of rational discussion?

Or are you just going to keep making inane comments?