1 vote

Redeem lawful money - abolish the Fed

Dogster says: http://dailypaul.com/node/640

"I greatly appreciate the time you've taken to explain your theory of the income tax problem. The arguments you've presented are sufficient to convince me they are plausible."

And I said in the opening post:

"So do Ron Paul a big favor. Take up the task and responsibility for cashing your paychecks in a system of just weights and abolish the Fed ourselves. Then he will have a constituency; as well as the rest of Congress to start looking at legislation to finish the job we start."

In case you browsed here directly, this thread is about a video I produced while upset with Aaron Russo for producing "America: Freedom to Fascism".

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

The remedy, redeeming lawful money was enacted by law as the "elastic currency" of the Federal Reserve Act was ratified - in 1913. And it was amended in 1934 to accomodate the gold seizure of the Bankers' Holiday:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode12/usc_sec_12_0...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode12/usc_sec_12_0...

"Amendments

1934—Act Jan. 30, 1934, struck out from last sentence provision permitting redemption in gold."

Richinfish implied it might be economical to invest in Liberty Dollars:

"Another way to exchange your dollars for gold and silver money is to get Liberty Dollars. You can exchange your FRN's for Liberty Dollars one for one. Liberty Dollars come in the actual metal form, or the paper "receipt" form, or digital form. Its all 100% backed by Silver and Gold!"

For obvious reasons, it is difficult to discern the weight of these coins. But let's say that the copper Ron Paul coin weighs twice what a penny does. You have purchased about 2 cents of copper for a $1. So do not get fooled into thinking the gold seizure never happened. The courts will support we are entitled to redeem FRNs in lawful money - but ignoring history is stupid:

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_public_mon...
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_public_mon...

Dogster wants proof:

"I am more interested in the relief that has been obtained. You mentioned hundreds of suitors. Did they get tax refunds?"

These "suitors" are courts of competent jurisdiction:

"...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.

Since I framed the remedy as it stands within the scope of Libel of Review in the US district courts, I know it works and have therefore not been collecting testimony. One suitor wanted me to have this:

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_affidavit_...

And since he was a state employee getting full refunds retroactively on the Good Faith argument that he simply intended to be redeeming lawful money all along, now that he knows how, I archived the image so that people can see.

Endorsement is bond and I would rather teach people how to fish than give them a fish to eat today. So let me explain what I am doing here. Ronald Ernest keeps putting bills before Congress that do not last as long as it takes for him to say them. That is because people like you continue endorsing private credit from the Fed with your signatures on the backs of your paychecks. Ron is there representing you and you are endorsing private credit. He puts these bills forward against the wishes of the Preamble Union of People and all the other Congressmen know it. They know what the people in America want because you all say what you want - private credit from the Fed - every paycheck you endorse for private credit. "Give me More!! Give me more debt!"

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/...

China followed suit unpegging from gold (SDRs - Special Drawing Rights are "paper gold"; early "e-gold") but instead of 1976 they did it in 2005 - ergo look where China is in account deficit in relation to the US at the bottom.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/...

"In July 2005, China revalued its currency by 2.1% against the US dollar and moved to an exchange rate system that references a basket of currencies."

From the State Department Bulletin, preamble to the Jamaica Rambouillet Accord - 1975:

www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/SeizeGold.jpg

More evidence for Dogster in the next post...

Regards,

David Merrill.




Comment viewing options

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

Explain in Lay terms, please!!

Can you explain: "Take up the task and responsibility for cashing your paychecks in a system of just weights and abolish the Fed ourselves." in english or Lay terms, I am sorry I just don't understand what we need to do. Thank you!!!!!

This is that strange look

This is that strange look from a teller I was discussing...
JMR

evidence/anecdote

I want this tied to the Ron Paul campaign in the following manner. Ron keeps promoting abolishing the Fed by putting forth legislation that immediately flops.

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

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

What I have not mentioned is Ronald Dean's attempt to utilize an earlier flopped bill to divorce America from the IMF as bond to keep the USA from being arrested as a corporate vessel in admiralty. Here is the crime:

www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Warrant1.gif
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Warrant2.gif

Ronald Dean, the Ron I am speaking of now, was hearing from me within 40 minutes after he learned of the seizure of his life's savings. I convinced him to fire his trustee, John and take full responsibility for ownership of his funds. John was a professional trustee over about 20 other trusts being swept by the CERTAIN BANK ACCOUNTS theft. The only money John retreived for his beneficiaries was the funds left over after the IRS has made their seizure for alleged taxes due.

Ronald Dean was wise enough to post the bond at demanding Ronald Ernest PAUL's 2002 bill be enacted without any vote from Congress.

www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/1-HR3812.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/2-HR3812.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/3-HR3812.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/4-HR3812.jpg

However the remedy in law was already familiar to the DOJ:

"COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES … 136. When a seizure has been voluntarily abandoned, it loses its validity, and no jurisdiction attaches to any court, unless there be a new seizure. 10 Wheat. 325; 1 Mason, 361. First Judiciary Act, September 24, 1789. Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1856."

A couple weeks after filing his Verified Statement of Right and Interest in the stolen funds, Ronald Dean was withdrawing some small change that his congregation had donated (non-501(C)(3) which is where a rural pastor accrues $1.5M in alleged tax debts) and the ATM failed - prompting Ron to go inside. US Bank wanted to give him back all his life's savings as soon as he signed a Waiver of Indemnity. He called me and we had a good laugh about that - called me from the officer's desk! So US Bank paid all fines and sent letters of apology for all the bounced checks due to participating in the theft...

The point being that the DOJ abandoned the seizure of the funds, killing jurisdiction and with it the bond - that the US government would have to enact Ron Paul's bill regardless of what Congress in general thought of it.

www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Statement1.gif
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Statement2.gif
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Statement3.gif
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Statement4.gif
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Statement5.gif

Sarcasmo said:

"I'm going to be honest, I think your idea is nutty. It won't work, and it will confuse/repel people, so I hope you don't manage to get it associated with this campaign."

While Dogster said:

"If you are correct, then the Ron Paul Revolutionary army would be just the right size forces to get the job done through redeeming FRNs and hoarding US notes."

What we have to do is examine the misdirection that "lawful money" is by definition connected to precious metals.

RichinFish said:

"Another way to exchange your dollars for gold and silver money is to get Liberty Dollars. You can exchange your FRN's for Liberty Dollars one for one. Liberty Dollars come in the actual metal form, or the paper "receipt" form, or digital form. Its all 100% backed by Silver and Gold!"

And like SDR (Special Drawing Rights - "paper gold") and its cyberspace child e-gold, confidence that the people will continue endorsing themselves chattel is the only thing backing the fictional currency. That is dangerous and becomes apparent with Liberty Dollars. I looked around and could find no indication of weight. I guess you buy it weight unknown and weigh it if you want to see how badly you got ripped - outside of course that you donated to Ron Paul's campaign anyway.

But let's pretend that the copper Ron Paul coin is four times the weight of a copper penny. For $1 you just lost 96 cents by buying one. And they make it look like a good deal - but by making it look like you are making a wise investment because these coins are precious metal - that is fraud! Would Ron Paul rather be associated with fraud? I suppose if it is clear that by buying a $1 copper coin you are donating 96 cents to the Liberty Coin foundation and some of that probably goes to the Ron Paul campaign, that mitigates my fraud charge. But RichinFish implies it is wise for your own financial portfolio while I am sure that paying $1000 for a Ron Paul gold coin is overpaying terribly.

You will have to wait and wait for the banksters to fractionalize currency on your endorsement until the dollar is so marginalized that you can sell that little chunk of gold coin for more than $1000 in FRNs and by then you may have simply broke even - except of course you made a Ron Paul contribution. But did you know that? RichinFish implies that you did not.

Regards,

David Merrill.

Silver bullet

While I respect researchers like you who take the time to interpret things in common law terms, I must say that the examples you've presented do not persuade me that you have discovered the elusive silver bullet.

Famous Quote from Justice William O. Douglas

"The Constitution is not neutral.
It was designed to take the government
off the backs of people."

Famous Quote from Justice William O. Douglas

"The Constitution is not neutral.
It was designed to take the government
off the backs of people."

remedy, not Silver Bullet

Dear Dogster;

I am simply saying that the remedy from the "elastic currency" of the Fed is and has been in place, full force and effect of law since 1913 when both the Federal Reserve Act and the remedy from it were enacted. I have not thought of calling it the "elusive silver bullet".

Sarcasmo says:

Sarcasmo: "The copper Ron Paul Liberty will be an ounce of copper, go read about it."

Thanks for finding the weight. An ounce of copper is not likely worth anything near the $1 the coin costs you. Please tell us the weights on the gold and copper coins.

"...divorce America from the IMF as bond to keep the USA from being arrested as a corporate vessel in admiralty."

Sarcasmo: "People will think you're nuts because they don't think America's married to the IMF, they don't think the USA can be arrested, and they probably figure a corporate vessel in admiralty is some sort of boat. Trying to explain otherwise, even if you have a point about some different form of money out there that's secretly-available via your incantations, will produce no results."

That is what you think. How about March 14, 2000 when a similar bond came due to keep the US from being arrested? I think that is what trained them at the DoJ to just abandon claim. Law is its own power, whether you want to recognize that or not.

If you think admiralty applies only to boats, then you better get a better look:

www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Warrant1.gif
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Warrant2.gif

Sarcasmo: "Besides, I happen to like Ron Paul's bills that flop. :)"

That is a sentiment. It is unpractical but a kind sentiment at that. It is unproductive to keep putting bills on the Floor that flop, don't you think?

But here is what gets me. You will continue endorsing private credit from the Fed while you now know better. All the while you act like you do not like the Fed?

Try this. You keep calling the non-endorsement verbiage a "magical incantation". What you should do is explain why when the authorizing signature for the paycheck is already on the front of it, and your signature is on the driver license you are using to make a postive ID at your boss's bank - why are you adding another signature called endorsement anyway?

You cannot explain that away any better than that even though the weight of a Ron Paul copper coin is 1 ounce - does not equal anywhere near the $1 paid. But what really gets me is that you are behind Ron Paul abolishing the Fed in sentiment but you do not understand you have been conditioned to endorse fractional lending by endorsement - to the point where you think non-endorsement is the magic incantation! The magic incantation is that you sign endorsement and encourage the fatcat bankers to get richer off your substance:

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_Story_of_M...

Look carefully at the comic book from the NY Fed bank. That is your signature backing the extra money that devalues the dollar with every loan!

“Recognized Government bonds are as safe as Government currency. They have the same credit back of them. And, therefore, if we can persuade people all through the country, when their salary checks come in, to deposit them in new accounts, which will be held in trust and kept in one of the new forms I have mentioned, we shall have made progress.” The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt; 1933 The Year of Crisis; Random House 1938; page 19. Excerpt from the Address before the Governors’ Conference at the White House. March 6, 1933.

You have defined the source of your choosing ignorance. You are an advocate of e-gold. If you will not consider why you are conditioned to put one extra endorsement signature on every paycheck, at least consider this for a moment. You are advocating people believe they own gold that is not really gold, but it is a promise of gold. And you have confidence that whenever you want real gold for your e-gold you will get it...

Did you know in March of 1933 when it looked like people might all want the real thing instead of promises, FDR made redeeming gold and even owning gold certificates illegal? What exactly do you think will happen, say if you and a bunch of other e-gold owners decide to get your real metal at or near the same time? I think you will quickly realize why the DoJ has been scrutinizing e-gold so carefully. The capture backing back-claims is only as good as the insurance company backing the e-gold supply. And here's the other thing; do you really think there is enough physical gold on hand to back all the e-gold certificates?

Regards,

David Merrill.

I'm an advocate of not just

I'm an advocate of not just e-gold, but any alternative to FRNs that would work. Bernard's Liberties (with or without Ron's face on 'em) are but one example, and e-gold's but another, but a variety exist. What I advocate, however, does not include your magical incantation instructions, which make you sound like you're on the Irwin Schiff road to jail if you think you're going to avoid taxes that way. If your instructions are so dangerous to the Fed and e-gold's so doggone harmless, how come they're attacking e-gold and trying jury manipulation on a massive scale in the process

http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/07/wh...

and (it seems, but correct me if I'm wrong) ignoring you when they don't give you funny looks because they don't comprehend what you're saying?
JMR

The copper Ron Paul Liberty

The copper Ron Paul Liberty will be an ounce of copper, go read about it. Someone should have done this when the penny was debased in 1982. They'll probably "circulate" like Boggs Bills, which is "once, and then never-again," because they'll be art, like Boggs Bills, as much as money, but if you don't want one, don't buy one. And I think your ideas are universally-nutty when it comes to money, so I guess we should not discuss this anymore. If anyone wants to try your methods and report their results, I eagerly await the post. For why I don't want these ideas tied to the campaign, one needs only to read what you've written:

"...divorce America from the IMF as bond to keep the USA from being arrested as a corporate vessel in admiralty."

People will think you're nuts because they don't think America's married to the IMF, they don't think the USA can be arrested, and they probably figure a corporate vessel in admiralty is some sort of boat. Trying to explain otherwise, even if you have a point about some different form of money out there that's secretly-available via your incantations, will produce no results.

Besides, I happen to like Ron Paul's bills that flop. :)
JMR

found it!

Yep. Your confidence in e-gold is severely misplaced. If they did it once, they will not hesitate to leave you regretting you accepted the promise of gold instead of gold:

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_TWA_Collec...

I looked: http://www.libertydollar.org/ld/ronpauldollar/index.htm#prod...

"The $1 Copper Ron Paul Dollar measures 39 mm and contains one Avoirdupois ounce of pure copper."

Price: $1

Value: 23 cents per avoirdupois ounce

donation to Liberty Dollar: 77 cents

donation to the Ron Paul campaign: ???

"The $20 Silver Ron Paul Dollar measures 39 mm and contains one Troy ounce of .999 fine silver."

Price: $25
Value: $13.40

donation to liberty dollar: $11.60

donation to the Ron Paul campaign: ???

"The $1000 Gold Ron Paul Dollar measures 32 mm and contains one Troy ounce of .9999 fine gold."

Price: $1000
Value: $683.50

donation to Liberty Dollar: $316.50

donation to the Ron Paul campaign: ???

It is likely that Liberty Dollar is not donating anything to the Ron Paul campaign. But I do not know that for a fact. Showing the coins to friends will help Ron Paul get elected President.

Regards,

David Merrill.

Postscript...

"While I respect researchers like you who take the time to interpret things in common law terms, I must say that the examples you've presented do not persuade me that you have discovered the elusive silver bullet."

It took me a moment to catch on to the gist. Sorry.

Nearly all suitors are self-employed. So there is no record of non-taxable activity anyway. If you did not exceed the minimum amount of taxable income over the tax year, requiring you to file a return, then you do not file a return. Not many people will file retroactively for past years on bad faith.

The main scenario is when the employer has been sending withholdings to the IRS over the tax year. Therefore it is good to get the refund like with the state employee in the example I linked.

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_affidavit_...

I suppose the reason I do not collect testimony is that nobody should go into this following example. You should understand your intent and right under the law to redeem lawful money. Many people can glean it from the video after a few viewings. As people started doing this, Congress put on the pressure by jacking up the frivolous filing penalty 10X. So mimicking without understanding is unwise.

I suggest anybody who sends a tax return to get a refund, who has been redeeming lawful money should include a certified copy of Title 12 U.S.C. §411 from my clerk. Call (719) 520-6200 to order by the Reception # on the image:

http://goldismoney.info/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2...

When the IRS agent compares the Zero return to the withholdings, that will not add up and they will likely resort to the guidelines for the $5K penalty:

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=168637,00.html
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-07-30.pdf

And since the lawful money redemption is in no way a demand about precious metals, the $5K penalty does not apply. The objective of having a certified copy with all the stamps, bells and whistles is to confuse the IRS agent enough that he will forward the return form to an attorney who will of course execute the refund without educating any lower agents about redeeming lawful money.

"Returns or submissions that contain positions not listed above, which on their face have no basis for validity in existing law, or which have been deemed frivolous in a published opinion of the United States Tax Court or other court of competent jurisdiction, may be determined to reflect a desire to delay or impede the administration of Federal tax laws and thereby subject to the $5,000 penalty."

What you prove with the certified copy is that redeeming lawful money has basis in existing law. It is just good to make the effort to get your 1040 Form to an attorney who will understand that at a glance.

Regards,

David Merrill.

So, have a number of people

So, have a number of people you've worked with, or know of, obtained refunds from the IRS based on your above argument and procedure? Have any been prosecuted?

Famous Quote from Justice William O. Douglas

"The Constitution is not neutral.
It was designed to take the government
off the backs of people."

Famous Quote from Justice William O. Douglas

"The Constitution is not neutral.
It was designed to take the government
off the backs of people."

numbers?

I know that many have begun redeeming lawful money. Some for two or three years now since I have been advocating redemption. There are no refunds to be had if you are self-employed. Meaning since you anticipate the amount of taxable income will be below the reporting threshold, no withholdings are with the Treasury for a refund.

So far the IRS is too smart to try any prosecution. One has to be demanding lawful money based in metals for there to be an issue. Title 12 U.S.C. §411 is clear - what it was enacted for and its intent as remedy today. By avoiding prosecution they avoid the precedent on an opinion in court.

Much like Sarcasmo telling me that if I do not like Ron Paul coins enough to overpay $316 for one by weight then don't buy one, if you cannot understand what you are doing simply - redeeming lawful money instead of getting the privilege of private credit don't go reporting for a refund of withholdings. Many people understand - even Sarcasmo tells me that the video is in plain English and lays it out clearly. What you should do is write down some of the case citations and code and have a reference librarian prove that you are not being misled.

That is important in your own competency. Do not trust me on it. Even if I had better examples, you are still getting the information from cyberspace where anything can seem real.

Regards,

David Merrill.

nightmare scenario

Dogster said:

"If you are correct, then the Ron Paul Revolutionary army would be just the right size forces to get the job done through redeeming FRNs and hoarding US notes."

So imagine this. Someone like you files for a refund of withholdings and the IRS agent decides your 1040 Form claim, in light of the $6K of withholdings your employer has been saving for you, which by the way the Treasury has been using instead of you all tax year, is a frivolous claim. Which is a mistake because unlike some of the folks around here you accept history. - That the Southern States are not allowed to secede from the Union and that emergency justifies fiat currency without a metal base or exchange rate. So you made no attempt to be redeeming this lawful money in gold or silver coin. You were simply non-endorsing and you included a copy of the backside of one of your paychecks to prove that and now it is "on the record".

Let's pretend this gets to court. I don't care how. Either you get a Letter of Deficiency with a $5000 penalty (you file in Tax Court) or the Treasury files in criminal - "Failure to File" or a civil court action. But we skip ahead to your day in court - which by the way will never happen because...

DOGSTER: "Your honor; do you see the backside of an example paycheck with the verbiage - DEPOSITED FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUNT OR EXCHANGED FOR NON-NEGOTIABLE FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES OF FACE VALUE?"

JUDGE: "Yes, that is on the record."

DOGSTER: "For the record I need to know if I am entitled to redeem lawful money in compensation for my work, services and goods I provide?"

[Let's pretend the judge says No. Or tries to deny it somehow, that Title 12 U.S.C. §411 applies to you. Put this case on the record and request an explanation what difference there is between you and the defendant in this case:

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_public_mon...
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_public_mon...

"Holder of a $50 Federal Reserve Bank note, while entitled to redeem his note..." gets combined with "They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand..." and the definition of lawful money in US v Rickman and US v Ware is that US notes shall be lawful money while FRNs may be redeemed in lawful money... so that the decision to quit putting more US notes into circulation in 1971 was only because FRNs function as well...

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

Last paragraph:

"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."

You get testimony that the judge is the custodian of the law in his courtroom because he is obligated to explain to you about this.]

JUDGE: Yes. You are allowed to demand redemption of Federal Reserve Notes in lawful money.

DOGSTER: That is what I was attempting to do. Redeem lawful money and avoid any obligations for getting private credit from the Federal Reserve. Are you telling me that I was not doing that correctly with the verbiage you see there on the back of my example paycheck?

JUDGE: ...

These things rarely follow any set script and most attorneys in black robes would be smart enough not to let this get to the point where he would be the one to explain how to improve the verbiage for non-endorsement. But Dogster; once you have that transcript in hand, where the judge either admits the verbiage is the correct way to redeem lawful money or he explains how to improve the verbiage so that you redeem lawful money:

"If you are correct, then the Ron Paul Revolutionary army would be just the right size forces to get the job done through redeeming FRNs and hoarding US notes."

Grab a certified copy of the transcript and get back to me and us. We will be glad to buy new rubber stamps!

Regards,

David Merrill.

P.S. Dear Spendless;

"Can you explain: "Take up the task and responsibility for cashing your paychecks in a system of just weights and abolish the Fed ourselves." in english or Lay terms, I am sorry I just don't understand what we need to do. Thank you!!!!!"

The verbiage to use above your signature on the back of a paycheck is shown on the video. Knowing your name - example Senator Paul is actually Ronald Ernest and he does business as Ron Paul. His driver license identifies him to the State as RONALD ERNEST PAUL while in international law, the legal or full name is expressed Ronald Ernest PAUL.

http://www.clubdeparis.org/sections/services/communiques/gab...

"3.The delegation of the Gabonese Republic was headed by Mr Paul TOUNGUI, State Minister, Minister of Economy, Finance, Budget and Privatisation. The meeting was chaired by Mr Xavier MUSCA, Chairman of the Paris Club, Head of the Treasury and Economic Policy Department of the French Ministry of Economy, Finance and Employment."

Which is suffice to say that identification of the proper parties to any contract is essential for any enforcement of rights - especially God-given unalienable rights like redeeming lawful money. In other words, if you are confused about your own name, then expect attorneys to take advantage of you in the courtroom.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1054706869308133588

Slide to Minute Mark: 28:50 for the video example.

Here is a preview of what the future holds if you continue endorsing private credit from the Fed: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html

The Flimflam of Income Tax denial

Clearly http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0703b.asp Sheldon's link need to live on this thread, too...But if I'm wrong and this is a winning case disguised as another Irwin-Schiff style felony-loser, why not go out and win it yourself, since presumably you have all sorts of checks by now with the requisite incantations on 'em?
JMR

That is one in the video

I just sent the inquisitive member Spendless to Minute Mark 28:50 of the video.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1054706869308133588

That was a suitor's paycheck. He let me make a copy of it.

Regards,

David Merrill.

P.S. One should pause enough to understand where Sarcasmo is coming from:

"I think one of the problems with this conversation is that we are using slopping terminology. "Redeem" only happens with Bernard's Libertys (which are beautiful, and I suggest buying them as well as buying e-gold!) when you exchange the certificate form for the warehoused metallic form."

"Thanks. IMO Ted Butler rocks, but "this is not investment advice." :) And for those willing to follow the e-gold user agreement and to contact me, I'm willing to GIVE AWAY a tiny bit of e-gold from the promotional account."

Sarcasmo is here selling fictional currency - e-gold certificates. This is the cyberspace child of the SDR (Special Drawing Rights). Fictional currency baskets were invented by the US in late 1975 for use in Amendments to the Bretton Woods Agreements - the removal through the secret Jamaica Rambouillet Accord of the dollar's exchange rate from the fixed standard (gold) to the floating exchange rate (SDRs). From Dec. 1975 State Department Bulleting Undersecretary of the Treasury Katz:

www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/SeizeGold.jpg

Depriving the private credit in the Fed of confidence reflects immediately upon any of you believing that you can get your gold, even during a bank run on e-gold by presenting a certificate.

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_TWA_Collec...

So? Did his lawsuit

So? Did his lawsuit either:
1. Do something to abolish the Federal Reserve without anyone noticing, or
2. Allow him not to pay any income taxes without Irwin Schiff results?? I'm going to keep pasting that Sheldon Richman article in all the threads you create on this topic, but I suspect you're engaged in a plot to either bore everyone here to death wtih Steven Hawking's voice reading the constitution in that video or cause any believers to lose a tax lawsuit.
JMR

PS There's no such thing as an e-gold certificate. You sound pretty dim when you talk as if one exists. I don't care if people here use e-gold, I care if the government gets away with wholesale

http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/07/wh...

jury manipulation. People here should use anything they can besides FRNs if they wish to get rid of the Fed via free market means, and a variety of choices besides e-gold exist.

very good

I thought you were promoting e-gold here.

"...And for those willing to follow the e-gold user agreement and to contact me, I'm willing to GIVE AWAY a tiny bit of e-gold from the promotional account."

That is what you said, right?

You buy e-gold without a certificate? What do you present if you want real gold for the e-gold? Well, don't answer that if it makes you uncomfortable.

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_FRNs_not_d...
http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_FRNs_not_d...

Here is a certificate from 1928 and well, here is the lesson we can get from history.

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_TWA_Collec...

The profits you gain by people buying e-gold instead of metal gold are in anticipation of a Run and Crash. Like investing in the Stock Market. If you redeem your e-gold (certificates or not) in real gold before everybody else, they you are a Winner.

Dissociating yourself from your e-gold promotions just convinces me you are a charlatan viewing me as competition for teaching people the remedy from the original Tontine; the Fed..

Regards,

David Merrill.

I'm promoting, as I keep saying

I'm promoting, as I keep saying, various private alternatives to the Fed besides nutty writings on checks. e-gold is but one.

e-gold "certificates" still do not exist, never have, and that fact has neither stopped bailment or redemption. If you want to learn about e-gold instead of imagining nonexistant certificates, go read the user agreement -- it's no more-boring than your video, that's for sure! :)

Giving away(!) e-gold here isn't about profit, I just want to get people interested in an unjust legal case. No matter what you think of my opinion of your ideas, the government should not be able to get away with wholesale jury manipulation. I just want people to get used to alternatives (like Bernard's Liberties, which I also heartily endorse!) to the Fed's dishonest money. ANY Government, like it or not, simply is NOT well suited to the issuance of money, even though history shows that some banks issuing certificate-money failed. Every time governments try it, wars happen, whether on poverty or on Saddam/Iraq, and when those wars cost too much, the issuer defaults on the contractual obligation inherent in any honest, Constitutional money. Your jpeg is irrelevant to e-gold (or any other privately issued alternative currency) because it described government, not private, action.

And you're not competition, either, for e-gold. As I keep telling you, you're more like competition for Irwin Schiff, and likely to get similar results, regardless of what you believe about me.
JMR

it just seems...

It just seems a little confused that you do not like the Fed yet you endorse private credit from the same. Did you think about that? Why are you required to endorse a check anyway?

I have shown you the law requiring that Federal Reserve notes be redeemed in lawful money. And I imagine there are people like you reading who made sense of it. I can tell by your comments about the form of lawful money that you understood the article and video.

Thanks for your great comments!

Regards,

David Merrill.

I don't. I endorse any & all

I don't. I endorse any & all alternatives -- this very site has nice looking ads for a lovely one that features Ron Paul's face.

Presumably, banks want me to sign checks and thereby endorse them with my signature in order to better identify me and as part of legal tradition going back a long time. Why you have a problem with that is beyond me, because your incantations change nothing about either your money or the taxes you owe, which seems to be your real Irwin Schiff point. As I said, I like Irwin, but I like living OUTSIDE a federal prison.

You've shown me no real difference between the rare $100s from the '70s that you like and Federal Reserve Notes, and I do not believe you're right about the law because I think Sheldon Richman's right instead. I also think "lawful money" means gold or silver Constitutionally, no matter what your losing tax cases say. What you are doing, if anything, is not getting rid of the Federal Reserve, or the income tax. Much like the 9/11 Truthers, your considerable energy is being misdirected.
JMR

you sign endorsement

You sign the backside of checks? Then you endorse private credit from the Federal Reserve. That is endorsement. You are the bond - chattel behind the fractional lending. Your signature is that endorsement.

I really think your failing to believe that is disingenuous but just the same you have made it clear through your skeptical counterpoint just how easy it is to redeem lawful money - US notes in the form of FRNs and redeem that same amount of national debt. As people quit crying out for more debt and redeem lawful money, then Ron Paul will have a constituency so that his bills to abolish the Fed will get the notice they deserve.

Regards,

David Merrill.

Just to clarify-

Do I write/stamp

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

instead of endorsing check? (I normally endorse with a rubber stamp having my company's name and address), or in addition? What if the bank refuses it stamped in this manner?

I'm willing to raise a little hell just for the fun of it, but don't want to get into a scrap with the IRS.

Famous Quote from Justice William O. Douglas

"The Constitution is not neutral.
It was designed to take the government
off the backs of people."

Famous Quote from Justice William O. Douglas

"The Constitution is not neutral.
It was designed to take the government
off the backs of people."

While you're at it, can you

While you're at it, can you explain why I should believe that a piece of paper can at the same time be both "NON NEGOTIABLE" & "LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE"? (This should be amusing...)
JMR

in the video

I explained that in the video. New thread: