... All coins when minted are of numismatic status and always have been, even the mistakes and culls, which often have a higher numismatic value than faceMessage 1 of 16 , Oct 20, 2007View Sourcejlaporte02@... wrote:
> Check the gold coin and bullion act of 1985. It is more current thanAll coins when minted are "of numismatic status" and always have been,
> the 1965 act and as such states that the coins minted are of
> numismatic status.
even the mistakes and culls, which often have a higher numismatic value
than face value.
> Also the courts have already ruled that silver and gold coins beforeYes, even "junk coin" is a "numismatic value". Please tell me when each
> 1985 are of numismatic value so using them at face value to avoid
> taxes would be illegal.
minted coin has to be valued at other than face value. After one year?
Is that what they refer to when they refer to "1967 dollars" and "1990
dollars"? And if a coin will never be acceptable at face value, why is
this fraud perpetrated? I need to know. It's pure B.S. All coins are
accepted at face value, which is why the supermarket has no silver in
its drawers unless it's Sunday morning after the Saturday night
> The judge in the Kahre case ruled the same although Kahre's attorneyI wonder if his credentials were in order. If they weren't, who cares
> is appealing that particular decision as he feels it did not apply
> after the 1985 act.
what he said? That he was able to rule the same is just evidence that
nobody there had a clear conception of money or values or even English.
From what you say a pewter cladded coins value according to the act of 1985 is in its precious metal contents even though it has a face value that exceedsMessage 1 of 16 , Oct 22, 2007View SourceFrom what you say a pewter cladded coins' value according to the act of 1985 is in its precious metal contents even though it has a face value that exceeds its numismatic value. How could you attempt to avoid taxes by using them? The National Collector's Mint, Inc.sells a Morgan Silver Dollar (86 to 129 years old) for $19.00. Its face value is $1. A 2007 silver (sic) dollar has a face value of $1 but most probably is worth 15 cents as it is mostly pewter. Could you post what the act of 1985 says? I don't see a way to use such application. Also, where can I read more about the Kahre case?jlaporte02@... said:Check the gold coin and bullion act of 1985. It is more current than the 1965 act and as such states that the coins minted are of numismatic status. Also the courts have already ruled that silver and gold coins before 1985 are of numismatic value so using them at face value to avoid taxes would be illegal.The judge in the Kahre case ruled the same although Kahre's attorney is appealing that particular decision as he feels it did not apply after the 1985 act.
True enough for court rulings before 1933, when notes were taken off the gold exchange.. Then in 1969, notes were taken off the gold standard and becameMessage 1 of 16 , Oct 22, 2007View Source
True enough for court rulings before 1933, when
notes were taken off the gold exchange..
Then in 1969, notes were taken off the gold standard
and became commodity dollars.
Notes inherently cause inflation, while gold and silver
coins do not.
Yes, if too many coins are circulated worth greater value
than the existing need, you'll have inflation.
But this is easier to do with notes.
At 08:30 AM 10/20/07 -0700, you wrote:
This from a editorial found on The Daily Reckoning, http://www.safehaven.com/article-8633.htm.
The first Supreme Court argument underpinning the defendant's case was Ling Su Fan v. U.S. in 1910, which "establishes the legal distinction of a coin bearing the 'impress' of the sovereign: 'These limitations are due to the fact that public law gives to such coinage a value which does not attach as a mere consequence of intrinsic value. Their quality as a legal tender is an attribute of law aside from their bullion value. They bear, therefore, the impress of sovereign power which fixes value and authorizes their use in exchange.'"
If that was not enough, the second pillar of the defendant's argument is Thompson v. Butler from 1877, which, "establishes that the law makes no legal distinction between the values of coin and paper money used as legal tender: A coin dollar is worth no more for the purposes of tender in payment of an ordinary debt than a note dollar. The law has not made the note a standard of value any more than coin. It is true that in the market, as an article of merchandise, one is of greater value than the other; but as money, that is to say, as a medium of exchange, the law knows no difference between them."
----- Original Message ----
From: Frog Farmer <frogfrmr@...>
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 12:57:57 AM
Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Re: request for tips and tricks
Jerry Fleischner wrote:
> Regarding coinage:
> The Coinage Act of July 23, 1965 (Section 102): "All coins and
> currencies of
> the United States (including Federal Reserve notes and circulating
> notes of
> Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations) , regardless
> of when
> coined or issued, shall be legal tender for all debts, public and
> public charges, taxes, duties, and dues.">>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here s the chapter on coins and currency from the US code http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode31/usc_sup_01_31_08_IV_10_51.html Gold bullion coin actMessage 1 of 16 , Oct 22, 2007View SourceHere's the chapter on coins and currency from the US code
Gold bullion coin act 1985
Aticle on the kahre case.
As a side note the attorney that represented Kahre was Joel Hanson. I spoke with his brother who knows the details inside and out and he did say the guys were paid as contractors. A brief outline as to how this worked.
The people working for Kahre were independent contractors.
As such they had a contract to be paid in gold and silver. The government has no right to interfere with private contracts and it doesnt matter what the hourly rate works out to be.
Because he had an obligation to fulfill his contracts and pay the contractors in gold and silver, he was able to write off the cost of the gold and silver as an expense to fulfill his contract obligations. The contractors on the other hand were merely claiming the face value of the coin they recieved.
Also not mentioned here is the fact that several of the contactors pleaded guilty before the trial but it wasnt a conspiracy plea and all testified at the trial that there was no conspiracy to defraud.
One last note if that this was another case that the Cheek defense was used. Doesnt mean that what they did was legal. That remains to be seen.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "The Handyman" <ebobie@...>
From what you say a pewter cladded coins' value according to the act of 1985 is in its precious metal contents even though it has a face value that exceeds its numismatic value. How could you attempt to avoid taxes by using them? The National Collector's Mint, Inc.sells a Morgan Silver Dollar (86 to 129 years old) for $19.00. Its face value is $1. A 2007 silver (sic) dollar has a face value of $1 but most probably is worth 15 cents as it is mostly pewter. Could you post what the act of 1985 says? I don't see a way to use such application. Also, where can I read more about the Kahre case?
Your general concepts are correct, but there is no pewter in our coins. They are made of 91.67% copper and 8.33% nickel with the nickel clat onto the outsideMessage 1 of 16 , Oct 22, 2007View SourceYour general concepts are correct, but there is no pewter in our coins. They are made of 91.67% copper and 8.33% nickel with the nickel clat onto the outside of the copper, not blended with it. Pewter is a mixture of antimony, tin and copper.
The Handyman wrote:From what you say a pewter cladded coins' value according to the act of 1985 is in its precious metal contents even though it has a face value that exceeds its numismatic value. How could you attempt to avoid taxes by using them? The National Collector's Mint, Inc.sells a Morgan Silver Dollar (86 to 129 years old) for $19.00. Its face value is $1. A 2007 silver (sic) dollar has a face value of $1 but most probably is worth 15 cents as it is mostly pewter. Could you post what the act of 1985 says? I don't see a way to use such application. Also, where can I read more about the Kahre case?jlaporte02@comcast. net said:Check the gold coin and bullion act of 1985. It is more current than the 1965 act and as such states that the coins minted are of numismatic status. Also the courts have already ruled that silver and gold coins before 1985 are of numismatic value so using them at face value to avoid taxes would be illegal.The judge in the Kahre case ruled the same although Kahre's attorney is appealing that particular decision as he feels it did not apply after the 1985 act.
A good way to access the Kahre case is by searching using key words Kahre with IRSMessage 1 of 16 , Oct 22, 2007View SourceA good way to access the Kahre case is by searching using key words 'Kahre'
... Sometimes the obvious need not be explained. When was the last time you dealt with legal tender and altered the numerical figures based upon some otherMessage 1 of 16 , Oct 22, 2007View SourceRon wrote:
> This only says that it is legal tender, not that it must be valued atSometimes the obvious need not be explained. When was the last time you
> face value.
dealt with legal tender and altered the numerical figures based upon
some other factor than the face value?
> Probably the more important question is; what is theIt's the only definition of "dollar" there is, the original one.
> definition of the 'dollar' on it?
Everything else is based upon that.
> The fifty 'dollars' on the one ounceNo, they are not two different dollars. Both are what they are as a
> gold are obviously not FRN 'dollars'! It takes more like 750 of the
> FRN 'dollars' to get the fifty gold ones. They are obviously two
> different 'dollars'!
result of laws people COULD go read, but most likely never will.
The "Fifty Dollars" on the one ounce gold coin is an admission by
Congress that they had to change the exchange value between the "real
dollars" (that existed before our country did, and were so well known
world-wide that it would be ridiculous to think a few arrogant Americans
could change the reality of it) and the legislated gold equivalent,
which they do have the right to regulate and which they have done in all
cases of the issue of gold coins for trade.
The word "dollar" on FRNs or any other debt instrument means just what
it says - a dollar of silver is owed to somebody. Does that change
because the debtor changes his mind and pretends to forget? No. Does
it change if the debtor loudly proclaims that his notes will never be
paid? No. What does change after that public admission is that anyone
accepting the bad notes from the debtor deserves what he gets because he
was warned of the quality of the debt. Debt instruments are rated; for
example, this year the Federal Reserve's debt instruments have gotten a
lower rating that those of the European Union, with the "euro" (an
imaginary unit originally based upon the Federal Reserve's imaginary
unit) now being "worth" about one third more in international trade
credits than a note from Americans.
> There is even a discrepency between the 'dollar' in the 1792 coinageRight: the "dollar" in the coinage act is the definition of the word.
> act and the 'dollar' on the one ounce silver eagle, which is also
> legal tender.
It was taken from everyday use with no changes.
The word "dollar" on the one ounce silver eagle is called "face value"
(the value on the face of a coin) and THAT is the "legal tender value"
of the coin, for accounting purposes. The fact that this coin contains
more or less silver than the nominal amount is a result of the decisions
of men in charge of making the coins. Maybe Ronald Reagan wanted to
make a small gift to Americans willing to avoid the Fed and use coins -
no matter, because the actual "dollar coins" have NEVER contained the
exact lawful amount of metal as defined in the monetary act because of
"seignorage", the amount of metal deducted from each physical coin in
order to pay for the minting and engraving. The word "dollar" on a coin
is like the word "Milk" on a cardboard container. The thing may or may
not contain what the word conveys.
> Since 'dollar' is a unit of measure of wealth,More accurately, a measure of elemental silver.
> and all threeDollars are not born "on" anything. The word is, but not the thing
> of these items bearing the same quantity of 'dollars' on them
itself. An empty milk container saying "one quart of milk" is NOT any
milk at all, and not a quart of anything except maybe air.
> butNo, it is not. If I were to go paint the words "one gallon" on those
> representing different amounts of wealth means that the use of the
> word 'dollar' on them is meaningless. It is akin to putting '1
> on an oil drum, a thimble and a coffee cup and saying that 'gallon' is
> a unit of liquid measure!
three containers, should I assume people are so stupid that they equate
them all as the same volume of substance? Some would be that stupid,
I'll grant you, maybe severely retarded ones. Maybe a retarded person
could not conceptualize the difference between a thing and the
representation of a thing by a word. He'd maybe believe that if you
stamped the word "gallon" on his head, he'd become a gallon! Things
aren't that bad, YET!
When things get that bad, prisoners should expect at mealtimes to
receive empty paper plates with words printed on them, like "submarine
sandwich" or "steak dinner". "What did you get for dinner, Joe?" "I
dunno, it must've been a misprint..."
... I read it just to see if anything was new or contradictory to established laws. ... Paid what? Dollars or ounces, of gold or silver? ... I guess, forMessage 1 of 16 , Oct 25, 2007View Sourcejlaporte02@... wrote:
> Here's the chapter on coins and currency from the US codeI read it just to see if anything was new or contradictory to
> Gold bullion coin act 1985Paid what? Dollars or ounces, of gold or silver?
> The people working for Kahre were independent contractors.
> As such they had a contract to be paid in gold and silver.
> Doesn't mean that what they did was legal. That remains to beI guess, for some. For some, like the blind, everything will remain to
be seen. For others, there's no question.
For those born yesterday, or even as recently as ten or twenty years
ago, that "chapter" of code might be the only information taken into
consideration when contemplating the situation with money today. Older
folks who've been paying attention to money for a lot longer know that
many omissions have been made to the code (not repeals, just stuff "left
out", statutes and laws still valid, yet unannotated), since code is
only evidence of the law and not the law itself. As I read what they've
left in the code for newbies to read, I see a lot of smoke and mirrors
and obfuscation and downright illiteracy on the part of the writers.
I'm not going to tear it apart here; that would be better saved should
the minions ever decide to take me on in my own cases. What I'd really
like to see is the top secret files that explain to anyone WHY certain
things are still there! For example, can anyone describe this situation
and who it might be involving:
(f) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an amount equal to the
amount by which the proceeds from the sale of the coins issued under
section 5112(i) of title 31, United States Code, exceed the sum of -
(1) the cost of minting, marketing, and distributing such coins,
(2) the value of gold certificates (not exceeding forty-two and
two-ninths dollars a fine troy ounce) retired from the use of gold
contained in such coins,
shall be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury and shall be used
for the sole purpose of reducing the national debt.
I thought gold certificates were no longer being honored! Apparently,
they are, for some people. Who might they be? Rockefellers and other
"Forty-two and two-ninths dollars a fine troy ounce" has what
significance today? Apparently it has some. Actually, the two laws
offered, the code and the 1985 gold act are just more attempts at
obfuscation and deception that become evident when trying to reconcile
their provisions with existing unrepealed monetary laws. For example:
the word "amount" is used without ever specifying "amount of what". The
word "dollar" is defined in terms of its fractions, which is ridiculous.
People might notice if the definition of "pound" was "16 ounces" and the
definition of "ounce" was "1/16th of a pound". They fail to notice the
absurdity of the current code definition of "dollar" most likely because
in their brief stay on the planet they've never been exposed to the
concept of the dollar being a unit of measurement of some thing. Units
don't exist by themselves. They need a physical manifestation to
connect the concept to reality. Congress has not yet explained
everything that is logical in code, and most likely never will. They
will never pass a law saying that when it rains, things get wet! Some
things are just going to have to be understood prior to congress
explaining them. Some things like money used to be widely understood by
a majority. This was when real money was even in the pockets of bums
and hoboes, and children of 6 years old, like I was when I learned about
it. Today people drowning in debt and driving expensive cars have never
held an amount of money equal to the amount a bum used to use to buy
coffee 50 years ago. This is what permits the illiteracy seen in the
codes, where the official notations are mostly comments upon what
"probably should have been" but was not written. Also, did anyone
notice that the "secretary" could ignore just about any of those
provisions "in his discretion"? Which secretary is that, the Secretary
of the Treasury of the United States of America, or the Secretary of the
Treasury of the International Monetary Fund? The first office no longer
exists, does it?
Another point to ponder is when did the lawful established distinction
between "coined money" and "token coinage" disappear from public
consciousness such that now people refer to the latter as the former?
It apparently has occurred, but when and why? I blame it on public
diseducation after 1970.
These recent attempts to hide the fraud really do a poor job of it for
anyone who has read and followed monetary law from the beginning. The
ignorance of the writers is so apparent; they were either grossly
ignorant, or paid to do the best job of obfuscation possible, which was
a poor attempt.
When I was in school, in math class, I did learn about a thing called
"The absolute value of x, denoted "| x |" (and which is read as "the
absolute value of x"), is regarded as the distance of x from zero. This
is why absolute value is never negative; absolute value only asks "how
far?", not "in which direction?". This means that | 3 | = 3, because 3
is three units to the right of zero, and also | -3 | = 3, because -3 is
three units to the left of zero."
This is the only way "three FRNs = three dollars". In the past, and
according to law, money was physical metal that could be coined,
meaning, made into round pieces each of a standard weight and purity.
Today, apparently, people think "coined" means something else, maybe
like they "coin an expression". Today, they think in dollars as they
would with absolute numbers, such that to them, "one dollar" could be
either a dollar in the hand (present), or a dollar of debt (absent).
There is a difference between money and debt (money not present, but due
and owing). People don't appear to realize yet that FRNs are evidences
of debt, even though the laws clearly make that distinction. People for
some reason fail to note that the absence of a thing cannot be equal to
the thing, unless one is thinking in the abstract terms of "absolute
numbers", then $100 of debt can "become" $100 of money in the mind of
one so disposed to think in terms of absolute numbers only, where
positive and negative have no place in the calculations. People who
consider $1 of debt (1 FRN) to be equal to $1 of money are living in a
dream world they've been led to live in through propaganda and vast
resources spent on deception. Until they see and can articulate the
difference they will be victimized by the central bankers who produce
debt in unlimited amounts far exceeding the amount of money ever coined.
They fail to note that papers were always tokens for the coined money
and were never the money itself. Today, people believe that the symbol
for something is equal to the thing represented, but they never look
into whether or not too many symbols have been put into circulation
compared to the amount of money they were made to represent. Some
people, even if you show them the numbers, believe that something
numbering, for example, "ten" can be increased by only increasing the
number of symbols representing it, for example, to "one hundred". Then
you have two groups of people, some knowing only the ten things exist,
but a larger group trading 100 coupons for those 10 things. Obviously,
90% of the coupons will never be redeemed for their stated value. And
so some people say, "no problem, I'll pass the coupons off to someone
else for something real and so I will never suffer the consequences."
This works until the majority realizes that money has to be a positive
number, and debt is a negative number, and that absolute numbers don't
work in the real world to eliminate the obvious differences between
having money and having debt.