Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [tips_and_tricks] US "Money" v FRNs

Expand Messages
  • Michael Noonan
    Friday 1 September 2006 ... Your server may have crashed, but your mind gives no rest. ... Even though no issue has yet been raised, per FF. ... This is why
    Message 1 of 16 , Sep 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Friday 1 September 2006

      Frog Farmer wrote:

      > Dave starts out "I agree with your arguments." but
      > then it gets reduced to "This argument"? And then,
      > "the argument", and "it"?

      Your server may have crashed, but your mind gives no
      rest.

      > Let me copy exactly what the question was:
      > What is the "issue" of having to pay fines/debts in
      > US funds v Federal
      > Reserve Notes?

      Further on:
      > Answer: Yes. You're supposed to raise every issue
      > you'll ever want to bring up before the Supreme
      > Court, aren't you?

      Even though no "issue" has yet been raised, per FF.

      Candi says:
      > You cannot be compelled to pay in any particular
      > specie of currency or money, under equal protection
      > as Congress has abrogated it's responsibility for
      > the guaranty of value of the money.

      > In addition to that, constitutional money and it's
      > definition remains intact, so if any of the agency
      > or court actors requires you to pay in FRN's they
      > are in violation of their oath to the constitution
      > and are committing treason.

      Frog Farmer responds:
      > True, and they do not, so far as my experience has
      > shown

      This is why I asked what the "issue" was between the
      two. From my understanding, FRNs are a liability
      issued by the Fed and accepted as currency, whereas
      US money was that issued by the United States, as in
      US Notes. A dollar is only that unit which is/was
      so many grams of silver.

      Hence, what is the "issue" in having to pay fines/
      debts in one or the other, given that only FRNs
      circulate.

      Frog farmer says"
      > Okay, so I see no issue in either the question or
      > the reply, and see no argument. The original
      > question failed to differentiate FRNs from "US
      > funds" and no citation was given requiring such a
      > thing by anyone. No "issue" was presented.

      There was no "issue" in the question because the
      purpose of the question was to ask what it was, if
      any "issue" existed.

      As to failing to specifically "differentiate" FRNs
      from US funds, the one versus the other shows some
      kind of difference exists, and the answer to the
      question would explain the difference.

      Frog Farmer continues:
      > "The Money Issue" is quite A BROAD TOPIC, AND THERE
      > IS NO ONE ISSUE TO PRESENT TO ANY COURT FOR A
      > DETERMINATION, other than, "WHAT is the current
      > money of account of the United States of America and
      > how much of THAT is a dollar quantity?"

      > But when one has the concepts firmly in their grasp,
      > many, many questions can be formulated to confound
      > your oppressors.

      For the moment, I am certainly confounded and not in
      any position to inflict the same on any oppressor.

      Given Frog Farmer's experience in traffic court:
      >I won a parking ticket just because they didn't want
      > me to make record in front of witnesses regarding
      > what I knew about the monetary system and how it was

      > causing some problems in my own case at hand.

      ...there IS an "issue," which brings me back to my
      original question, WHAT is the issue?


      Okay, so there are some who know how to use the money
      arguments in court.

      It has been quite some time since I have seen the
      inside of a traffic court. As I recall, if one had
      to pay anything,it was the "fine," in so many
      "dollars."

      Back then, I simply paid the requested amount. I do
      not know how the judge/magistrate/actor/whatever is
      politically correct now tells anyone how, or in what
      form, one has to pay any fine.

      I do know that a promissory note in a mortgage says:
      "In return for a loan I have received, I promise to
      pay US $amount ..."

      The "loan" is never identified, for a reason, but the
      amount to be repaid is very specific: US $.

      No one is asking for FRNs. Is that the "issue?"
      FRNs are the only thing circulating, and it is almost
      impossible to repay in anything else? Is that the
      aregument, at least in a mortgage, or any bank
      promissory note, maybe even credit cards, that a bank
      issues checkbook money as a loan, and demands "legal
      tender" in return...even though they accept FRNs or
      checks in return?

      Has 12 USC 411 been repealed?

      It says FRNs can be redeemed in legal tender:


      FEDERAL RESERVE ACT

      SECTION 16—Note Issues

      1. Issuance of Federal Reserve Notes; Nature of
      Obligation; Where Redeemable

      "...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."

      [12 USC 411. As amended by act of Jan. 30, 1934 (48
      Stat. 337). For redemption of Federal reserve notes
      whose bank of issue cannot be identified, see act of
      June 13, 1933.]




      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      http://mail.yahoo.com
    • Frog Farmer
      ... Yes, even though no (money) issue has been raised, if you ever want to raise it, do it early on, at first opportunity. ... The issue is not between the
      Message 2 of 16 , Sep 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Michael Noonan wrote:
        > Frog Farmer wrote:

        > > Answer: Yes. You're supposed to raise every issue
        > > you'll ever want to bring up before the Supreme
        > > Court, aren't you?
        >
        > Even though no "issue" has yet been raised, per FF.

        Yes, even though no (money) issue has been raised, if you ever want to
        raise it, do it early on, at first opportunity.

        >
        > This is why I asked what the "issue" was between the
        > two. From my understanding, FRNs are a liability
        > issued by the Fed and accepted as currency, whereas
        > US money was that issued by the United States, as in
        > US Notes. A dollar is only that unit which is/was
        > so many grams of silver.

        The "issue" is not between the two - it is the issue that YOU raise
        because YOU have an issue over some point involving the money. There
        could be any number of possible issues in any number of possible
        situations.

        > Hence, what is the "issue" in having to pay fines/
        > debts in one or the other, given that only FRNs
        > circulate.

        That is a fallacy - FRNs are not the only things that circulate as
        money. In fact, FRNs have never exceeded 5% of all the things that
        circulate as money. Coinage is another 5%. 90% are "other forms".

        > Frog farmer says"
        > > Okay, so I see no issue in either the question or
        > > the reply, and see no argument. The original
        > > question failed to differentiate FRNs from "US
        > > funds" and no citation was given requiring such a
        > > thing by anyone. No "issue" was presented.
        >
        > There was no "issue" in the question because the
        > purpose of the question was to ask what it was, if
        > any "issue" existed.

        There is an area of study generally called "The Money Issue". It takes
        note of facts around certain aspects of the monetary system. Any of
        these facts alone may be enough for a man or woman to formulate their
        own "issue" in their own case. What the specific issue is all depends
        upon the facts of the case, and the mind of the person propounding it.

        If you want a large collection of issues presented in a logical fashion,
        read "Everything I Have Is TheIRS" by Merrill Jenkins. Then you'll
        understand it all. He presented every possible issue and won on every
        point.

        > For the moment, I am certainly confounded and not in
        > any position to inflict the same on any oppressor.

        Read the above book and you will be well armed.

        > Given Frog Farmer's experience in traffic court:
        > >I won a parking ticket just because they didn't want
        > > me to make record in front of witnesses regarding
        > > what I knew about the monetary system and how it was
        > > causing some problems in my own case at hand.
        >
        > ...there IS an "issue," which brings me back to my
        > original question, WHAT is the issue?

        There WAS an issue in my case, one of many possible. My personal issue
        at that time was that I was told by administrative personnel to pay with
        "regular green money". I was ready to talk about it in front of a
        roomful of witnesses, but eventually I would have required an order in
        writing, and they decided not to discuss it and they dismissed the
        ticket. I was guilty.


        >> Okay, so there are some who know how to use the money
        >> arguments in court.

        To use them, it helps not to be shown to be a hypocrite. Those with
        FRNs in their pockets and bank checkbooks will have a hard time using
        the money issue.

        > It has been quite some time since I have seen the
        > inside of a traffic court. As I recall, if one had
        > to pay anything, it was the "fine," in so many
        > "dollars."

        Might anyone have thought to ask the Big Question?

        > Back then, I simply paid the requested amount. I do
        > not know how the judge/magistrate/actor/whatever is
        > politically correct now tells anyone how, or in what
        > form, one has to pay any fine.

        "WHAT is the current money of account of the United States and how much
        of THAT is a dollar quantity"

        > No one is asking for FRNs. Is that the "issue?"

        One "issue" is that nobody seems capable of identifying the money of
        account. How can one pay as ordered if the money is left unidentified?
        Is it unidentified? Some say it is gold and silver; just as many or
        more hold that only FRNs circulate. What is the truth?

        > FRNs are the only thing circulating, and it is almost
        > impossible to repay in anything else?

        People have been saying that for years despite my own personal
        experience. I always ask, "how can 3-5% of anything be all there is of
        that thing? Records indicate that FRNS have seldom exceeded 5% of M1.

        > Is that the
        > argument, at least in a mortgage, or any bank
        > promissory note, maybe even credit cards, that a bank
        > issues checkbook money as a loan, and demands "legal
        > tender" in return...even though they accept FRNs or
        > checks in return?

        FRNs are legal tender. Creditors must accept them when offered in
        discharge of debts. The trick is that nobody can be forced to be a
        creditor (lender). If you let yourself get into that position, you can
        be stuck with the Old Maid (FRN).

        > Has 12 USC 411 been repealed?

        I don't think it has been repealed - I remember that the California
        Franchise Tax people told me that it was still in effect the last time I
        checked (about 25 years ago!)

        >
        > It says FRNs can be redeemed in legal tender:

        They sure can! More FRNs!

        Here are some facts regarding FRNs that can be used to raise issues with
        your opponents:

        1. FRNs are not notes, but are labeled notes. Is this a fraud?

        2. FRNs are not dollars according to their maker, the Federal Reserve.

        3. FRNs are "elastic". FRNs are referred to as 1970 dollars, 1980
        dollars, etc, up until "today's dollars". Who determines the dollar
        value of an hour of my labor tomorrow morning? Tomorrow evening? FRNs
        became 5% more worthless today in comparison to my life-savings in
        constitutional dollars of silver coin. Will IRS take that into account
        when valuing the sandwich I give to the illegal migrant who picks my
        grapes for me?

        4. If I receive $20 in gold coin tomorrow, will the IRS say I received
        $20 or over $500?

        5. If they have to record my $20 in gold coin as $20, which they do, why
        do people accept FRNs for their work instead of requiring gold or silver
        coin which would lower the amount of "dollars" they receive for their
        work and which would place them in a much lower tax bracket, assuming
        that they were required to pay taxes in the first place?

        6. Every major city in America has one or more currency exchanges where
        gold and silver coins are readily available for using in exchanges
        between Americans who want to use them. In the 1980's a congressman
        from Washington state made a speaking tour around the country educating
        Americans to the facts surrounding FRNs ("Debt Money Awareness Week")
        and I have not used FRNs or credit since that day I sat in his audience.

        7. A dollar coin minted this year takes at least 10FRN to obtain.
        Another dollar coin minted this year takes only 1 FRN to obtain.
        This is proof that congress no longer fulfills its duty to maintain
        parity. Why do people report the receipt of 10FRN as ten dollars when a
        FRN only obtains 1/10 of a lawful dollar, but 10 legal tender (debt)
        dollars? Is it because those people don't care enough to know the
        difference, or don't want to "make waves"? Or is it because they only
        deal in debt, and can profit from the use of FRNs because of their
        depreciating character (they borrow today and repay depreciated FRNs
        later)?

        8. Gold and silver are substance at the common law and convey allodial
        ownership at law, while FRNs are discounted commercial debt paper
        conveying only a fluctuating insurable interest in the equity
        jurisdiction. Some people see an advantage in avoiding a jurisdiction
        where rights are not guaranteed and outcomes are left to the discretion
        of bureaucrats.

        I'm sure there are many more possible issues that can be raised around
        the topic of money. The one a person uses is the one that makes the most
        sense to him in the circumstances of any particular case.

        The chance to introduce the money issue is as soon as the word "dollar"
        is encountered.
      • Tim Wallace
        Could anybody recommend a current source for this publication, or anything other works by Merrill Jenkins? (My Google search didn t turn up any.)
        Message 3 of 16 , Sep 2, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Could anybody recommend a current source for this publication, or anything other works by Merrill Jenkins?

          (My Google search didn't turn up any.)

          Moderator/Bear: My Google search did. Use "Merrill Jenkins" in quotes and there are numerous listings that include reference to his expertise in money issues.

          Frog Farmer wrote:

          > If you want a large collection of issues presented in a logical
          > fashion, read "Everything I Have Is TheIRS" by Merrill Jenkins.
        • tthor.geo
          This may be of interest to fans of Merrill Jenkins [or it may just be a reference to The Monetary Realist Society]:
          Message 4 of 16 , Sep 2, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            This may be of interest to fans of Merrill Jenkins [or it may just be
            a reference to The Monetary Realist Society]:

            http://home.earthlink.net/~cadman777/monetary-reform.htm

            "Tim Wallace" <liberty@...> wrote:
            >
            > Could anybody recommend a current source for this publication, or
            anything other works by Merrill Jenkins?
          • Michael Noonan
            Tuesday 5 September 2006 Frog Man, you are something else. Thank you! Mention of 12 USC 411 was made because it declares that FRNs shall be redeemed in lawful
            Message 5 of 16 , Sep 5, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Tuesday 5 September 2006

              Frog Man, you are something else. Thank you!

              Mention of 12 USC 411 was made because it declares
              that FRNs shall be redeemed in lawful money. My
              take was that lawful money consisted of silver, gold,
              even copper, and US Notes backed by same.

              Frog Farmer's take was yes, FRNs can be redeemded for
              MORE lawful FRNs.

              Lawful money is defined as:

              31 USC § 5103. Legal tender

              United States coins and currency (including Federal
              reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve
              banks and national banks) are legal tender for all
              debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.

              Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for
              debts.

              ___

              Oh well.


              The Senator who gave the talk in 1984 was Metcalf.




              __________________________________________________
              Do You Yahoo!?
              Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
              http://mail.yahoo.com
            • Frog Farmer
              ... I guess - I feel very alienated lately. ... I disagree. Those are two separate propositions. Gold and silver coin is lawful money in the common law,
              Message 6 of 16 , Sep 5, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Michael Noonan wrote:
                >
                > Frog Man, you are something else. Thank you!

                I guess - I feel very alienated lately.

                > Lawful money is defined as:
                >
                > 31 USC � 5103. Legal tender

                I disagree. Those are two separate propositions. Gold and silver coin
                is lawful money in the common law, whereas "Legal tender" is an
                alternative to payment consisting of discharge in the equity
                jurisdiction.

                > United States coins and currency (including Federal
                > reserve notes

                Federal reserve notes are not necessarily the same thing as Federal
                Reserve Notes. And Federal reserve banks are not Federal Reserve Banks.

                > and circulating notes of Federal reserve
                > banks and national banks) are legal tender for all
                > debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.

                Notice it doesn't say "and effect payment at law and transfer of
                allodial title to substance."

                >
                > Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for
                > debts.

                But they are lawful money if they are gold and silver of a known purity
                and they do transfer allodial titles.

                > The Senator who gave the talk in 1984 was Metcalf.

                Yes, Jack Metcalf from Washington state. The day we went to see him give
                his "Debt Money Awareness Week" talk in Marin County, California, he was
                preaching to the choir. We had at least 20 people in the audience who
                already knew about the FRN fraud, and were already into using only
                lawful money. We all knew about Merrill Jenkins way back then. Tupper
                Saussy and John Grandbouche visited the Frog Farm and met with me
                personally. They didn't know me until we met here - they had come to
                visit my girlfriend, whom the government once had listed as the head of
                the posse commitatus. That was news to both of us when we saw it.
              • one
                I saw a letter from an officer in Treasury in which he stated it was the position of the Department of the Treasury that lawful money is an undefined term.
                Message 7 of 16 , Sep 5, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  I saw a letter from an officer in Treasury in which he stated it was the
                  position of the Department of the Treasury that "lawful money" is an
                  undefined term. Remember money is under congressional power. Tender is
                  not.

                  So, I think you should speak of tender for debts commanded and not
                  prohibited to the States by this Constitution or constitutionally
                  authorized tender. Or supremely lawful tender.
                • Patrick
                  That position is pretty funny considering the following FACTS. Such as the NOTICE printed on FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES from 1914-1962. 1914-1928 “The United
                  Message 8 of 16 , Sep 5, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment

                    That position is pretty funny considering the following FACTS.

                     

                    Such as the NOTICE printed on FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES from 1914-1962.

                     

                    1914-1928 “The United States of America will pay to the bearer on demand __ Dollars ... This note is receivable by all national and member banks and Federal Reserve Banks and for all taxes, customs and other public dues. It is redeemable in gold on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States in the city of Washington , District of Columbia or in gold or lawful money at any Federal Reserve Bank.”

                    1929-1933 “The United States of America will pay to the bearer on demand __ Dollars ... Redeemable in gold on demand at the United States Treasury, or in gold or lawful money at any Federal Reserve Bank.

                    1934-1962 "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, AND IS REDEEMABLE IN LAWFUL MONEY AT THE UNITED STATES TREASURY, OR AT ANY FEDERAL RESERVE BANK."

                     

                    http://www.the-privateer.com/paper.html

                     

                    12 USC 152 used to state that “Lawful money shall be construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States .”

                     

                    Repealed. Pub. L. 103–325, title VI, § 602(e)(22), (23), (f)(7), Sept. 23, 1994, 108 Stat. 2292, 2293

                     

                    Section 152, R.S. § 5186, related to mandatory establishment of lawful money reserves by associations issuing gold notes and reception by such associations of gold notes of other associations in payment of debts.

                     

                    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00000151----000-.html

                     

                    And 12 USC 411 still talks about FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES being REDEEMABLE in LAWFUL MONEY.

                     

                    UNITED STATES CODE

                    TITLE 12 - BANKS AND BANKING

                    CHAPTER 3 - FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

                    SUBCHAPTER XII - FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES

                     

                    Sec. 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.

                     http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00000411----000-.html

                     

                    Unless Clinton was RIGHT and it DEPENDS on your DEFINITION of “is”.

                     

                    Patrick in California

                     

                    "Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't." -- Mark Twain

                     

                     

                    --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com , one <jm367@...> wrote:

                    >  

                    > I saw a letter from an officer in Treasury in which he stated it was the

                    > position of the Department of the Treasury that "lawful money" is an

                    > undefined term.  Remember money is under congressional power.  Tender is

                    > not.

                    >

                    > So, I think you should speak of tender for debts commanded and not

                    > prohibited to the States by this Constitution or constitutionally

                    > authorized tender.  Or supremely lawful tender.

                     

                  • Occupant Family
                    Greetings, Iffin y all wanna play with their (US-FR) notes... Y all had better be readin Julliard v Greenman and Hagar v Land Reclamation Dist. No. 108.
                    Message 9 of 16 , Sep 6, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Greetings,

                      Iffin y'all wanna play with their (US-FR) notes...
                      Y'all had better be readin Julliard v Greenman and Hagar v Land
                      Reclamation Dist. No. 108. [Attached]
                      The 1st case sez those notes is OK in DC...
                      The 2nd case sez they ain't no good in the several States...
                      And they wuz decided by the same court in the same session!

                      Deo volente,
                      Jim for FISH

                      When a man who is honestly mistaken finds the Truth...
                      He will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest!
                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                      On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 09:59:17 -0700 (PDT) Michael Noonan
                      <mn_chicago@...> writes:
                      > Tuesday 5 September 2006
                      >
                      > Frog Man, you are something else. Thank you!
                      >
                      > Mention of 12 USC 411 was made because it declares
                      > that FRNs shall be redeemed in lawful money. My
                      > take was that lawful money consisted of silver, gold,
                      > even copper, and US Notes backed by same.

                      Snipped
                    • Michael Noonan
                      Thursday 7 September 2006 FF said: I guess - I feel very alienated lately. Not to invalidate your feelings, but next time you feel that way, remember that
                      Message 10 of 16 , Sep 7, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Thursday 7 September 2006

                        FF said:

                        "I guess - I feel very alienated lately."

                        Not to invalidate your feelings, but next time you
                        feel that way, remember that you are having a positive
                        ripple effect in the lives of others as you shed
                        important light with the information you convey here.

                        As a common phrase, when going after company fraud,
                        "follow the money" seems very applicable as one of the
                        most important topics to learn, especially when most
                        of us are so ignorant of what has happened with our
                        money.

                        One of my favorite stories, for years, has been the
                        genesis of Frog Farmer's tag, that being, if you put a
                        frog into a pot of boiling water, it will immediately
                        jump out to keep from being boiled alive.

                        Put that same frog in a pot of tepid water, and
                        gradually increase the heat, the frog will boil to
                        death as it adjusts to the increases over time.

                        So it is with our money, no longer ours, but that of
                        the private issuer, the Fed.

                        The Julliard case was mentioned in one of Jenkins'
                        articles on the importance of money. Both cases are
                        worth the read.

                        Thanks to Jim for posting them.

                        Merrill Jenkins is a fascinating read.

                        Follow the money!




                        __________________________________________________
                        Do You Yahoo!?
                        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                        http://mail.yahoo.com
                      • mn_chicago
                        Jim for FISH says ... There is no such distinction made in Julliard. Knox v Lee, 79 US 457 (1871) was used to overturn Hepburn v Griswold, 75 US 603 (1870), by
                        Message 11 of 16 , Sep 12, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Jim for FISH says

                          > Iffin y'all wanna play with their (US-FR) notes...
                          > Y'all had better be readin Julliard v Greenman and Hagar v Land
                          > Reclamation Dist. No. 108. [Attached]
                          > The 1st case sez those notes is OK in DC...

                          There is no such distinction made in Julliard.

                          Knox v Lee, 79 US 457 (1871) was used to overturn Hepburn v
                          Griswold, 75 US 603 (1870), by two newly appointed S Ct judges,
                          expressly for that puropose, in order to find the Legal Tender Acts
                          to be constitutional.

                          The Legal Tender Acts were passed by Congress to allow paper money
                          be issued as "legal tender," contrary to Art 1, Sec 10, cl 1 of the
                          Constitution.

                          Julliard was passed after Knox, in an effort to buttress Knox,
                          claiming: (Julliard):

                          "Congress is authorized to establish a national currency,
                          either in coin or in paper, and to make that currency
                          lawful money for all purposes, as regards the national
                          government or private individuals."

                          The problem in passing Knox was that no one could find the power
                          Congress was alleged to have to emit bills of credit, despite
                          Justice Grey claiming it was there in the Constitution.


                          > The 2nd case sez they ain't no good in the several States...
                          > And they wuz decided by the same court in the same session!

                          This is not true. It says that the States are not required to
                          accept the paper currency as payment for taxes, because the federal
                          government did not have the power to make such an imposition.


                          While Know and Julliard were an effort to do an end around the
                          Constitution, allowing Congress to emit bills of credit in addition
                          to the constitutionally mandated gold and silver coin, what gets
                          lost is that neither case actaully endorsed "irredeemable" paper
                          currency, for eventually, thery were to be paid off.

                          This is contrary to the existing irredeemable fiat monoply money
                          issued by the provate corporation, Federal Reserve.
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.