- ... 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 theMessage 1 of 16 , Sep 1, 2006View SourceMichael Noonan wrote:
> Frog Farmer wrote:Yes, even though no (money) issue has been raised, if you ever want to
> > 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.
raise it, do it early on, at first opportunity.
>The "issue" is not between the two - it is the issue that YOU raise
> 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.
because YOU have an issue over some point involving the money. There
could be any number of possible issues in any number of possible
> Hence, what is the "issue" in having to pay fines/That is a fallacy - FRNs are not the only things that circulate as
> debts in one or the other, given that only FRNs
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"There is an area of study generally called "The Money Issue". It takes
> > 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.
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
> For the moment, I am certainly confounded and not inRead the above book and you will be well armed.
> any position to inflict the same on any oppressor.
> Given Frog Farmer's experience in traffic court:There WAS an issue in my case, one of many possible. My personal issue
> >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?
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 moneyTo use them, it helps not to be shown to be a hypocrite. Those with
>> arguments in court.
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 theMight anyone have thought to ask the Big Question?
> inside of a traffic court. As I recall, if one had
> to pay anything, it was the "fine," in so many
> Back then, I simply paid the requested amount. I do"WHAT is the current money of account of the United States and how much
> 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.
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 almostPeople have been saying that for years despite my own personal
> impossible to repay in anything else?
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 theFRNs are legal tender. Creditors must accept them when offered in
> 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?
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!)
>They sure can! More FRNs!
> It says FRNs can be redeemed in legal tender:
Here are some facts regarding FRNs that can be used to raise issues with
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
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
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"
- 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 2 of 16 , Sep 2, 2006View SourceCould 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.
- This may be of interest to fans of Merrill Jenkins [or it may just be a reference to The Monetary Realist Society]:Message 3 of 16 , Sep 2, 2006View SourceThis may be of interest to fans of Merrill Jenkins [or it may just be
a reference to The Monetary Realist Society]:
"Tim Wallace" <liberty@...> wrote:
>anything other works by Merrill Jenkins?
> Could anybody recommend a current source for this publication, or
- 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 lawfulMessage 4 of 16 , Sep 5, 2006View SourceTuesday 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
The Senator who gave the talk in 1984 was Metcalf.
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
- ... 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 5 of 16 , Sep 5, 2006View SourceMichael Noonan wrote:
>I guess - I feel very alienated lately.
> Frog Man, you are something else. Thank you!
> Lawful money is defined as:I disagree. Those are two separate propositions. Gold and silver coin
> 31 USC � 5103. Legal tender
is lawful money in the common law, whereas "Legal tender" is an
alternative to payment consisting of discharge in the equity
> United States coins and currency (including FederalFederal reserve notes are not necessarily the same thing as Federal
> reserve notes
Reserve Notes. And Federal reserve banks are not Federal Reserve Banks.
> and circulating notes of Federal reserveNotice it doesn't say "and effect payment at law and transfer of
> banks and national banks) are legal tender for all
> debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.
allodial title to substance."
>But they are lawful money if they are gold and silver of a known purity
> Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for
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.
- 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 6 of 16 , Sep 5, 2006View SourceI 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
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.
- That position is pretty funny considering the following FACTS. Such as the NOTICE printed on FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES from 1914-1962. 1914-1928 “The UnitedMessage 7 of 16 , Sep 5, 2006View Source
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."
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.
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.
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 email@example.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
> 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.
- 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 8 of 16 , Sep 6, 2006View SourceGreetings,
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!
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
> Tuesday 5 September 2006Snipped
> 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.
- 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 thatMessage 9 of 16 , Sep 7, 2006View SourceThursday 7 September 2006
"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
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
- 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), byMessage 10 of 16 , Sep 12, 2006View SourceJim for FISH says
> Iffin y'all wanna play with their (US-FR) notes...There is no such distinction made in Julliard.
> 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...
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
Julliard was passed after Knox, in an effort to buttress Knox,
"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...This is not true. It says that the States are not required to
> And they wuz decided by the same court in the same session!
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.