Community | September 04, 2011 | 29 comments

People Do Have The Power to Close the Federal Reserve, Demand United States Notes

source: http://bit.ly/qWrNIv

Image
Schnookums
When Congress borrows money on the credit of the United States, bonds are thus legislated into existence and deposited as credit entries in Federal Reserve banks. United States bonds, bills and notes constitute money as affirmed by the Supreme Court (Legal Tender Cases, 110 U.S. 421), and this money when deposited with the Fed becomes collateral from whence the Treasury may write checks against the credit thus created in its account (12 USC 391). For example, suppose Congress appropriates an expenditure of $1 billion.

To finance the appropriation Congress creates the $1 billion worth of bonds out of thin air and deposits it with the privately owned Federal Reserve System. Upon receiving the bonds, the Fed credits $1 billion to the Treasury’s checking account, holding the deposited bonds as collateral. When the United States deposits its bonds with the Federal Reserve System, private credit is extended to the Treasury by the Fed. Under its power to borrow money, Congress is authorized by the Constitution to contract debt, and whenever something is borrowed it must be returned. When Congress spends the contracted private credit, each use of credit is debt which must be returned to the lender or Fed. Since Congress authorizes the expenditure of this private credit, the United States incurs the primary obligation to return the borrowed credit, creating a National Debt which results when credit is not returned.

However, if anyone else accepts this private credit and uses it to purchase goods and services, the user voluntarily incurs the obligation requiring him to make a return of income whereby a portion of the income is collected by the IRS and delivered to the Federal Reserve banksters.

Actually the federal income tax imparts two separate obligations: the obligation to file a return and the obligation to abide by the Internal Revenue Code. The obligation to make a return of income for using private credit is recognized in law as an irrecusable obligation, which according to ‘Bouvier’s Law Dictionary’ (1914 ed.), is “a term used to indicate a certain class of contractual obligations recognized by the law which are imposed upon a person without his consent and without regard to any act of his own.”

This is distinguished from a recusable obligation which, according to Bouvier, arises from a voluntary act by which one incurs the obligation imposed by the operation of law. The voluntary use of private credit is the condition precedent which imposes the irrecusable obligation to file a tax return. If private credit is not used or rejected, then the operation of law which imposes the irrecusable obligation lies dormant and cannot apply.

In ‘Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR Co.’ 240 U.S. 1 (1916) the Supreme Court affirmed that the federal income tax is in the class of indirect taxes, which include duties and excises. The personal income tax arises from a duty — i.e., charge or fee — which is voluntarily incurred and subject to the rule of uniformity. A charge is a duty or obligation, binding upon him who enters into it, which may be removed or taken away by a discharge (performance): ‘Bouvier’, p. 459.

Our federal personal income tax is not really a tax in the ordinary sense of the word but rather a burden or obligation which the taxpayer voluntarily assumes, and the burden of the tax falls upon those who voluntarily use private credit. Simply stated the tax imposed is a charge or fee upon the use of private credit where the amount of private credit used measures the pecuniary obligation.

The personal income tax provision of the Internal Revenue Code is private law rather than public law. “A private law is one which is confined to particular individuals, associations, or corporations”: 50 Am.Jur. 12, p.28. In the instant case the revenue code pertains to taxpayers. A private law can be enforced by a court of competent jurisdiction when statutes for its enforcement are enacted: 20 Am.Jur. 33, pgs. 58, 59.

The distinction between public and private acts is not always sharply defined when published statutes are printed in their final form: Case v. Kelly, 133 U.S. 21 (1890). Statutes creating corporations are private acts: 20 Am.Jur. 35, p. 60. In this connection, the Federal Reserve Act is private law. Federal Reserve banks derive their existence and corporate power from the Federal Reserve Act: Armano v. Federal Reserve Bank, 468 F.Supp. 674 (1979).

A private act may be published as a public law when the general public is afforded the opportunity of participating in the operation of the private law. The Internal Revenue Code is an example of private law which does not exclude the voluntary participation of the general public. Had the Internal Revenue Code been written as substantive public law, the code would be repugnant to the Constitution, since no one could be compelled to file a return and thereby become a witness against himself.

Under the fifty titles listed on the preface page of the United States Code, the Internal Revenue Code (26 USC) is listed as having not been enacted as substantive public law, conceding that the Internal Revenue Code is private law. Bouvier declares that private law “relates to private matters which do not concern the public at large.”

It is the VOLUNTARY use of private credit which imposes upon the user the quasi contractual or implied obligation to make a return of income. In ‘Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co.’ 158 U.S. 601 (1895) the Supreme Court had declared the income tax of 1894 to be repugnant to the Constitution, holding that taxation of rents, wages and salaries must conform to the rule of apportionment.

However, when this decision was rendered, there was no privately owned central bank issuing private credit and currency but rather public money in the form of legal tender notes and coins of the United States circulated. Public money is the lawful money of the United States which the Constitution authorizes Congress to issue.........

Continue at:
http://bit.ly/qWrNIv
  1. groups:
    Community,   Business News & Analysis,   History,   The Tin Foil Mafia,   1 more
  2. tags:
    Federal Reserve,  Schno,  Libertarian Spam,  Com. Schno
  3.     
    |

29 comments // People Do Have The Power to Close the Federal Reserve, Demand United States Notes

  • tverdell
  • Paratus
    • 0
      Paratus  

    • Good post Schnookums. I must admit never having thought of a private vs public issue money. I do not agree that we are better off with a fiat money system vs specie but that's life. The problem with the fiat supply we have now and the Fed Reserve system is the inherent inflation embedded in the scheme. The Constitution gives Congress, not a bank, the power to coin money. I think it would be good for us to remember that. I do find it unfortunate that some have let their disinformation and hatred of other philosophies, the Tea Party for example, cloud their reading but since closing the Fed, which would call into question why do we have an income tax, and giving the power to coin money back to the people would necessarily reduce the control the government and the bankers have over us hence........ it's a Tea Party plot.
      Anyhow, thank you.

    • 9 months ago
  • PressCore
    • +1
      PressCore  

    • The $2 bill, which has Jefferson's portrait, instead of the $1 bill having
      Washington's portrait, is often used In Florida where a $2 bet will enter
      a person into a dog race, if not a horse race. Jefferson would likely be
      pleased to know he made the ranks of dead presidents used to exchange
      currency. But you can bet he'd puck if he were alive to discover that
      all of his, Adams, Franklin's,Madison's Monroe's, Jackson's observations
      on what it takes to make money fit for a Democratic Republic wen't
      unheeded after Theodore Roosevelt left office. For any of you who
      are coin History students as I am , then you know Theodore Roosevelt
      commissioned Augustus St,Gaudens to engrave the dies for the new
      Gold coins that came out from 1907 through 1932. The previous ones
      were very uninspiring, and had gone on unchanged since the civil war
      and before actualy. It was the same design obverse & reverse on the
      quarter, half, eagle, and double eagle coins. Roosevelt changed all
      that. Jefferson would have been proud of what Roosevelt commissioned
      to be created. And then, at the pinnacle of achievement from 1792
      through 1912, the U.S.Government capitulated to a foreign cartel of
      Banksters who made their fortune in creating business development
      companies. They had their tentacles into every business they advanced
      in perpetuity. They behaved like a conquering army exacting tribute.

      Too bad the U.S.Government of Woodrow Wilson's time lost faith in
      the free masons whose conservatism was based on 5,000 years of
      human History. Believe it or not, Jefferson's ideas dated back to the
      culture of ancient Eqypt in his free masonic ideas. If you look on the
      reverse of the $1 dollar bill you'll see his ideas printed plain as day.
      In Novus Ordo Seclorum, and Annuit Coeptis refer to the newly
      formed Democratic Republic of the USA as " the New Order of the
      Ages " (The term New World Order is actualy a mistranslation ) The
      other term refers to the all seeing eye of Providence interposed in
      between the founding pyramid of the States and We the People
      holding up the future which was emerging on the horizon. Jefferson
      held that in a Democratic Republic, as the people are the ones who
      produce the commonwealth, they are owed the power to issue money.
      Money is only a medium of exchange reflecting the strength of the
      economy it's used to make commercial transactions within. The U.S.
      Treasury is the only Constitutional Government dept in whose trust
      is held the power to issue currency as promisory redemption certificates
      for the purpose of redeeming coined money. When the USA held to
      the Constitutional legal standard of coining money, the value of the
      coined money remained stable Silver to Gold at a ratio of 20 to 1
      for whole dollars. And Copper to Silver 100 to 1 for fractional coins.

      Where the USA got into trouble was in allowing their new Banksters
      to operate in secret without scrutiny or supervision. Their debt based
      system was designed to profit them at our loss, so that they could
      convert our wealth into theirs. This " privatization " of our commonwealth
      has another name in law. It's called Fraud through conversion by means
      of embezzelment. It forces the USA's economy to either expand like a
      successful business, and grow the Bankster's revenues, or contract
      and face economic Depression. Credit is a system of " make believe
      money " It carries the term fiat to absurdity because making an entry
      in a Banking ledger purporting that wealth has been created BEFORE
      NOT AFTER it has materialized is an obvious scam. Duh.Since the
      private currency of a central foreign owned bank is now Monopoly
      parlor game script made legal tender for all debts public and private
      (the fiat element), we're supposed to pretend that the currency is
      genuine, though it's not backed by anything but the work product
      of those Americans still working full time(about 52% of us) For it's
      the finite element of a person's productive lifetime + the essential
      goods or services they produce that=genuine money. To make a
      long story short. WE make the real money.They take the real money.
      We earn it. They don't. Lincoln made a speech while debating Douglas
      in the latter 1850s describing the principle of Slavery as " the Slave
      class produces the bread. The Slave owner class eats the bread. "
      Kind of like going to the store but finding it closed with the sign
      SOLD OUT in the display window. Judge for yourselves.

    • 9 months ago
  • jackshin
    • -2
      jackshin  

    • Since the poster cannot clearly state the point of the post, it allows he or she to adjust the opinion's meaning as new evidence is presented. Thus the message is clear, the poster does not intend to expose his or her ideas to scrutiny, and thus this article is spam.

    • 9 months ago
  • Schnookums
  • jackshin
    • -3
      jackshin  
    • Schnookums:

      but the poster does understand a simple search for recusable obligation will take you directly to:

      "http://www. silverbearcafe.com/private/convincing.html""

      "http://www. stormfront.org/forum/t338041/"

      not any legal dictionary...but white pride world guide sites

      Should not the poster make the reader aware of where this article came from, shouldn't the poster be a little more transparent as to whose ideas the article is espousing.

    • 9 months ago
  • jackshin
    • -3
      jackshin  
    • Schnookums:

      "I think the point was; there is a world of difference between publicly issued money and privately issued money."

      a most astute poster, but yeah its clear as day...if I had just paid attention to this:

      "incurs the obligation imposed by the operation of law. The voluntary use of private credit is the condition precedent which imposes the irrecusable obligation"

      just curious, does the poster often use "whence" in normal conversation

    • 9 months ago
  • Schnookums
  • jackshin
    • -2
      jackshin  
    • Schnookums:

      to the first point, its hard to believe this rather legal argument, is just a spin on fed and frankly more a spin on congresses power to use the tax code for social considerations. Like the fact that if an employer pays group term insurance, the funds received by employee's family is non-taxable. Which is justified on the social grounds that funds from the insurance is used compensate the loss wages for the family, which has already been taxed.

      Yeah, I’d agree using the tax code by congress and the fed has an affect on society.
      ---
      But the poster did not address the issue of transparency. Does not any poster have an obligation to cite where the retrieved information came from; especially, if all they did is cut and paste.

    • 9 months ago
  • unimatrix0
  • PressCore
    • 0
      PressCore  
    • Schnookums:

      Yes. The idea of " private " money for public purposes sems pretty convoluted.
      Public money for public purposes is straightfoward & honest. We don't need
      to borrow back our own money from greedy interlopers. They never would
      have had control of it in the first place if we weren't sold out by the crooks
      they greased at Jeckle Island in 1910. They're a mob in suits. We've always
      heard how Organized Crime wants to branch out into legitimate enterprises.
      But the taint of the Banksters' Ponzi Scheme is like the red dye that stains
      money stollen from a Bank. OUR Bank called our Treasury. It's merely an
      m.o. that uses subterfuge & concealment to carry out their con. They want
      to operate in secret with public affairs because they know that a regular
      schedule of thorough audits would expose their crooked operations. God
      Bless Senator Sanders for accomplishing what Ron Paul set out to do.
      The Fed's use of Goldman Sachs' Paulson is like a crack dealer in the
      hood walking his pit bull to intimidate the neighborhood. To the crooks
      on Wall st. everyone and everything has a price. They can't fathom that
      the USA belongs to future generations. And that we aren't for sale. It's
      exactly as Leo Tolstoy said-another, more impersonal, form of Slavery.

    • 9 months ago
  • Dagum
  • unimatrix0
    • -3
      unimatrix0  

    • This smacks of the most immature and naive libertarian sophistry. The website the story links to is for Tea Party idiots and right wing extremists.

      The Fed needs to be reformed - talk of closing the Fed is idiotic, and would do far more harm than good. All though given the source of the article, the goal of these idiots may very well be to destroy the American economy.

    • 9 months ago
  • Schnookums
    • +3
      Schnookums  
    • unimatrix0:

      You also appear to not understand the premise of the article, or you're so distracted by the ads on the side of the page you didn't take the time to read it and consider its implications.

      The article doesn't advocate closing the Fed, but rather taking it out of private hands. Did you miss that?

    • 9 months ago
  • Nick19
    • 0
      Nick19  

    • Close the Federal Reserve? We need to reform it obviously via nationalization or maybe in some other shape or form. Its essential that we have the ability to manipulate the value of the currency in order to soften the blow of financial recession aka Fiat currency. The approach of the Federal Reserve is by no means on the right path but again, we need to reform it in some matter. Also, I find the source of the article EXTREMELY questionable as it seems to be one of those revisionist Tea Party BS websites. Tea Party is all about rewriting history and sending out what can be considered half-true to entirely false statements.

    • 9 months ago
  • Schnookums
    • +3
      Schnookums  
    • Nick19:

      If you find something questionable, research it. If it's wrong, say so.

      Also, I would be very interested in hearing how manipulating the currency in your lifetime has benefited you.

    • 9 months ago
  • Nick19
    • -2
      Nick19  
    • Schnookums:

      Well what do you want then? An uncontrollable system based off gold instead? Fiat systems can help to keep currencies from fluctuating from extremes. Fiat was implemented for a reason and has proven to be a success as we remain one of the strongest currencies out there despite some setbacks. Many nations today peg their currencies to ours such as members of the Gulf Cooperation Council. Also, many have preferences in using our currency compared to their own currency (applies to underdeveloped nations). Besides, what would the alternative to a fiat system be? A gold system would be insecurity and would also mean exploitation of workers in order to harvest the substance. The problem is in the way we manipulate it at the moment and also the political nature of the debt which reduces the confidence in the currency. We ought to change the way we manipulate the currency at the moment but we shouldn't get rid of that ability overall.

    • 9 months ago
  • Schnookums
    • +2
      Schnookums  
    • Nick19:

      I don't think you understand the premise of the article.

      I strongly suggest you go back and reread it and try to excuse your bias from what you perceive to be a "Tea Party" source. US Notes are still fiat, but are a much improved upon version of the private fiat system run by the (non)Federal Reserve.

      Also, a gold system is not anything I would ever advocate for. It is a unworkable system in today's environment for demographic reasons.....besides being a waste of time and energy digging metal out of the ground to store in warehouses.

    • 9 months ago
  • Anonmaly
    • +1
      Anonmaly  

    • What that "Tea Party" propaganda again?.... For shame.... We should be obedient to the will of our Federal Reserve Bank overlords.... And thank Big Brothers bank for sharing any possibility of trade...

    • 9 months ago
  • Vic_Romano
  • Johnny_Los_Angeles
  • Schnookums
    • +2
      Schnookums  

    • Understand the difference between Federal Reserve Notes and US Notes and you understand how the private banking system came to own you (and your children, and likely their children too).

    • 9 months ago
  • Schnookums
  • Nick19
    • 0
      Nick19  
    • Schnookums:

      The problem isn't a money system rather, its a matter of economics thats the problem. Money has been present in all shapes and forms throughout human history. The type of economics involved currently (aka Neoliberal economics) is the main problem as the system of modern globalization has proven to be unequal in it's distribution of wealth.

    • 9 months ago
  • Schnookums
  • PressCore
    • +2
      PressCore  
    • Schnookums:

      No doubt of that. Though I haven't had time to research a study on the
      printing of FRS notes as currency vs the printing of Treaury notes as
      currency from 1914 through 1964, I have watched 4 of the coin & currency
      shows over the Dish satelite network channels. If you trace the beginnings
      of the Federal Reserve Notes after 1913, though they were sold as " the
      printer of last resort " it's backers deceitfuly neglected to tell citizens that
      premis was only in principle, never in practice. The Federal Reserve did
      look appealing to Woodrow Wilson because it could be an avenue to
      finance WW1 which he sensed Americans would be dragged into. I have
      a feeling, based on the way things have turned out, that FRS notes were
      printed as Treasury U.S. notes were. But that's had disastrous effects on
      destroying the Constitutional system of coinage. The Treasury matched
      its currency with it's coinage. The FRS had no such constraints. In times
      of war, a central privately owned Bank will flood the country and the world
      with as much currency as they can roll out. They certainly did that during
      the Vietnam war. Though, yes, both types of currency are fiat, the FRS
      notes are essentialy counterfeit, while the coinage redeeming them is not.

      Like a game of packman, the FRS outcompeted the Treasury in printing
      currency. The it started telling the Treasury how many coins it thought
      they needed to mint. Then it started lording over managing the entire
      economy. It's one thing to use the Fed as a clearinghouse for checks
      and credit card transactions. But for it to usurp the Constitutional functions
      od the Treasury is cheat the People & Congress of controling our money, no.
      President Kennedy knew that, and exercised Executive Order 11100 to
      instruct the Treasury to again kepp on printing U.S.Notes. The blue seal
      $1 Silver certificates of 1963 were printedto stop the FRS domination of
      the American money supply. After Kennedy was Murdered, LBJ authorized
      the last minting of Peace dollars dated 1964, but then was influenced to
      stop that too, along with the U.S.Silver Notes. In 1965 the FRS flooded
      the entire world with its bogus currency, burgeoining the national debt
      built up during the 1957-1963 period that JFK tried to stop. By then the
      M.I.C. and the FRS were fueling one another at our expense. Imho, when
      Treasury secretaries like Paulson & Geithner are agents for the Fed...
      Especialy when Sen.Sander's audit exposed the Fed secretly printed
      a whopping $16 Trillion then lent it to foreign banks & Goldman Sachs
      as they did to domestic Corporations-all without Congressional authority
      and oversight. Instead of the $.75 Trillion Paulson sold his 2008 bank
      bailout as..It's been the fleecing of America for 98 years. The idea of
      reforming something that's inherently a Ponzi Scheme is naive.

    • 9 months ago
  • Schnookums
  • PressCore
more from Community:
from the community

top videos