1
   

FED Witness: Federal Reserve Note is not a dollar

 
 
Reply Tue 3 Jul, 2007 11:26 am
FED Witness: Federal Reserve Note is not a dollar but a silver dollar minted since 1986 AD is a real dollar

EXCITING BREAKING NEWS
Saturday, June 30th 2007 ?- Christopher Hansen
Exclusive to the Independent American Press

A government witness in a Federal Tax Evasion Case in Las Vegas, Nevada, testified on Friday that a Federal Reserve Note is not a dollar but a silver dollar minted since 1986 AD is a real dollar. When one of the defense Attorneys held up a Federal Reserve Note and a silver dollar minted since 1986 AD and asked, "Now these are both dollars, correct?" the government witness testified that that was not correct and the that Federal Reserve Note was not a dollar. He also stated that a Federal Reserve Note is not real money but the Silver dollar is. He testified that a Federal Reserve Note is just a debt note and not a dollar and has not been a dollar since the United States would no longer redeem them in gold and silver coins with the same face value.

This licensed coin dealer called upon by the government to testify in an effort to convict a man accused of believing that "legal tender" coins minted by the United States with dollar values minted on their reverse sides just as the law requires were actually dollars just like this government witness said they were, also testified that when he receives gold dollars that could be traded in excess of 10,000 FRNs that he does not report the transaction as being in excess of the cash reporting requirements as he uses the gold coins "face value" to judge their value. Remember, this is the government witness. He is not on trial.

The government prosecuting attorney did not try to challenge this testimony or even re-question the witness in an attempt to get a definition of "dollar" that, at least, included a Federal Reserve Note. He just let it stand unchallenged.

In this same case two government witnesses testified that the IRS makes mistakes. (I know this will come as no surprise to any of my readers.)

So now the question must be asked: What is a dollar? It should, after all, be something Americans should be able to look up in the law and find out what it means. After all only congress can regulate the value of money and we know they have done so in the past. And it must be important for most Americans to know what a dollar is since "Federal income tax is imposed in terms of dollars." 26 U.S.C. § 1." U.S. v. Rickman 638 F.2d 182, p.184 (1980)

It is, after all, impossible to know how to figure out how much income you had or how much you owed for ANY tax if you did not know what the value of a dollars was. Just like if you did not know how long a foot was you could not calculate how many gallons of paint to buy to paint your house. And what if a gallon had no set meaning or several meanings like a dollar may have? Of course the dollar is the monetary measurement unit of the United States of America so it must have a set value or we cannot calculate any financial transactions in dollars.

But the truth is there is no legal definition of a dollar that can be easily accessed by Americans. In fact in a letter received this month, sent by the Honorable Dean Heller to one of his constituents, he tried to answer what law defines a dollar to be and wrote that: "The closest current definition for a dollar comes from the U.S. Code title 31, Section 5116, paragraph b, subsection 2, ?'The Secretary shall sell silver under conditions the Secretary considers appropriate for at least $1.292929292 a fine troy ounce.'"

Section 5116 (b)(2) of the code refers to 31 U.S.C. § 5112(e) several times. This is the section where Congress authorizes the minting of silver dollars with a "value" (sec subsection (d)) of "ONE DOLLAR."

But remember, it was not THE definition of a dollar. It was just "The closest current definition for a dollar…"

Why couldn't we get a REAL definition to a dollar TODAY just like the Honorable Dean Heller said we once had, when he wrote: "In the early days of the United States, the dollar was a defined unit of trade equal to 412.5 grains of 90 percent silver?"

What is a dollar today if it is not a "defined unit of trade"? How can it define your income or tax due if it is not a "defined unit of trade"?

Mr. Ogilvie, the recipient of the letter from Congressman Heller, also received a letter from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The Board of Governors also mentions 31 U.S.C. § 5112 when trying to define what a dollar is today. But they ALSO could not just point to a single statute that says "A dollar is a defined unit of trade equal to WHATEVER weight or whatever (grain, silver, gold, diamonds, paper, lead) Congress determines is the ?'value' of this monetary measurement ?'unit.'" And remember that the Federal Reserve did not point to a statute that defines a Federal Reserve Note as a dollar like they could for gold and silver dollars.

Instead the Board of Governors gives the following convoluted non-definition as to what a dollar is. If you can tell what a dollar is from this definition then please write to this reporter and explain what the "value of a dollar" is so I can inform our readers.

"At earlier times in history, the dollar was legally defined to the extent of its value in terms of a set amount or weight of silver or gold. The dollar has not been ?'defined' in terms of a set amount of gold or silver, or in terms of a set value of some other kind, for many years. The legal tender value of a dollar is the same regardless of whether the dollar is a currency note or coin of any kind of metal. For example, a one-dollar currency note issued at some point in the 1800's would probably have a numismatic value well in excess of its face value because of its historical age and rarity.

"Nevertheless, its legal tender value is that of its face value: one dollar. Similarly, gold or silver one-dollar coins have the same legal tender value as a one-dollar Federal Reserve note, even though their value in terms of their weight in precious metal is typically greater than their face value. The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized by law to mint the gold and silver coins currently issued and to sell the coins so minted at a price equal to the market value of the bullion at the time of sale plus the cost of minting, marketing, and distributing such coins. 31 U.S.C. § 5112. These same coins are, however, legal tender as defined in Section 5103 of Title 31. 31 U.S.C. § 5103. For this reason, most people choose not to make payments with gold or silver coins, or with currency notes that have great numismatic value, since they have value that exceeds their legal tender value, and creditors cannot be compelled to consider them as payment in amounts greater than their face value."

But how does this affect the average American. Well consider this:

TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CHAPTER 79 - PERJURY

Sec. 1621. Perjury generally

Whoever -

(1)having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or

(2)in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; is guilty of perjury

So if you file a 1040 form under penalties of perjury that says you had $xx,xxx.xx income when you did not have any "dollars" in income then you did not tell the truth. And now that you know that you do not know what a dollar is that could be perjury.

And what if you told a federal officer that you had 50 dollars in your pocket when you had a $50.00 gold coin in your pocket. Would it be a crime?

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 makes it a crime to:

1) knowingly and willfully;

2) make any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation;

3) in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the United States. Your lie does not even have to be made directly to an employee of the national government as long as it is "within the jurisdiction" of the ever expanding federal bureaucracy.

Now consider the following:

It is a miserable slavery where the law is vague or uncertain. Misera est servitus, ubi jus est vagum aut incertum. -Maxim of law

"Federal income tax is imposed in terms of dollars. 26 U.S.C. § 1." U.S. v. Rickman 638 F.2d 182, *184 (C.A.Kan., 1980)

"[Keep]in mind the well-settled rule that the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid." Spreckels Sugar Refining Co. v. McClain, 192 U.S. 397, 24 S.Ct. 376, 418, U.S. 1904

Confucius circa 500 B. C. is reported to have said: "When words lose their meaning, people will lose their liberty."

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." Johann W. von Goethe

"Freedom?-is the absence of the awareness of restraint." David Rockefeller

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be." Thomas Jefferson

http://www.independentamerican.org/blog.php?blog=534
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 306 • Replies: 4
No top replies

 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Jul, 2007 01:50 pm
If you feel Federal Reserve notes are not money send all your Federal Reserve notes to me. I will be more than happy to take them off your hands.


But...

What a nice bunch of crap written to confuse the ignorant.

Since the Federal Reserve note is not money then it would cost you nothing to pay your taxes with Federal Reserve notes, right? (But I don't see tax protesters making that argument.) Your income is valued in dollars, it doesn't require that the gain be in dollars. The US code doesn't even mention dollars when it talks about "income." It only talks about gain. That gain is valued in dollars for the purposes of taxation. A Federal Reserve note is valued in dollars. A check written on a US bank account is valued in dollars. A chicken bartered for a service has a dollar value. For taxation purpose the tender used, note, check, or chicken, doesn't matter, only the value matters.

The majority of monetary transactions these days don't involve silver dollars or Federal Reserve notes. That doesn't mean that legal tender isn't being used. Nor does it mean you can claim there is no value to what you are using for legal tender. Such a claim defies the logic of claiming you owe no taxes since what you owe has no value. Refusing to pay shows it has value.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Jul, 2007 04:56 pm
President John F.Kennedy,
The Federal Reserve
And Executive Order 11110 http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/executiveorder11110.htm
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Jul, 2007 07:56 pm
Read this again
Quote:
By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code, it is ordered as follows:

Section 1. Executive Order No. 10289 of September 19, 1951, as amended, is hereby further amended-

By adding at the end of paragraph 1 thereof the following subparagraph (j):


(j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph (b) of section 43 of the Act of May 12,1933, as amended (31 U.S.C.821(b)), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denomination of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption


All the EO did was move the power to issue silver certificates from the President to the treasury. The President had that power from 1933 on. In 1964, JFK delegated that power to the treasury thereby no longer requiring any President to sign off on it.

This is what the first sentence reads that (j) was added to..
Quote:
1. The Secretary of the Treasury is hereby designated and empowered to perform the following-described functions of the President without the approval, ratification, or other action of the President:


That particular section wasn't revoked until 1987 by Reagan. It stayed on the books for 23 years.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jul, 2007 10:53 am
Thomas Jefferson speaking on the first attempt to establish a central bank in America:

"The system of banking is a blot left in all our Constitutions, which, if not covered, will end in their destruction. I sincerely believe that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity is but swindling futurity on a large scale."

"The end of democracy, and the defeat of the American revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of the lending institutions and moneyed incorporations."

"If the people ever allow the banks to issue their currency, the banks and corporations which will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property, until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

"Paper is poverty... It is not money, but the ghost of money."

"There is an artificial aristocracy, founded on birth and privelege, without virtue or talents... The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provisions should be made to prevent its ascendency."

"The bank of the United States is one of the most deadly hostilities existing against the principles and form of our Constitution. I deem no government safe which is under the vassalage of any self-constituted authorities, or any other authority than that of the nation, or its regular functionaries. What an obstruction could not this bank of the United States, with all its branch banks, be in a time of war? It might dictate to us the peace we should accept, or it might withdraw its aid. Ought we then to give further growth to an institution so powerful, so hostile?"
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » FED Witness: Federal Reserve Note is not a dollar
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/15/2026 at 02:24:00