FRN NOTES ARE DEBT The United States lawful money; legal tender, and frns.

Whereas defined pursuant to Title 18 Section 8 a FRN as an "obligation of the United States." Section 8. Obligation or other security of the United States defined The term "obligation or other security of the United States" includes all bonds certificates of indebtedness, national bank currency, Federal Reserve notes, Federal Reserve bank notes, coupons, United States notes, Treasury notes, gold certificates, silver certificates, fractional notes, certificates of deposit, bills, checks, or drafts for money, drawn by or upon authorized officers of the United States, stamps and other representatives of value, of whatever denomination, issued." Obligation: the binding power of a vow, promise, oath, or contract, or of law, civil, political, or moral, independent of a promise; that which constitutes legal or moral duty Whereas defined pursuant to Title 31 Section 3124 states: "obligations of the United States are EXEMPT FROM TAXATION BY A STATE." "Section 3124. Exemption from taxation (a) Stocks and obligations of the United States Government are exempt from taxation by a State or political subdivision of a State. The exemption applies to each form of taxation that would require the obligation, the interest on the obligation, or both, to be considered in computing a tax. ..." ASK THE IRS, ASK THE BANK,(MORTGAGE COMPANY)ASK THE CAR FINANCE COMPANY, ASK THE STATE/COUNTY COURT, ASK THE DEBT COLLECTOR,ASK YOUR STATE TAX BOARD IF THEY ARE REQUIRING THE PAYMENT OF ANY STATE TAX DUE, THE INTEREST ON ANY STATE TAX DUE OR BOTH TO BE CONSIDERED IN COMPUTING THE TAX AND SAY GOODBYE TO ALL WITH A BIG RELIEF TELL THEM ALL TO HAVE A NICE LIFE." Here is a case from TEXAS, which proves the point above is correct: In 1983, in the case of American Bank and Trust Co., et al v. Dallas County et al., 483 U.S. 855 (Supreme Court Reports, Lawyers edition, page 3369), Justice Blackmun, writing the opinion, clearly lays out the logic and argument to support the above facts. Justice Blackmun begins by showing that prior to 1959 there was some ambiguity in the law, but in that year Congress amended Rev. Stat. Sec. 3701, 31 U.S. 742 by adding the sentence, "This exemption extends to every form of taxation that would require that either the obligation or the interest thereon, or both, be considered, directly or indirectly, in the computation of the tax." The issue in this particular case was whether this amendment extended to state taxes on bank shares. The court ruled that it did. In his supreme court opinion Blackmun writes: "Under the plain language of the 1959 amendment, however, that tax is barred, regardless of its form if federal obligations must be considered, either directly or indirectly, in computing the tax. Giving the words of amended section 3701 their ordinary meaning, there can be no question that federal obligations were considered in computing the bank shares tax at issue here." (Emphasis Added).

He further argues that, since Congress expressly excluded franchise, estate and inheritance taxes from the exemption, "...congress must have believed that such taxes required federal obligations to be considered, directly or indirectly, in the computation of the tax; otherwise the specific exemption of these taxes would have been superfluous. ..." Look up definitions of the word "obligation" and you will soon figure out that FRN's are "evidence of debt or credit (actually the same)." A FRN being "evidence of debt or credit" is nothing more than an "I owe you." Since the Federal Reserve is privately owned, its just logical that any type of note issued by them is in fact "use of private credit." Legal terms have specific meanings: 1.) Legal Tender 2.) Lawful Money's of Account. 3.) Lawful Currency FRN's are LAWFUL CURRENCY! Wood chips painted in Gold I suggest that you go read leading case that came out a case in Washington State or Silver could also be LAWFUL CURRENCY. Woodruff v. Mississippi, which is the of the LEGAL TENDER CASES which is cited in called Dennis v. Moses.

The power of the state to declare a legal tender is limited to gold and silver coin. All "lawful money" of the United States is not a legal tender for private obligations by the laws of the United States; . . . The legal tender and gold contract decisions, taken in connection with the recent case of Woodruff v. State of Mississippi, 162 U.S. 291 (16 Sup. Ct. 820), are controlling here." DENNIS v. MOSES., supra. And; "The Constitution "was designed to provide the same currency, having a uniform legal value in the 50 Union states." It was for that reason that the power to regulate the value of money was conferred upon the federal government, while the same power, as well as the power to emit bills of credit, was withdrawn from the 50 Union states. The States cannot declare what shall be money, or regulate its value. Whatever power there is over the currency is vested in Congress. Legal Tender Cases (Knox v. Lee) supra (12 Wall 545, 20 L. Ed. 310)." NORMAN v. BALTIMORE & O.R. CO., 294 U.S. 240, 303, 79 L. Ed. 885, 900, 55 S. Ct. 407, 414 (October TERM, 1934). And;

"The Constitution was designed to provide the same currency, having a uniform legal value in the 50 Union states. It was for that reason that the power to regulate the value of money was conferred upon the Federal government, while the same power, as well as the power to emit bills of credit, was withdrawn from the 50 Union states. The 50 Union states cannot declare what shall be money, or regulate its value. Whatever power there is over the currency is vested in the Congress." Congress provided in 31 U.S.C.A. section 463, in part, that: "Every provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold

or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby, is declared to be against public policy; and no such provision shall be contained therein or made with respect thereto, shall be discharged upon payment, dollar for dollar, in any coin or currency which at the time of payment is legal tender for public and private debts." [3-5] The courts have consistently held that the Constitution leaves the power to declare what shall be legal tender prescribed by Congress is not state action as prohibited by U.S. Const., Art. 1, section 10, but rather an effectuation of validly exercised constitutional power of Congress under U.S. Const., Art 1, section 8." CHERMACK v. BJORNSON, 223 N.W. 2nd 659, 661 (November 22, 1974). And; Note, that in the above cited case CHERMACK v. BJORNSON, supra, that it states discharge and the statement of private as against public debt. The federal debt of Congress may be required for payment in discharge of its debt; the payment in discharge for private debt cannot be compelled between private parties or the States. The United States by Congress sitting in Washington D.C. can do so, but the States are forbidden and cannot demand or require Federal Reserve Notes in payment of debts, fines, license fees, occupation or privilege taxes, motor vehicle excise taxes, property taxes, retail sales taxes, bails, appellate bonds, fees, or assessments to merely discharge those obligations. And; Article 1, Section 10 is binding on Washington and thus prohibits this court from accepting Federal Reserve Notes where there is NO federal nexus by a state court. THIS COURT MUST TAKE RCW 5.24.010 JUDICIAL NOTICE OF TEXAS CODE Art. 4302 Code of Criminal Procedures to wit: "All recognizances, bail bonds, and undertakings of any kind, whereby a party becomes bound to pay money to the State, and all fines and forfeitures for a pecuniary character, shall be collected in the lawful money of the United States only." Art. 43.02 Code of Criminal Procedures. And; California Government Code Section 6850: "The money of account of this State is the DOLLAR, and all proceedings in courts shall be kept and had in conformity with this section." In tandem with above: Whereas defined pursuant to; Title 31 U.S. Code section 371: "The money of account of the United States shall be expressed in dollars or units, dimes or tenths, cents or hundredths part of a dollar; and all proceedings in the courts shall be kept and had in conformity to this regulation." And; Whereas defined pursuant to; Title 31 U.S. Code section 311: "It is declared to be the policy of the United States to continue the use of both gold and silver as standard money. ..." 31 USC 311.

THERE IS NO IRRECUSABLE OBLIGATION WHEN IT COMES TO PAYMENT OF TAXES IN FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES, AS YOU CANNOT BE FORCED OR COMPELLED TO USE FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES PURSUANT TO THE FOLLOWING AUTHORITIES TO WIT:..." ..."In 1 Dan. Neg. Inst. (6th Ed.) Section 87, the author says: When the term dollars is used in any security for money given in any of the United States, it is understood to mean dollars of legal money of the United States, and extraneous evidence will not be permitted as a general rule to give it a different signification." Also, see, the authorities cited, supra. In Corbit v. Smyrna Bank, supra, it is said: "Bank notes constitute a large and convenient part of the currency of our country, and by common consent, serve to a great extent all the purposes of coin. In themselves they are not money, for they are not a legal tender; and yet they are a good tender, unless specifically objected to as being notes merely, and not money. Miller v. Race, 1 Burr. 457; Bank of United States v. Bank of Georgia, 10 Wheat 333; Handy v. Dobbin, 12 Johns. 220; Wright v. Reed, 3 Term R. 554. They sub-serve the purposes of money in the ordinary business of life, by the mutual consent (express or implied) of the parties to a contract, and not by the binding force of any common usage; for the party to whom they may be tendered has an undoubted right to refuse accepting them as money." Vick v. Howard, 136 S.E. 101; 116 S.E. 465, 468 (March 15, 1923) And; The individual cannot be compelled to use federal money, nor federal negotiable instruments, Federal Notes (Swanson v. Fuline, 248 F. Supp. 364) the federal reserve being a private corporation (Lewis v. U.S., 680 F.2d 1238 at 1241) which is engaged in commercial activity by law of merchants (UCC 721-1-103) USE OF FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES IS "USE OF PRIVATE CREDIT" PURSUANT TO LEWIS v. UNITED STATES, SUPRA. "Bank-notes are the representative of money, and circulate as such, only by the general consent and usage of the community. But this consent and usage are based on the convertibility of such notes into coin, at the pleasure of the holder, upon their presentation to the bank for redemption. This fact is the vital principle, which sustains their character as money. So long as they are in fact what they purport to be, PAYABLE ON DEMAND, common CONSENT gives them the ordinary attributes of money. But upon the failure of the bank by which they were issued, when its doors are closed, and its inability to redeem its bills is openly avowed, they instantly lose the character of money, their circulation as currency ceases with the usage and consent upon which it rested, and the notes become the mere dishonored and depreciated EVIDENCES OF DEBT. When this change in their character takes place, the loss must necessarily fall upon him who is the owner of them at the time; and this, too whether he is unaware of the fact. His ignorance of the fact can give him no right to throw the loss, which he has already incurred, upon an innocent third party. In the absence of any special

agreement, the very offer of bank-notes, as a payment in money, of a pre-existing debt, is a representation that such notes are what they purport to be, the representative of money, and that they have the quality of convertibility, upon which their currency as money depends. It is only upon this idea that they can be honestly tendered as money, and when accepted as such, under the same supposition, the mutual mistake of facts should no more be permitted to benefit one party or prejudice the other, than if the notes had been spurious, or the payment had been spurious, or the payment had been made in base or adulterated coin. That money paid under a mistake of facts, may be recovered back, is a familiar principle, and the application of the same equitable rule must be permitted to correct the mutual mistake of the parties in a case like the present. Besides, a contrary doctrine would present temptations, and afford facilities for the practice of fraud and imposition. A party might fraudulently pass the paper of a broken bank, and yet it might be difficult to prove his knowledge of the previous failure. Or if his victim should succeed in passing it to one equally ignorant of the facts with himself, the last recipient would be left to bear the loss, and the fraud crowned with success." WESTFALL, STEWART & CO. v. NEWELL BRALEY, 10 Ohio 188, 191, 192, 75 Am. Dec. 509 (1859). And; Documentation on the MONEY ISSUE are so good that forced former Governor Albert Lowry to convene an emergency session of the Legislature in 1998 to change the definition of MONEY found at RCW 84.04.060. RCW 84.04.060 "Money," "moneys" (1961 Definition) "Money" or "moneys" shall be held to mean gold and silver coin, gold and silver certificates. treasury notes, United States notes, and bank notes. [1961 c 15 section 84.04.060. Prior: 1925 ex.s. c 130 section 6, part; 1897 c 71 section 4, part; 1893 c 124 section 4, part; 1890 p 531 section 4, part; 1886 p 48 section 2, part; Code 1881 section 2830, part; RRS section 11110, part.] RCW 84.04.060 "Money," "moneys." (1998 Definition?) "Money" or "moneys" shall be held to mean coin or paper money issued by the United States government. [1998 c 106 section 12; 1961 c 15 section 84.04.060. Prior: 1925 ex.s. c 130 section 6, part; 1897 c 71 section 4, part; 1893 c 124 section 4, part; 1890 p 531 section 4, part; 1886 p 48 section 2, part; Code 1881 section 2830, part; RRS section 11110, part.] Remember the United States government does not issue paper money, thereby making it impossible to pay the alleged debt at law. Remember the Federal Reserve issues paper money, and loans it to the United States Government, thereby making it an impossibility to pay the alleged debt at law. WHEN YOU PAY FOR SOMETHING WITH A FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE, YOU ONLY DISCHARGE THE DEBT. YOU CANNOT "PAY YOUR DEBTS AT LAW" WITH FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES!

The History and Nature of Corp. U.S. and the Federal Reserve Bank The Federal Reserve Bank Offer

As it was presented in 1913 The Federal Reserve Bank of 1913 was not willing to loan Corp. U.S. money, they had plenty of it (gold and Silver coin minted by the United States of America Mint) they simply were not willing to loan it to Corp. U.S. based on the fact that in 1912 Corp. U.S. failed to pay back its debts owed to the Federal Reserve Banks founders. Instead they offered that if Corp. U.S. wanted to learn about the Federal Reserve Banks offer they would have to come down to Jekyll Island, off the cost of Georgia, to find out about it. The Jekyll Island deal was this: the Federal Reserve Bank would not loan money to Corp. U.S. but they would loan what they called the Federal Reserve Note (hereinafter FRN). Corp. U.S. could borrow FRNs at a specific rate related to the arbitrary value printed on the face of the so called notes. The deal included that the rental rate would only accrue so long as the note was in circulation and it would then be due and payable; it also included the guarantee that if Corp. U.S. could get the people to accept these notes in circulation as if they were money, the Federal Reserve Bank would guarantee their exchange by redeeming the notes from the people at their face value in United States of America gold or silver coin money. So long as the notes remained in circulation the rent would accrue and until the rent was paid it would compound with interest at the same rate as the loan accrued. Corp. U.S. accepted the offer. To understand the deal lets take a closer look: it works a lot like a car loan (rental) where the car is borrowed at the specific rate agreed upon. You pay the rate of the rental agreement and you get to keep the car for the term of the agreement. In the case of the Federal Reserve Banks loan of their FRNs, Corp. U.S. could borrow the notes, which had a specific face value printed on them, and the loan rate was set respective of that value at the time of the agreement. Lets say the loan rate was set at 3%. That means that as long as Corp. U.S. keeps those specific FRNs, they have to pay 3% of the notes face value per year. Thus if they were to borrow $100,000.00 total face value in FRNs for a day, they would have to pay $8.22 cents in rental costs for the use of those FRNs for that day. If they were to hold such notes for a year, they would have to pay, $3,000.00 in rental costs for the use of the notes. Corp. U.S. could return the FRNs at any time and would only have to pay the agreed upon rental fee for the time the notes were held or were in circulation. The deal also included the provision that if the people were to turn the notes in to the Federal Reserve Bank it would redeem the notes for their face value from the people. In 1913, that was all there was to it. The notes were borrowed much like a car is rented

(borrowed). As you can see this appears to be a very good deal for Corp. U.S.The Federal Reserve Bank Offer As it was compelled in 1933 In 1933 Corp. U.S. was bankrupt. It had amassed so much debt that it could not possibly pay its debts, which largely consisted of unpaid compounding debts to the Federal Reserve Bank (hereinafter FRB). As a result of the bankruptcy Congress set an emergency banking holiday where the local banks throughout the country were closed and all of the FRN were removed from the banks and returned to the FRB thus ending the loan of those FRN. During the holiday the banks were also restocked with new notes from the FRB. These new notes included a New Deal. The new FRB deal included a new note. These notes were also called Federal Reserve Notes, but where the FRN the people were familiar with stated words to the effect of , redeemable at any Federal Reserve Bank, the new notes stated, this note is legal tender for all debts public and private. The new FRN were acquired by Corp. U.S. and circulated in virtually the same manner as the old FRN but the new FRN was not redeemable except in like kind. Therefore if the people were to take the new FRN to the FRB they

would receive a like kind exchange of notes, new for old. Though the original FRB deal was better for the people, the new deal fit with the law of notes which only requires a like kind exchange. To the people, their exchange of the notes was always treated by them like a monetary exchange and they originally saw the FRN just like money because it was directly exchangeable for money. The new notes they perceive as far less valuable and prone to inflation. The reality is new or old the notes were acquired in the same fashion, they were arbitrarily printed on paper and borrowed into circulation, much like cars are borrowed in car rental agreements. The FRB simply no longer backs the FRN with gold and silver coin money, due to Corp. U.S. bankrupt status, as a bankrupted entity it can no longer compel performance on its debts. To start the FRB program the FRB needed to back its notes with actual money, after it Corp. U.S. bankruptcy they didn't need to back their FRN at all. The Federal Reserve Note How is it used? Like most things dealing with Law or History, to understand them one must study both the

law and the historythat precedes them. The FRN is no exception. On its face it appears to simply be a note, made in compliance with the law of notes. As such, because it is a bearer note with no facially published due date, it is due and payable on demand.

But, whereas its specific conditions of existence are not otherwise described on the note, it can only compel redemption in like kind. That is to say, if you present it to its maker you can only count on getting back another note of the same nature. Whereas the note was generated for Corp. U.S. who remains under the control of its 1933 bankruptcy the note has no substance backing it. In other words, it was arbitrarily created by decree out of thin air for Corp. U.S. use. On first hearing that and doing any real investigation to confirm these facts most people are appalled; however, lets take a look at the actual relationships wherein the FRN is used starting with the employer employee relationship, because that is the source where most people come into contact with the FRN or with some instrument representing the same: Following the Standard for Review lets review the parties: The employee is a person identified by its name and Social Security number (hereinafter SSN), therefore it is simply an agency trust of Corp. U.S. The employer is ultimately just another agency for Corp. U.S. To show this we remind you the employer is a person (company, corporation, individual) that has an Employer Identification Number (hereinafter EIN). Originally the EIN was issued by the Social Security Administration in accord with the Social Security Act of 1935, today they are issued on application by IRS; all such numbers are ultimately related to, and operated under an SSN or another EIN, thus all such parties with such numbers (Taxpayer Identification Numbers (hereinafter TIN)) are merely agencies of Corp. U.S. In accord with the terms of the employment agreement between such employers and their employees, the employee provides the contracted goods and or services and the employer remunerates the funds required by the agreement. Now considering that the relationship is in reality made between two separate agencies of the same organization (Corp. U.S.) is there any need for money in the transaction? The answer is no. The transaction could easily be completed by a debit entry from the one agency (employer), which is balanced out by a credit to the other agency (employee). No money is needed. However, where there are hundreds of millions of such agencies, tracking them in 1935 would have been impossible without some device that could be totally controlled by

the specific agencies involved in the transactions themselves. Enter the FRN. Though it appears to be a debt instrument, it reality it is simply an official transaction instrument used to formally exchange debits and credits between Corp. U.S. agencies. It therefore requires no backing and can be generated in accord with the needs for its flow in circulation. The final step: once the employee has been remunerated with such funds they can go to a merchant and exchange the funds for hard assets, like: food, shelter, clothing and transportation. In virtually every case today such exchanges are made

with other Corp. U.S. agencies, which is exemplified by their own respective TIN. Thus, again, no money is needed and the FRN or any other instrument representing the same will suffice. See: http://youtu.be/RgcdRCWEt4Q