Skip to main content
Freedom Club USA (International)
My Account
New Member Welcome
Club News

The Year of Reckoning!

|---------- Getting Started ----------|

|--------------- Calls ---------------|

|--------------- News ---------------|

|--------------- Misc ---------------|

Select One Inactive Inactive Benevolence Member - Ambassador
Select One Victory Celebration Email Booster FAQ Mission Ambassador Bonus Awards Awaken

You cannot get what you’ve never had unless you’re willing to do what you’ve never done.


When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it - always.
- Mahatma Gandhi


The Lion asked the Wizard one time, "When does a slave become a king?"

"When You start acting like one! "

Otherwise You remain a slave all Your life.

 What is Income? 
What is Income? 
FRN is NOT a Dollar



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 1896 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:



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."

Notes of Debt are not Income

Recently, Levi Philos, whom I had asked about the e-mail below, did some searching of his own, and came up with the article by The Informer that follows below the e-mail. I think you'll find all of this to be very interesting AND useful!

Now I understand the full meaning of this message posted to yahoo group tips_and_tricks (archives limited to members) where "brokenwrench" posted on Feb 10, 05:

"The irs has never tried to collect, it has been over 25 years since I was audited, and then I got a refund. I have a stamp that prints


When I was audited, I produced the front and back copies of my paychecks to the irs man. He took a break and came back and told me that those checks endorsed that way were not taxable income. I got in a hurry and open signed 3 of my checks, those were the only ones I had that they said they could tax that is

the last I heard from them."


Dear brokenwrench,

I'm very interested in your adventures with the stamp for the back of checks.

Would you care to correspond with me about that?



Making checks a non-taxable event

This is all based upon what is lawful money of value and HJR-192 (House Joint Resolution-192, June 5, 1933) , that none is in circulation for private use by the public. There are no lawful dollars out there only credit and debt ledger entrees, and no one gets paid for anything with anything of valuable substance. The IRS can't tax credit, debt, or barter.

The Congress licensed the use of FRNs to be used as money, as a medium or exchange for discharge of public and private debt into the US bankruptcy. At that point FRNs became contraband and that gives the BATF and the IRS jurisdiction over its use and transfer. Just like trafficking in alcohol, guns, drugs, or tobacco, or other substances subject to excise taxes

There are many types of commercial paper that properly prepared can discharge debt other than FRNs but few know how to use them. Using FRNs is licensed money laundering, plain and simple.

When I get a check, it says "dollars" on the front. If I endorse it openly, I just testified I received dollars of valuable substance, even though there are none.

When I stamp or write:


I just corrected the error on the front and converted the check into a bill of exchange. In other words: a barter transaction of two different kinds of things being traded even-up for equal value are not taxable, there was no sale or financial gain just a private trade.

So, brokenwrench has cut a Gordion Knot with a pen, instead of a sword. If you wish to use such a sharp pen, you would do well to read the article below, and if that doesn't lead you to study further then you don't understand enough about the honing and care of a good blade...start over with a study of the life of The Master who told his disciples to sell their cloaks to buy a sword and intervened when Peter used his: Exhaust administrative remedy, first! Ignorance is curable.



Re: Notes of Debt are not Income is printed out below.


By: The Informer

(Fred's note: Any words in bold-face parentheses are my addition, and any bold-face type in the text is my added emphasis. The author has placed his notes/insertions in [square brackets]. I will make them bold-blue Italic. All of author's words are in blue Italic type. The author also specified red type in certain quoted text, and I left it that way.)

Here is a observation that no one realizes, or even knows it exists. Here is a problem that may be brought before a court it you are drug into one. But it is better used administratively. Just a hypotheses. Could it work? Who knows?

(1) You work for a company.

(2) You receive a negotiable instrument for your work (a check).

(3) You have to cash it at a bank.

(4) You are given federal reserve notes in exchange.

(5) You have not been paid anything but worthless securities.

So now let's put on your thinking caps and do some digging starting with:

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART VI > §


§ 165. Losses

Release date: 2003-05-15

(a) General rule

There shall be allowed as a deduction any loss sustained during the taxable year and not compensated for by insurance or otherwise.

(b) Amount of deduction

For purposes of subsection (a), the basis for determining the amount of the deduction for any loss shall be the adjusted basis provided in section 1011 for determining the loss from the sale or other disposition of property (think: your labor).

(c) Limitation on losses of individuals

In the case of an individual, the deduction under subsection (a) shall be limited to------—

(1) losses incurred in a trade or business;

(2) losses incurred in any transaction entered into for profit, though not connected with a trade or business; and

(3) except as provided in subsection (h), losses of property not connected with a trade or business or a transaction entered into for profit, if such losses arise from fire, storm, shipwreck, or other casualty, or from theft.

(d) Wagering losses

Losses from wagering transactions shall be allowed only to the extent of the gains from such transactions.

(e) Theft losses

For purposes of subsection (a), any loss arising from theft shall be treated as sustained during the taxable year in which the taxpayer discovers such loss.

(f) Capital losses

Losses from sales or exchanges of capital assets shall be allowed only to the extent allowed in sections 1211 and 1212.

(g) Worthless securities

(1) General rule

If any security which is a capital asset becomes worthless during the taxable year, the loss resulting therefrom shall, for purposes of this subtitle, be treated as a loss from the sale or exchange, on the last day of the taxable year, of a capital asset.

(2) Security defined

For purposes of this subsection, the term "security" means—

(A) a share of stock in a corporation;

(B) a right to subscribe for, or to receive, a share of stock in a corporation; or

(C) a bond, debenture, note, or certificate, or other evidence of indebtedness, issued by a corporation or by a government or political subdivision thereof, with interest coupons or in registered form.

Ok so now you have been given "evidences of debt" for your work. You have never made "income" but received evidences of debt. The US Treasury admits to (g) above in its website (and you really must visit this website!): wherein the website states:

"Federal Reserve notes are legal tender currency notes. The twelve Federal Reserve Banks issue them into circulation pursuant to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. A commercial bank belonging to the Federal Reserve System can obtain Federal Reserve notes from the Federal Reserve Bank in its district whenever it wishes. It must pay for them in full, dollar for dollar, by drawing down its account with its district Federal Reserve Bank.

Federal Reserve Banks obtain the notes from our Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP). It pays the BEP for the cost of producing the notes, which then become liabilities of the Federal Reserve Banks, and obligations of the United States Government.

Congress has specified that a Federal Reserve Bank must hold collateral equal in value to the Federal Reserve notes that the Bank receives. This collateral is chiefly gold certificates and United States securities. This provides backing for the note issue. The idea was that if the Congress dissolved the Federal Reserve System, the United States would take over the notes (liabilities). This would meet the requirements of Section 411, but the government would also take over the assets, which would be of equal value. Federal Reserve notes represent a first lien on all the assets of the Federal Reserve Banks, and on the collateral specifically held against them.

Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything. This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy. In another sense, because they are legal tender, Federal Reserve notes are "backed" by all the goods and services in the economy."

(The underlined sentence above, deserves attention because a man once wrote (I believe to Alfred Adask, publisher of AntiShyster magazine) that he had robbed a bank, was caught, and with the aid of counsel, was prepared to argue in court that since he had taken only Federal Reserve Notes, he had taken nothing of "value" and therefore could not be guilty of the criminal code section he was accused of violating. Apparently the prosecutor decided to drop the case, rather than have his argument go on the public record. This was probably more than 10 years ago. Having read what follows, I can assure you that our author will suggest no such course of action! And, of course, neither do I! I won't even make this note in the boldface type.)

Now they, not you, have established that their confidence game, what you received in exchange for the company draft (check) was absolutely nothing. They are valueless so you exchanged your labor for valueless paper that has a lien on it already. They are identified in two statutes (Code) and they are Title 18 Section 8 wherein it states:

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > § 8 Release date: 2004-08-06

§ 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 under any Act of Congress, and canceled United States stamps.

And the second statute (Code) is:











12 USC Sec. 411 01/23/00








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.


(Dec. 23, 1913, ch. 6, Sec. 16 (par.), 38 Stat. 265; Jan. 30, 1934,

ch. 6, Sec. 2(b)(1), 48 Stat. 337; Aug. 23, 1935, ch. 614, title

II, Sec. 203(a), 49 Stat. 704.





Phrase ''hereinafter set forth'' is from section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act, act Dec. 23, 1913. Reference probably means as set forth in sections 17 et seq. of the Federal Reserve Act. For

classification of these sections to the Code, see Tables.



Section is comprised of first par. of section 16 of act Dec. 23,

1913. Pars. 2 to 4, 5, and 6, 7, 8 to 11, 13 and 14 of section 16,

and pars. 15 to 18 of section 16 as added June 21, 1917, ch. 32,

Sec. 8, 40 Stat. 238, are classified to sections 412 to 414, 415,

416, 418 to 421, 360, 248-1, and 467, respectively, of this title.

Par. 12 of section 16, formerly classified to section 422 of this

title, was repealed by act June 26, 1934, ch. 756, Sec. 1, 48 Stat.




1934 - Act Jan. 30, 1934, struck out from last sentence provision

permitting redemption in gold.



Section 203(a) of act Aug. 23, 1935, changed name of Federal

Reserve Board to Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.



Gold coinage discontinued, see section 5112 of Title 31, Money

and Finance.

Since there is no more real "money" to be redeemed then, as the Treasury Web Site stated, they are worthless in conformity with 26

USC 165 (g). Ergo: you cannot go into a bank and demand gold or silver coin for a federal reserve note.

So the question is, Have I received any income that is reportable for filing a tax form? Have I objected openly that I do not accept federal reserve notes as "payment" for my labor? See the Padleford case 14 Ga. 438 wherein they stated:

"Supposing this not to be taxed for inspection purposes, has Congress consented to it being laid? It is certain that Congress has not expressly consented. But is express consent necessary? There is nothing in the Constitution which says so. There is nothing in the practice of men, or in the Municipal Law of men, or in the practice of nations, or the Law of nations that says so. Silence gives consent, is the rule of business life.

A tender of bills is as good as one of coin, unless the bills are objected to. To stand by, in silence, and see another sell your property, binds you. [Ok people how many times has your property (labor included) been stolen and turned over to the tax man in your silence? Did you file a refusal for good cause shown?] These are mere instances of the use of the maxim in the Municipal Law. In the Law of nations, it is equally potent. Silent acquiescence in the breach of a treaty binds a nation.(Vattel, ch. 16, sec.199, book 1. See book 2, sec. 142 et seq. as to usucaption and prescription, and sec. 208 as to ratification). Express consent, then, not being necessary, is there anything from which consent may be applied? There is--length of time."

Has the company caused a theft when issuing you a draft that only will result in you receiving evidences of debt that are no longer "at Par" with a face value US Silver Eagle dollar denominated coin? This is what the court stated on this type money issue,

Westfall vs. Braley, 10 Ohio 188, 75 Am. Dec. 509:

"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 upon the convertibility of such notes into coin, at the pleasure of the holder, upon their presentation to the bank for redemption. This 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 failure of the bank by which they are issued, when its doors are closed, and its inability to redeem its bills is openly avowed [See Letter, Oct. 26, 1989, Dept. of Treasury, Russell Munk, Asst. Gen. Council, (International Affairs) as recorded in the Office of the Clerk & Recorder, Bacca

County, Colorado, admitting the notes are worthless and not redeemable at par.], 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 . . . It is only upon this idea that they can honestly be 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 payment had been made in base or adulterated coin."

Again the question begs of any court what the last sentence says, in that you have never received any income in "money", but evidences of a debt issued with a lien already on it, thereby taking them out of the realm of money, as they are a debt obligation, or in reality, an I.O. U. issued by a private banking system, that are trademarked as such.

Want more statutes and code on the matter for you to decide? Here is more info that is incontrovertible.

So with your question in mind as to what statutes say in regard to federal reserve notes, read all of this:


Sec. 5119.

Sec. 5119. - Redemption and cancellation of currency

(a) Except to the extent authorized in regulations the Secretary of the Treasury prescribes with the approval of the President, the Secretary may not redeem United States currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) in gold. However, the Secretary shall

redeem gold certificates owned by the Federal reserve banks at times and in amounts the Secretary decides are necessary to maintain the equal purchasing power of each kind of United States currency. When redemption in gold is authorized, the redemption may be made only in gold bullion bearing the stamp of a United States mint or assay office in an amount equal at the time of redemption to the currency presented fo redemption.

[COMMENT. As stated in the CODE, in red above, it can be taken as not being U.S currency like you say, until you read all the statutes and the words "IN KIND". Then the worthless note IS taken as currency by the government. True, it is not a pay to, but only a legal offer (tender). That's all they care about: a legal offer. You can decline a legal offer even if in federal reserve notes as stated on the US Treasury web site. Go back and read all of it if you have to.]

(b) (1) Except as provided in subsection (c)(1) of this section, the following are public debts bearing no interest:

(A) gold certificates issued before January 30, 1934.

(B) silver certificates.

(C) notes issued under the Act of July 14, 1890 (ch.

708, 26 Stat. 289)


(D) Federal Reserve notes for which payment was made under section 4 of the Old Series Currency Adjustment Act.

(E) United States currency notes, including those issued under section 1 of the Act of February 25, 1862 (ch. 33, 12 Stat. 345), the Act of July 11, 1862 (ch. 142, 12 Stat. 532), the resolution of January 17, 1863 (P.R. 9; 12 Stat. 822), section 2 of the Act of March 3, 1863 (ch. 73, 12 Stat. 710), or section 5115 of this title.

(2) Redemption, cancellation, and destruction of currency.

PAGE 11 of 30


The Secretary shall

(A) redeem any currency described in paragraph (1) from the general fund of the Treasury upon presentment to the Secretary; and (B) cancel and destroy such currency upon redemption. The Secretary shall not be required to reissue United States currency notes upon redemption.

(c) (1) The Secretary may determine the amount of the following United States currency that will not be presented for redemption because the currency has been destroyed or irretrievably lost: (A) circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks issued before July 1, 1929, for which the United States Government has assumed liability.

[COMMENT. Does this mean that the notes are no longer assumed by the United States? Kinda presumes they are assumed by the IMF/fed. Res. that issues them as first liens on the U.S., huh?]

(B) outstanding currency referred to in subsection (b)(1) of this section.

(2) When the Secretary makes a determination under this subsection, the Secretary shall reduce the amount of that currency outstanding by the amount the Secretary determines will not be redeemed and credit the appropriate receipt account.

(d) To provide a historical collection of United States currency, the

Secretary may withhold from cancellation and destruction and transfer to a special account one piece of each design, issue, or series of each denomination of each kind of currency (including circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) after redemption. The Secretary may make appropriate entries in Treasury accounts because of the transfers


Here are the actual statutes on the above that you wanted:

Notes on Sec. 5119.


Pub. L. 97-258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 985

Pub. L. 102-390, title II, Sec. 226(b), Oct. 6, 1992, 106 Stat. 1630

Pub. L. 103-325, title VI, Sec. 602(g)(14), Sept. 23, 1994, 108 Stat.


Historical and Revision Notes Revised Section

Source (U.S. Code) Source (Statutes at Large)

5119(a) 31:408a (less last proviso). 31:444 (1st sentence words

between 2d and 3d semicolons). 31:822b. Jan. 30, 1934, ch. 6, Sec.

6 (less last proviso), 11, 15(1st sentence words between 2d and 3d

semicolons), 48 Stat. 340, 342, 344. 5119(b)(1) 31:405a-3. 31:911.

31:915(a), (b). June 24, 1967, Pub. L. 90-29, Sec. 1, 2, 81 Stat. 77.

June 30, 1961, Pub. L. 87-66, Sec. 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 75 Stat. 146, 147.

5119(b)(2) 31:404. 31:420. 31:914. 31:916. May 31, 1878, ch. 146,

20 Stat. 87; June 30, 1961, Pub. L. 87-66, Sec. 7, 75 Stat. 47. R.S.

Sec. 3580.

5119(c)(1) 31:915(c) (words before last comma).

5119(c)(2) 31:405a-2. 31:915(c) (words after last comma).

5119(d) 31:917. In subsection (a), the words ''Secretary may not

redeem'' are substituted for ''no . . . shall be redeemed'' in 31:408a

(less last proviso) because of the source provisions restated in

section 321 of the revised title. The words ''United States currency

(including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal

reserve banks and national banks)'' are substituted for ''currency

of the United States'' and the text of 31:444(1st sentence words

between 2d and 3d semicolons) for consistency with section 5103 of

this title and to eliminate unnecessary words.

[COMMENT. Can't be any plainer than this, right?

In subsection (b)(1), before clause (A), the words ''upon completion of the transfers and credits authorized and directed by section 912 of this title'' in 31:915 and ''and the amount of the payment credited as a public debt receipt in accordance with such section'' are omitted as executed. In clause (B), the text of 31:405a-3(last sentence) and 31:915(a)(4) is consolidated. The text of 31:405a-3(1st sentence) is omitted as executed. In clauses (C) and (E), the citations in parentheses are included only for information purposes.]

In subsection (b)(2), the words ''cancel and destroy'' are substituted for 'retired'' in 31:914 for consistency in the revised section. The words ''paragraph (1) of this subsection'' are substituted for ''Any currency the funds for the redemption or security of which have been transferred pursuant to the provisions of section 912 of this title, and any Federal Reserve notes as to which payment has been made under section 913 of this title'' because of the restatement. The words ''presented to the Secretary'' are substituted for ''presentation at the Treasury'' because of the source provisions restated in section 321(c) of the revised title. The text of 31:916 is omitted as unnecessary because of the restatement. The text of 31:404 and

31:420 is omitted as superseded by the source provisions restated in this subsection and subsection (c). The words ''All acts and parts of acts in conflict herewith are hereby repealed'' in the Act of May 31, 1878 (ch. 146, 20 Stat. 87), are omitted as executed. In subsection (c)(2), the words ''When the Secretary makes a determination under this subsection'' are added because of the restatement. The words ''on the books of the Treasury'' are omitted as surplus. The text of 31:405(e)(2)(1st sentence) is omitted as superseded by the source provisions restated in subsection (b).

In subsection (d), the word ''paper'' is omitted as surplus. The words ''(including circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banks)'' are substituted for ''including bank notes'' for consistency in the section. The words ''heretofore or hereafter issued'' are omitted as surplus


Act of July 14, 1890, ch. 708, 26 Stat. 289, referred to in subsec. (b)(1)(C), which was known as the Sherman Purchase of Silver Act of July 14, 1890, was classified to sections 408, 410, 412, and 453 of former Title 31, and sections 122 and 145 of Title 12, Banks and Banking, and was repealed by Pub. L. 97-258, Sec. 5(b), Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1069.

Section 4 of the Old Series Currency Adjustment Act, referred to in subsec. (b)(1)(D), is section 4 of Pub. L. 87-66, June 30, 1961, 75 Stat. 146, which was classified to section 913 of former Title 31, and was repealed by Pub. L. 97-258, Sec. 5(b), Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1079.

Acts February 25, 1862, July 11, 1862, and March 3, 1863, and resolution January 17, 1863, referred to in subsec. (b)(1)(E), are acts Feb. 25, 1862, ch. 33, 12 Stat. 345, July 11, 1862, ch. 142, 12 Stat. 532, and Mar. 3, 1863, ch. 73, 12 Stat. 709, and resolution Jan. 17, 1863, 12 Stat. 822, respectively, which are not classified to the Code


1994 - Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 103-325 inserted concluding provisions. 1992 - Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 102-390 amended par. (2) generally. Prior to amendment, par. (2) read as follows: ''The Secretary shall redeem from the general fund of the Treasury and cancel and destroy currency referred to in paragraph (1) of this subsection when the currency is presented to the Secretary.''

Now let's go here:


Sec. 5103.

Sec. 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.

Now here is something people do not know in the notes which I will put in bold-face blue:



Notes on Sec. 5103.


Pub. L. 97-258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 980

Pub. L. 97-452, Sec. 1(19), Jan. 12, 1983, 96 Stat. 2477.

Historical and Revision Notes 1982 Act

Revised Section Source (U.S. Code) Source (Statutes at Large)

5103 31:392. 31:456. July 23, 1965, Pub. L. 89-81, Sec. 102, 79 Stat. 255. R.S. Sec. 3584.

The words ''All . . . regardless of when coined or issued'' are omitted as unnecessary because of the restatement. The word ''debts'' is substituted for ''debts, public and private'' to eliminate unnecessary words. The words ''public charges, taxes, duties, and dues'' are omitted as included in ''debts''

1983 ACT

This restores to 31:5103 the reference to public charges, taxes, and dues because they are not considered to be debts. See, Hagar v. Reclamation District No. 108, 111 U.S. 701, 706 (1884).


1983 - Pub. L. 97-452 inserted '', public charges, taxes, and dues'' after ''all debts''.


Amendment effective Sept. 13, 1982, see section 2(i) of Pub. L. 97452, set out as a note under section 3331 of this title


This section is referred to in sections 5112, 5132 of this title.

Now as to taxation of these "notes" and coin read this:


Sec. 5154.

Sec. 5154. - State taxation

A State or a territory or possession of the United States may tax United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) as money on hand or on deposit in the same way and at the same rate that the State, territory, or possession taxes other forms of money. This section does not affect a law taxing national banks

Here are the statutes for the above and are you ready for this?

Read on:



Notes on Sec. 5154.


Pub. L. 97-258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 992

Pub. L. 97-452, Sec. 1(22), Jan. 12, 1983, 96 Stat. 2477.

Historical and Revision Notes 1982 Act

Revised Section Source (U.S. Code) Source (Statutes at Large)

5154 31:425, 426. Aug. 13, 1894, ch. 281, 28 Stat. 278.

The words ''United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks)'' are substituted for ''Circulating notes of national banking associations and United States legal tender notes and other notes and certificates of the United States payable on demand and circulating or intended to circulate as currency and gold, silver, or other coin'' in 31:425 to eliminate unnecessary words and for

consistency with section 5103 of the revised title

1983 ACT

This restates 31:5154 to clarify the intent of the section. See: 26 Cong. Rec. 7152, 7170 (1894).


1983 - Pub. L. 97-452 substituted ''other forms of money'' for ''United States coins and currency circulating within its jurisdiction''.


Amendment effective Sept. 13, 1982, see section 2(i) of Pub. L. 97452, set out as a note under section 3331 of this title

So I think you have enough statutes you wanted to show that federal reserve notes, although worthless, ARE considered to be legal tender (offer) as currency of the United States. The key in all the above relies on that "restatement" of law. Best to get it and read what they had to say about currency and the worthless note.

Now, were you ever "paid" in "money" or evidences of debt? Is that reportable and income when there is no worth attached as stated in Title 26 USC 165 (g) and in the U.S. Treasury Web site quoted above plus all the other sources including the court cases? Would it not be feasible to bring this argument in the administrative forum rather than wait for your butt to be dragged into their court where you will never be allowed to present this as evidence? Better to get it on the administrative record as NOT your argument, but their proofs you

have no income with which requires you to file any IRS form whatsoever. Says so, right on your master file, in a code that is theirs, not yours. After all you are hitting them with their own admissions. Never put -0- income on any 1040 or you will have defeated this plain proof that you have no reportable income.. Now

you know why the IRS considers your labor value as -0- and anything above that is pure profit to you. Never thought of it that way did you? Well, when is the onslaught gonna happen? Don't take my word for this, read it for yourself and draw your own conclusions from the very statutes I gave you here. This ought to really put the binders on them for a long time once you people see the truth they place before you every day.

Peace be with you

The Informer



A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong, and a tax is a fine you pay

for doing all right.


Yesterday, 11:37 PM


Founding Member

Join Date: Mar 2003

Location: "Shark Infested Waters"

Posts: 7,913


Re: Notes of Debt are not Income

At one time in my life, I thought I had a handle on the meaning of the word "service". The act of doing things for other people.


Then I heard these service terms:


Internal Revenue Service,

Postal Service,

Civil Service,

Telephone Service,

Service Stations,

A O L Service Desk,

Customer Service,


City/County Public Service.


And I became confused about the word "service.

This is not what I thought "service" meant.


Then one day, I overheard two farmers talking, and one of them mentioned that he was having a bull service a few of his cows.


SHAZAM!! It all came into perspective. Now I understand what all those "service" agencies are doing to us..


"Federal reserve notes shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, or at any Federal Reserve Bank.

USC Title 12 Chapter 3, Section 411

The information contained here was gathered from sources deemed reliable, however, no claim is made as to its accuracy or content. This does not contain specific recommendations to buy or sell at particular prices or times, nor should any of the examples presented be deemed as such.




Re: Notes of Debt are not Income

This is a truly fascinating topic. Like pouring a "can of worms" down

a "deep rabbit hole.

One thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.

The Truth Shall Set You Free

Freedom Club USA


All material on this site is protected under the copyright laws of the United States for the express protection of their creators.

©  Copyright 2004-2024 Freedom Foundation USA, LLC
All rights reserved.