Legal Reality
"Federal Reserve Notes" v. "United States Notes"
Mon Jun 18, 2007 02:17
 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: "Federal Reserve Notes" v. "United States Notes"
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:13:12 +0000
From: Legal Reality legal_reality@earthlink.net

14 June A.D. 2007

We may have talked about this one before, and if so, let's talk about it, again.

>From Title 18, United States Code

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



Section 20. Financial institution defined

As used in this title, the term "financial institution" means -
(1) an insured depository institution (as defined in section
3(c)(2) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act);
(2) a credit union with accounts insured by the National Credit
Union Share Insurance Fund;
(3) a Federal home loan bank or a member, as defined in section
2 of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 1422), of the
Federal home loan bank system;
(4) a System institution of the Farm Credit System, as defined
in section 5.35(3) of the Farm Credit Act of 1971;
(5) a small business investment company, as defined in section
103 of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 662);
(6) a depository institution holding company (as defined in
section 3(w)(1) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act;
(7) a Federal Reserve bank or a member bank of the Federal
Reserve System;
(8) an organization operating under section 25 or section 25(a)
(!1) of the Federal Reserve Act; or
(9) a branch or agency of a foreign bank (as such terms are
defined in paragraphs (1) and (3) of section 1(b) of the
International Banking Act of 1978).


Section 335. Circulation of obligations of expired corporations

Whoever, being a director, officer, or agent of a corporation
created by Act of Congress, the charter of which has expired, or
trustee thereof, or an agent of such trustee, or a person having in
his possession or under his control the property of such
corporation for the purpose of paying or redeeming its notes and
obligations, knowingly issues, reissues, or utters as money, or in
any other way knowingly puts in circulation any bill, note, check,
draft, or other security purporting to have been made by any such
corporation, or by any officer thereof, or purporting to have been
made under authority derived therefrom, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.




Here's the thought. IF "United States" was created by (commercial) Act of (the group of commercial players called) Congress, and IF "United States" has expired, THEN it makes sense as to why there are no "United States Notes" in circulation. We'd have to get into the "coinage" statutes to see how/why coins are distinguished from "obligations."


Here are the Notes for 335. Note the date.

Section 335 - Notes

SOURCE
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 700; Pub. L. 103-322, title
XXXIII, Sec. 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES
Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Sec. 289 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch.
321, Sec. 174, 35 Stat. 1122).
The reference to persons aiding was omitted as unnecessary, since
such persons are made principals by section 2 of this title.
The last sentence excepting bona fide holders in due course was
omitted as surplusage.
Other changes in phraseology also were made.
SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS
This section is referred to in section 492 of this title.

Compare another statute and its Notes.


Section 132. Creation and composition of district courts

(a) There shall be in each judicial district a district court
which shall be a court of record known as the United States
District Court for the district.
(b) Each district court shall consist of the district judge or
judges for the district in regular active service. Justices or
judges designated or assigned shall be competent to sit as judges
of the court.
(c) Except as otherwise provided by law, or rule or order of
court, the judicial power of a district court with respect to any
action, suit or proceeding may be exercised by a single judge, who
may preside alone and hold a regular or special session of court at
the same time other sessions are held by other judges.



Some among us "go nuts" with the distinction between the former "district courts of the United States," which don't exist in "this state," and the current "United States District Courts," which do exist in "this state." It's good to recognize the difference. But, in application of the recognition of this distinction, it's neither good nor true to say that the "United States District Courts" have no authority.

When Capone was tried, he was tried (1) by a party called UNITED STATES (2) in a DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/american_originals/capone.html


Today, he would be tried (1) by a party called UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (2) in a UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.

When did this change occur? 1948. June, 1948, to be a bit more precise. We're zooming up on the anniversary as we speak.




Here are the Notes for this section. Note the date.

Section 132 - Notes
SOURCE
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 895; Pub. L. 88-176, Sec. 2, Nov.
13, 1963, 77 Stat. 331.)
HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES
Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Sec. 1, and section 641 of
title 48, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Territories and Insular Possessions
(Apr. 30, 1900, ch. 339, Sec. 86, 31 Stat. 158; Mar. 3, 1909, ch.
269, Sec. 1, 35 Stat. 838; Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, Sec. 1, 36 Stat.
1087; July 30, 1914, ch. 216, 38 Stat. 580; July 19, 1921, ch. 42,
Sec. 313, 42 Stat. 119; Feb. 12, 1925, ch. 220, 43 Stat. 890; Dec.
13, 1926, ch. 6, Sec. 1, 44 Stat. 19).
Section consolidates section 1 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., and
section 641 of title 48, U.S.C., 1940 ed., with changes in
phraseology necessary to effect the consolidation.
Subsection (c) is derived from section 641 of title 48, U.S.C.,
1940 ed., which applied only to the Territory of Hawaii. The
revised section, by extending it to all districts, merely
recognizes established practice.
Other portions of section 1 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., are
incorporated in sections 133 and 134 of this title. The remainder
of section 641 of title 48, U.S.C., 1940 ed., is incorporated in
sections 91 and 133 of this title.




In fact, one may traipse through the entirety of Title 28 and find some interesting curiosities with these dates.

The question to raise is simply this. Where UNITED STATES is "out," and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is "in," is this a "confession," of sorts, that tells us that UNITED STATES, as a corporate entity, has terminated, such that circulating "United States Notes" in the place called "this state," is illegal?

But, then, wouldn't the mere existence of a "United States Note" give rise to a presumption that the transaction to which it applies or attaches is under "the Law of the Land," rendering the entire matter more "in terrorem" than practical, on its face?


Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas

Main Page - Monday, 06/18/07

Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]

APFN MESSAGEBOARD ARCHIVES

messageboard.gif (4314 bytes)