LDS Freedom Forum

Monday, January 14th 2008 — Christopher Hansen

I received a letter from Nevada Assemblyman Bob Beers today. (This is NOT Senator Bob Beers. Senator Bob Beers never responded to my questions about what a dollars is or is not.) In his response Assemblyman Bob Beers clearly answers a few very simple questions that I have been asking many government officials for years. I always believed the answers were simple and it appears I was right.

1.What law states that a Federal reserve note is a dollar?

2.Is a Federal reserve note a “dollar”?

3.Are Federal reserve notes, “lawful money”?

4.What is the legal definition of “dollar”?

Here are the answers I received from Assemblyman Beers:

BOB BEERS, ASSEMBLYMAN, District No. 21

COMMITTEES: Education, Government Affairs, Health and Human Services

DISTRICT OFFICE: 355 Cavalla Street, Henderson, Nevada 89074, Office: (702) 434-8066

LEGISLATIVE BUILDING: 401 S. Carson Street, Carson City, Nevada 89701-4747, Office: (775) 684-8839, Fax No.: (775) 684-8533, http://www.leg.state.nv.us

Nevada Assembly, SEVENTY-FOURTH SESSION

01-10-08

Christopher Hansen, 2657 Windmill Pky #107, Henderson, Nevada 89074

Dear Christopher,

According to a monograph written by Edwin Vieira, Jr., even those who purport to print our money don’t really know what a dollar is. No statute defines - or ever has defined - the “one dollar” Federal Reserve Note “FRN” as the “dollar,” or even as a species of “dollar.” Moreover, the United States Code provides that FRNs “shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States… or at any Federal Reserve bank.” Thus, FRNs are not themselves “lawful money” - otherwise, they would not be “redeemable in lawful money.” And if FRNs are not even “lawful money,” it is inconceivable that they are somehow “dollars,” the very units in which all “United States money is expressed.”

People are confused on this point because of the insidious manner in which FRNs “evolved” - actually, degenerated is a more appropriate verb - from the late 1920s until today. FRNs of Series 1928 through Series 1950E carried the obligation “The United States of America will pay to the bearer on demand [some number of] dollars.” Prior to 1934, the notes carried the inscription “Redeemable in gold on demand at the United

States Treasury, or in gold or lawful money at any Federal Reserve Bank.” After 1934, the notes carried the inscription “this note… is redeemable in lawful money at the United

States Treasury, or at any Federal Reserve Bank” (post-1934). Starting with Series 1963, the words “will pay to the bearer on demand” no longer appear; and each FRN simply states a particular denomination in “dollars.”

The replies you received to your query from both John Ensign’s office and the Treasury Department reveal just how confused this situation is. Being a man who considers his word his bond, I would have to say that the FRN is and remains a contract; whether or not the government chooses to admit this…they printed the things. At the top of the contract they proudly proclaim it to be a Federal Reserve Note. At the bottom they declare the value, as in the dollar bill as One Dollar. The value of goods or services the note may purchase has changed, albeit not for the better. However, if you hold a 1900 $20 gold piece, you can still purchase what that coin could buy when it was minted.

The situation with coinage is more complex, but equally (if not more) confusing. The United States Code provides for three different types of coinage denominated in “dollars”: namely, base-metallic coinage, gold coinage, and silver coinage.

The base-metallic coinage consists of “a dollar coin,” weighing “8.1 grams,” “a half dollar coin,” weighing “11.34 grams”; “a quarter coin,” weighing “5.67 grams”: and “a dime coin,” weighing “2.268 grams.” All of these coins are composed of copper and nickel. The weights of the dime, the quarter, and the half dollar are in the correct arithmetical proportions, the one to each of the others. But the “dollar” is disproportionately light (or the other coins is proportionately heavy). In this series of base metallic coins, then, the questions naturally arise: Is the “dollar” a cupro-nickel coin weighing “8.1 grams”? Or is it two cupro-nickel coins (or four or ten coins) collectively weighing 22.68 grams? Or is it both? Or is it neither, but something else altogether, to which the weights of these coins are irrelevant?

Similarly, the gold coinage consists of “a fifty dollar gold coin” that “weighs 33.931 grams, and contains one troy ounce of fine gold”; “a twenty-five dollar gold coin” that “contains one-half ounce of fine gold”; “a ten dollar gold coin” that “contains one fourth ounce of fine gold”; and “a five dollar gold coin” that “contains one tenth ounce of fine gold.” The “fifty dollar,” “twenty-five dollar,” and “five dollar” coins are in the correct arithmetical proportions each to the others. But the “ten dollar” coin is not. Therefore, is a “dollar” one-fiftieth or one-fortieth of an ounce of gold? It appears to be undecided.

I would have to say that, based on the oath I took when I assumed this office; the US Government has not upheld its part on a contract begun back when it first began printing monetary notes. We still trade the notes for goods and services, but the trust is no longer there.

Assemblyman Bob Beers

So here are the answers I found from this rare elected government official:

Question: 1. What law states that a Federal reserve note is a dollar?

Answer: None

Question: 2. Is a Federal reserve note a “dollar”?

Answer: The Federal reserve note is not a dollar.

Question: 3. Are Federal reserve notes, “lawful money”?

Answer: they cannot be for you cannot redeem something in itself.

Question: What is the legal definition of “dollar”?

Answer: there is no legal definition to the dollar as it is currently “undecided.”

Obviously God was right when He gave us the following warning:

Prov. 20: 10 Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination to the LORD.

Interesting history of the FRN.

I hope you do not mind if I add a little bit of history to the FRN time line.

Gold price is fixed: $20.67 (I think the $ means frn) until June 1933. Everyone had to stop hording gold and turn it in. Illegal to have gold.

FRNs of Series 1928 through Series 1950E carried the obligation “The United States of America will pay to the bearer on demand [some number of] dollars.” Prior to 1934, the notes carried the inscription “Redeemable in gold on demand at the United

States Treasury, or in gold or lawful money at any Federal Reserve Bank.”

1933 - 1971 Gold price fixed: $35.00, can exchange at Central Banks only
June 1933 - January 1975 : illegel to have gold for Americans

After 1934, the notes carried the inscription “this note… is redeemable in lawful money at the United States Treasury, or at any Federal Reserve Bank” (post-1934). Starting with Series 1963, the words “will pay to the bearer on demand” no longer appear; and each FRN simply states a particular denomination in “dollars.”

August 1971 to present: gold prices is free
January 1975 to present: Americans can horde gold or buy gold


Now I have to research the dates when the IRS stops mentioning about the voluntary taxes and just have everyone file income tax returns. That will be interesting to add to the time line. It was probably a gradual bait.

I believe the 1040 still states it's a voluntary tax. Of course the question arises, whats the definition of voluntary??

shadow wrote:I believe the 1040 still states it's a voluntary tax. Of course the question arises, whats the definition of voluntary??

The Supreme Court defined it in a case against Prayer in a voluntary graduation ceremony.

U.S. Supreme Court
LEE v. WEISMAN, 505 U.S. 577 (1992)

Petitioners' argument that the option of not attending the ceremony excuses any inducement or coercion in the ceremony itself is rejected. In this society, high school graduation is one of life's most significant occasions, and a student is not free to absent herself from the exercise in any real sense of the term "voluntary." Also not dispositive is the contention that prayers are an essential part of these ceremonies because, for many persons, the occasion would lack meaning without the recognition that human achievements cannot be understood apart from their spiritual essence. This position fails to acknowledge that what [505 U.S. 577, 579] for many was a spiritual imperative was for the Weismans religious conformance compelled by the State. It also gives insufficient recognition to the real conflict of conscience faced by a student who would have to choose whether to miss graduation or conform to the state-sponsored practice in an environment where the risk of compulsion is especially high.

So make your choice.