Love Me (Legal) Tender: Notes, “Federal Reserve” and otherwise

“31 U.S. Code § 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.”

The things in the first sentence are all legal tender; the things in the second sentence are not.

Consider this: “Bananas, apples, and pears are legal fruits for all meals and eating purposes. Snails, stones, and marbles are not legal fruits for eating.”

Okay, that makes sense. Think about what 31 U.S. Code § 5103 says though– it gives several examples of things that can be used to pay debts. By no means does it say that nothing else can be used for that purpose. It lists things that can’t be used for paying debt. This “United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks)” is not an exhaustive list. Other fruits can be eaten legally.


Ҥ 25-3-104. Negotiable instrument.

(e)        An instrument is a “note” if it is a promise and is a “draft” if it is an order. If an instrument falls within the definition of both “note” and “draft”, a person entitled to enforce the instrument may treat it as either.”


The above is from the UCC section of NC General Statutes. “Negotiable instrument” is an expansive term that includes many things- a check is a negotiable instrument, in that you can sign it over to someone else. It differs from a note. A note is legal tender; rather than an order to pay (what else is a check?), it is a promise to pay.

To further clarify: a check is an order to pay (funds from an existing account), while a note, being a promise to pay, actually creates the funds. As soon as the Federal Reserve makes a dollar bill, it is worth a dollar. It is a Federal Reserve note.

A check moves/transfers money, while a note is money for all intents and purposes.

This will cast new light on what a promissory note is for some people. It is in the same class as a Federal Reserve Note– all notes are promissory notes.  So what did you give when you signed that Student loan or mortgage paperwork…?

“Color of Title”… NC Civil procedure goodies

“Article 4 – Limitations, Real Property.

§ 1-35.  Title against State.

The State will not sue any person for, or in respect of, any real property, or the issue or profits thereof, by reason of the right or title of the State to the same –

(1)        When the person in possession thereof, or those under whom he claims, has been in the adverse possession thereof for thirty years, this possession having been ascertained and identified under known and visible lines or boundaries; which shall give a title in fee to the possessor.

(2)        When the person in possession thereof, or those under whom he claims, has been in possession under color of title for twenty-one years, this possession having been ascertained and identified under known and visible lines or boundaries. (R.C., c. 65, s. 2; C.C.P., s. 18; Code, s. 139; Rev., s. 380; C.S., s. 425.)”

Notice “title in fee to the possessor”. This means absolute title, unencumbered ownership. If you are on land for 30 years, it is yours and the state can’t do anything about it. If you have a deed of trust for 21 years, the state cannot bring suit for ownership of the property. There goes the eminent domain theory!

“§ 1-36.  Title presumed out of State.

In all actions involving the title to real property title is conclusively deemed to be out of the State unless it is a party to the action, but this section does not apply to the trials of protested entries laid for the purpose of obtaining grants, nor to actions instituted prior to May 1, 1917. (1917, c. 195; C.S., s. 426.)”

So, if title can be presumed out of State, but is in North Carolina, what does that make the meaning of “In this State” that you read all the time in General Statutes? If it were not in North Carolina, why would there need to be mention of it in the NCGS? How COULD there be? “In this State” likely means “under jurisdiction/voluntary submission to this authority”. Something can be in North Carolina, but not be “In this State”. Look up “State”.


“§ 1-37.  Such possession valid against claimants under State.

All such possession as is described in G.S. 1-35, under such title as is therein described, is hereby ratified and confirmed, and declared to be good and legal bar against the entry or suit of any person, under the right or claim of the State. (C.C.P., s. 19; Code, s. 140; Rev., s. 381; C.S., s. 427.)”

And look at this:

“§ 1-38.  Seven years’ possession under color of title.

(a)        When a person or those under whom he claims is and has been in possession of any real property, under known and visible lines and boundaries and under color of title, for seven years, no entry shall be made or action sustained against such possessor by a person having any right or title to the same, except during the seven years next after his right or title has descended or accrued, who in default of suing within that time shall be excluded from any claim thereafter made; and such possession, so held, is a perpetual bar against all persons not under disability: Provided, that commissioner’s deeds in judicial sales and trustee’s deeds under foreclosure shall also constitute color of title.”

(Trustee’s deed, or deed of trust– wikipedia says:

After seven years, your possession of the property has given you a claim to it. If you have possession but not color of title, this doesn’t apply to you. If you have color of title but no possession, this doesn’t apply to you. Is this why you should never leave a house when threatened with foreclosure? You certain rights simply because of possession.

To clarify some of those terms:

“Disability. In the acts of limitation it is provided that persons lying under certain disabilities, such as being non compos, an infant, in prison, or under coverture, shall have the right to bring actions after the disability shall have been removed.”

“Disability” simply means anything preventing a person from enforcing his/her claim of title.

“Non compos” means incompetent.

“Coverture” means the legal state of a married woman. It used to be that men had primary rights over all property in a marriage.

And the biggie:

“Color of title.    The appearance, semblance, or simulac­rum of title.    Also termed “apparent title.”    Any fact, extraneous to the act or mere will of the claimant, which has the appearance, on its face, of supporting his claim of a present title to land, but which, for some defect, in reality falls short of establishing it. Howth v. Farrar, C.C.A.Tex., 94 F.2d 654, 658. That which is a semblance or appearance of title, but is not title in fact or in law.    McCoy v. Lowrie, 42 Wash.2d 24,    253    P.2d    4 1 5,    4 1 8.    Any    instrument    having    a grantor and grantee, and containing a description of the lands intended to be conveyed, and apt words for their conveyance, gives color of title to the lands described.    Such an instrument purports to be a con­veyance of the title, and because it does not, for some reason, have that effect, it passes only color or the semblance of a title.”

I liked that one. So, if you signed a mortgage, the deed is encumbered by it; it is not perfect title. It does serve as color of title though- it is evidence of ownership in some sense of the word. Grantees named in the mortgage also have color of title– you basically granted them a lien on your property. That is the defect that makes it “color of title” versus actual title.

The Trustee or the mortgagee, depending on the type of instrument you signed when you bought your land/house, has legal title. You have “equitable title”.

The great and powerful Wiki says:

“Equitable versus legal title

At common law equitable title is the right to obtain full ownership of property, where another maintains legal title to the property. Legal title is actual ownership of the property. When a contract for the sale of land is executed, equitable title passes to the buyer. When the conditions on the sale contract have been met, legal title passes to the buyer in what is known as closing. Legal and equitable title also arises in trust. In a trust, one person may own the legal title, such as the trustees. Another may own the equitable title such as the beneficiary.”

So you and the grantee both have title to some extent. You, however, also have possession and use. I believe this seven-year clause would apply to anyone who possesses the land for seven years and is referred to in the correct paperwork.

I will admit my head hurts after reading all of this. It is a complex thing, and I am learning a lot by researching it well enough to try to explain it.

Are you a North Carolina taxpayer? Today’s juicy bit…

Do you fit the definition of “taxpayer” within the law used to tax your pay?

You tell me:

“Chapter 105 – Taxation.

Article 4.

Income Tax.

Part 1.  Corporation Income Tax.

§ 105-130.  Short title.

This Part of the income tax Article shall be known and may be cited as the Corporation Income Tax Act. (1939, c. 158, s. 300; 1967, c. 1110, s. 3; 1998-98, ss. 42, 61, 68.)

§ 105-130.1.  Purpose.

The general purpose of this Part is to impose a tax for the use of the State government upon the net income of every domestic corporation and of every foreign corporation doing business in this State.

The tax imposed upon the net income of corporations in this Part is in addition to all other taxes imposed under this Subchapter. (1939, c. 158, s. 301; 1967, c. 1110, s. 3; 1998-98, s. 69.)

§ 105-130.2.  Definitions.

The following definitions apply in this Part:

(3)        Corporation. – A joint-stock company or association, an insurance company, a domestic corporation, a foreign corporation, or a limited liability company.

(9)        Gross income. – Defined in section 61 of the Code.

(12)      Parent. – A corporation is a parent of another corporation when, directly or indirectly, it controls the other corporation by stock ownership, interlocking directors, or by any other means whatsoever exercised by the same or associated financial interests, whether the control is direct or through one or more subsidiary, affiliated, or controlled corporations.

(18)      Taxpayer. – A corporation subject to the tax imposed by this Part.

§ 105-134.2.  Individual income tax imposed.

(a)        A tax is imposed upon the North Carolina taxable income of every individual. The tax shall be levied, collected, and paid annually and shall be computed at the following percentages of the taxpayer‘s North Carolina taxable income.”

§ 105-160.1.  Definitions.

The definitions provided in Part 2 of this Article shall apply in this Part except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning. “

And thus, it is left up to the reader to decide whether “taxpayer” in the “individual income tax imposed” section, clearly means something other than a corporation. Keep in mind, “Taxpayer. – A corporation subject to the tax imposed by this Part” is the definition for the whole Chapter 105 on Taxation.

The North Carolina General Assembly, businessmen all, have implemented rules to take your money.  If you let the presumption stand, and do not read the law, they can treat you (John Henry Doe) as a corporation, because you look and act like one.

I look forward to discussing this.

The Meaning of “United States”…could be VERY different depending on context!

Have a quick look at this:

I was looking to refresh my memory on the several definitions of “United States”, because the common understanding is that it always means “The 50 states of the union”. In fact, it rarely means that.

There are some 75 separate definitions of “United States” listed here, which goes to show that a term varies greatly, dependent upon the context. Laws are always an expression of jurisdiction; you can’t apply laws to a place in which you can’t enforce them. 

Note how some of the definitions mention the 50 states, some do not. One of the biggest caveats to reading these definitions is the word “includes”, the danger being that people often complete these in their heads by thinking “Oh, in addition to the common meaning of ‘state’,  it includes Washington DC and all the territories and possessions.” However, a definitions means precisely what it says, and nothing else. That is what makes it a definition.

Going thru those 75 versions of “United States”–


Sec. 7103. Definitions; application

(18) ‘United States’ means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and any territory or possession of the United States.”
Because the 50 States are mentioned here, “LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS” can be legislated anywhere in the country, as a service to and to defend the rights of all Americans, not just those receiving privilege/benefit from the Federal government aka the US.
subpart vii
Sec. 1359jj. Administration
c) ‘United States’ and ‘State’ defined
Notwithstanding section 1301 of this title, for purposes of this subpart, the terms ‘United States’and ‘State’ means (FOOTNOTE 1) the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.”
“7 USC Sec. 2116 – TITLE 7CHAPTER 53 
Sec. 2116. Definitions
As used in this chapter:

(e) The term ‘United States’ means the 50 States of the United States of America.”
” 7 USC Sec. 6102 TITLE 7 CHAPTER 90 
Sec. 6102.

…(15) State and United States The terms ‘State’ and ‘United States’ include the 50 States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.”
7 USC Sec. 6202  TITLE 7 CHAPTER 91
Sec. 6202. Definitions

As used in this chapter:
(15) State and United States
The term –
(A) ‘State’ means each of the 50 States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; and
(B) ‘United States’ means the 50 States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.”
26 USC Sec. 4612  TITLE 26 Subtitle D CHAPTER 38 Subchapter A –

Sec. 4612. Definitions and special rules 
(a) Definitions For purposes of this subchapter
(4) United States
(A) In general The term ‘United States’ means the 50 States, the District of

Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any possession of the United States, the

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.”
Sec. 7103. Definitions; application
(18) ‘United States’ means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and any territory or possession of the United States.”

That is 7 definitions out of 75 that actually pertain to the 50 states.  I can’t say the list is exhaustive,  but I can’t imagine that this is not more or or less a cross section of laws, representing the general relationship of laws applying to the 50 states, vs those applying to Federal areas or applying to both.  I could go on all day about the implications of what is specified and what is not in these definitions, but the reader can certainly look into these more deeply. This illustrates that it is simple and easy to mention the 50 states of the union when it is applicable to do so.

Contrast the above definitions with this one, which is to be found throughout the U.S. Code in some form or another, but never mentioning the 50 states:
“5 USC Sec. 5911  TITLE 5 PART III Subpart D CHAPTER 59

Sec. 5911. Quarters and facilities; employees in the United States
(a) For the purpose of this section –
(4) ‘United States’ means the several States, the District of Columbia, and the territories and
possessions of the United States including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico”
What you find is that when “several States” are mentioned, or “Any State of the United States”,

“State” is defined as inclusive of DC, Guam, Virgin Islands, etc.– any place that the Federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over.


Motor vehicle: ALWAYS look up the definition!

When you look in your state’s statutes, there will be certain terms (limitations) that are used all over the place. Start with their rules for statutory construction– these are over-arching definitions and principles that apply to ALL the following chapters.

You have to take your time and look VERY closely at what is actually being said. Do not make any assumptions. Do not fill in any blanks for legislators. Any blanks are there because they HAVE to be. If something is left out, it is probably because putting it in would harm your rights.

Specifically note below the terms “Person and Property”.

I looked these up in the NC General Statutes because a vehicle is ONLY used to transport “Persons and Property”. The whole definition of “Motor Vehicle” and “driver” hinges on this.  I knew there was a chink in the armor somewhere, as the federal definition of “Motor Vehicle” is:


“18 U.S. Code Part I – CRIMES

18 U.S. Code § 31 – Definitions

(6) Motor vehicle.— The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.”

Thus, any “crime” you are accused of in relation to a “Motor vehicle” denotes commercial activity.  States are limited by these Federal statutes, as they are nothing more than extensions of the Federal government. I am not talking about the original 50 Union states.


NC General Statutes:
Chapter 20: Motor Vehicles.
§ 20-4.01.  Definitions.

(49)      Vehicle. – Every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, excepting devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon fixed rails or tracks; provided, that for the purposes of this Chapter bicycles shall be deemed vehicles and every rider of a bicycle upon a highway shall be subject to the provisions of this Chapter applicable to the driver of a vehicle except those which by their nature can have no application. This term shall not include a device which is designed for and intended to be used as a means of transportation for a person with a mobility impairment, or who uses the device for mobility enhancement, is suitable for use both inside and outside a building, including on sidewalks, and is limited by design to 15 miles per hour when the device is being operated by a person with a mobility impairment, or who uses the device for mobility enhancement. This term shall not include an electric personal assistive mobility device as defined in G.S. 20-4.01(7a).”

Did you notice the mention of “commercial use?” It’s not stated explicitly, but…

Chapter 12: Statutory Construction.

§ 12-3.  Rules for construction of statutes.

In the construction of all statutes the following rules shall be observed, unless such construction would be inconsistent with the manifest intent of the General Assembly, or repugnant to the context of the same statute, that is to say:

(6)        “Person” and “Property”. – The word “person” shall extend and be applied to bodies politic and corporate, as well as to individuals, unless the context clearly shows to the contrary. The words “real property” shall be coextensive with lands, tenements and hereditaments. The words “personal property” shall include moneys, goods, chattels, choses in action and evidences of debt, including all things capable of ownership, not descendable to heirs at law. The word “property” shall include all property, both real and personal.

(11)      “State” and “United States”. – The word “state,” when applied to the different parts of the United States, shall be construed to extend to and include the District of Columbia and the several territories, so called; and the words “United States” shall be construed to include the said district and territories and all dependencies.”

Do you live in a Federal Territory or dependency? I don’t.
Note how the quality/requirement of “Property” is that it is “not descendable to heirs at law”. Is your house, car, land, not descendable to your heirs? Do you want it to be? Of course you do. Don’t claim it as property, is my policy.
Consulting Black’s Law 5th Ed.:
“Heir at law. At common law, he who, after his ances­tor dies intestate, has a right to all lands, tenements, and hereditaments which belonged to him or of which he was seised. The same as “heir general.”
“Heirs at law,” as the term is used in wrongful death statute, means lineal descendants.    Howlett v. Greenberg, 34 Colo.App. 356, 530 P.2d 1285, 1287.
A deceased person’s “heirs at law” are those who succeed to his estate of inheritance under statutes of descent and distribution, in absence of testamentary disposition, and not necessarily his heirs at common law, who are persons succeeding to deceased’s realty in case of his intestacy. In re Towndrow’s Will, 47 N.M. 173, 138 P.2d 1001, 1003.”
Note how the use of “person” in the last section changes he definition substantially, and has a purely statutory context. The first section merely says “ancestor” (for which there can be no legal definition because there is no wiggle room), and remains in Common Law. “Common Law” is law that is not contractual, and applies to everyone. A “person” is bound by contract/agreement/consent.
“Bound by consent? Huh?”
Yeah, it sounds absurd, because it is.

Are Corporations People?

I just became aware of this book “Corporations Are Not People: Why They Have More Rights Than You Do and What You Can Do About It” credited to Bill Clements.

Corporations are not people, and there is no law that says they are, anywhere in the books.

Mitt Romney has said they are in a famous video clip, but his word is not law (thank the gods!).

Laws define the term “person”, and a corporation can be a U.S. Person or a U.S. Citizen.

The implication of this is clear: when you affirm that you are a “U.S. Person” or a “U.S. Citizen”, you are volunteering into the lowered status of a fictional entity that exists solely on paper, and your rights are equal to or less than that of a corporation.

This book addresses the question of whether corporations are people; to wrap one’s head around the issue, we first must be clear that “people” and “persons” are not the same thing. “People” is NOT the plural of “persons”, no matter what you and I learned in public school.

Read for yourself– Title 26 of the U.S. Code (The Internal Revenue Code) never defines the word “People”. Nor does Title 8 (Immigration and Nationality).

Black’s Law 5th Edition says:

“Person. In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include a firm, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, cor­porations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers. National Labor Relations Act, § 2(1).

(This bit is tricky… by statute it doesn’t include natural person or human being– Ed.)

Bankruptcy Act.    “Person” includes individual, part­ nership, and corporation, but not governmental unit. Sec. 101(30).
Corporation. A corporation is a “person” within meaning of equal protection and due process provi­sions of United States Constitution.    Allen v. Pavach, Ind., 335 N.E.2d 219, 221; Borreca v. Fasi, D.C.Ha­ waii, 369 F.Supp. 906, 91 1. The term “persons” in statute relating to conspiracy to commit offense against United States, or to defraud United States, or any agency, includes corporation. Alamo Fence Co. of    Houston    v.    U.    S.,    C.A.Tex.,    240    F.2d    179,    1 8 1 .
Foreign government. Foreign governments other­ wise eligible to sue in U.S. courts are “persons” entitled to bring treble-damage suit for alleged anti­ trust violations under Clayton Act, Section 4.    Pfizer, Inc. v. Government of India, C.A.Minn., 550 F.2d 396.
Illegitimate child.    Illegitimate children are “persons” within meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 68, 88 S.Ct. 1509, 1511, 20 L.Ed.2d 436; and scope of wrongful death statute, Jordan v. Delta Drilling Co., Wyo., 541 P.2d 39, 48.
Interested person.    Includes heirs, devisees, children, spouses, creditors, beneficiaries and any others hav­ ing a property right in or claim against a trust estate or the estate of a decedent, ward or protected person which may be affected by the proceeding. It also includes persons having priority for appointment as personal representative, and other fiduciaries repre­senting interested persons.    The meaning as it relates to particular persons may vary from time to time and must be determined according to the particular pur­ poses of, and matter involved in, any proceeding. Uniform Probate Code, § 1-201(20).
Municipalities.    Municipalities and other government units are “persons” within meaning of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. Local government officials sued in their official capacities are “persons” for purposes of Sec­ tion 1983 in those cases in which a local govern­ment would be suable in its own name.    Monell v. N. Y. City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611. See Color of law.
Protected person.    One for whom a conservator has been appointed or other protective order has been made.    Uniform Probate Code, § 5-101(3).
Resident alien. A resident alien is a ‘person” within the meaning of the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. C. D. R. Enterprises, Ltd. v. Board of Ed. of City of New York, D.C.N.Y., 412 F.Supp. 1164, 1168.
Unborn child. Word “person” as used in the Four­teenth Amendment does not include the unborn.    Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 729, 35 L.Ed.2d 147.    A fetus is not a “person” and is not entitled to protection under the equal protection clause.    Mur­row v. Clifford, C.A.N.J., 502 F.2d 1066, 1068.
A viable unborn child, which would have been born alive but for the negligence of defendant, is a “per­son” within meaning of Wrongful Death Statute. Simmons v. Howard University, D.C.D.C., 323 F.Supp. 529.    Unborn child is a “person” for purpose of remedies given for personal injuries, and child may sue    after    his    birth.    Weaks    v.    Mounter,    88    Nev.    1 1 8, 493 P.2d 1307, 1309.”

(Emphasis mine.)

The term “Person” is completely malleable, and its meaning depends entirely upon context (forum) and the definition relevant to the reading.

Black’s on “People”:

“People. A state; as the people of the state of New York.    A nation in its collective and political capaci­ty. The aggregate or mass of the individuals who constitute the state.    Loi Hoa v. Nagle, C.C.A.Cal., 13 F.2d    80,    8 1 .    In    a    more    restricted    sense,    and    a s generally used in constitutional law, the entire body of those citizens of a state or nation who are invested with political power for political purposes.    See also Citizen; Person.”

So, the people ARE the state. The see also part may be there as contradistinction (indication what people are not), or because the terms are often used interchangeably, albeit incorrectly. A citizen is a subject of the state, rather than its consituent.

This is not a review, but pointing out a common, detrimental misunderstanding. Let’s get the argument right rather than waste our time. This books looks worthwhile overall; it has a blurb by the Ben & Jerry guys and a foreword by Bill Moyers.