Impossible! The deficit is falling as well as unemployment Obama wrecking economy

[tokeprep]

1) I'm not championing the 1913 lifestyle. i like antibiotics, modern dentistry, and driving places.
2) I'm asking less about defending my paycheck but my investible savings. I played the stock mkt in the '90s, but no longer have the cojones to do that. cn

Obviously I think sitting out stocks is a mistake. The simple truth is that passive investing has historically been very profitable; if you just buy and hold shares over a long period of time, not going into panic when things are rough, you end up far ahead of where you started. If you need the money relatively soon and aren't looking to park it for 20-30 years, investing is more difficult.

I like assets that generate income. If you buy shares in stable companies with high dividend yields, you get the dividend plus any price appreciation, which will probably amount to something in ten years. I like REITs and MLPs too; if you plan to hold to maturity, corporate and municipal debt might work for you.

 

[tokeprep]

I call bullshit........like it matters.....even some members of Congress think our currency is backed by gold right now...having worked for a legislature makes you no different from the common man indeed the legislature is composed of common men.

Since there are rules for reading and interpreting statutes, it does matter. You can't just pull out your dictionary and ignore court decisions to arrive at an interpretation. Likewise, you can't just assume text means what it says because Congress hasn't amended it--they don't do that in the regular course. They do pass new laws that are old consistent with old laws, and when that happens you have to read them to be consistent.

So when the conversion of dollars into gold ceased, the redemption provision you keep citing ceased to be meaningful. The second provision is about redeeming old currency for presently issued currency, not somehow cleansing Federal Reserve Notes/United States Notes with some kind of magic exchange. Since Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money (whatever the words in the statute are), they're only redeemable in Federal Reserve Notes. It's meaningless!

Congressmen don't write the law, which is the same reason why they don't read the bills. The bills are nonsense no one understands; Obamacare, for example--it takes a whole office to understand that bill. No one can tell you what the whole thing says, you need a dozen people to tell you in parts.

Golden days of precious metals ended 1971.....Social Security passed 1935.

You think 1913-1971 constituted the golden days? I thought you were complaining about how much inflation had taken place since 1913, notwithstanding the precious metal links. When the value of the dollar was actually stable, there was no such thing as social security.

 

[tokeprep]

As if you simply saying "without the gold standard the words cannot mean the same thing" makes it so by your decree..... this is pure speculation on your part and is prima facie evidence ignorance.

I didn't say it, a court said it. I think you just ignored my comments on the court decisions. Congress can't. Congress can only overrule a court decision by passing new legislation.

As if that can simply be amended because we are not on a gold standard it hasn't been amended because it is a fail-safe against fucktard legislators.

Again, Congress doesn't amend old statutes in the regular course. The meaning can be changed without the words being touched, such as when Congress passes some inconsistent legislation or a court issues an interpretation. The US code isn't footnoted to tell you that some other law is inconsistent with what you're reading; likewise, it doesn't contain lists of court cases that affect the meaning of words in the statute.

But what do you mean it's supposed to be a fail-safe? How does it operate as a fail-safe if it has no effect?

As if a treasury note or bond or bill do not all represent the same thing which is a security that represents actual physical labor and work and a FRN does not represent a debt derived from speculation against that real work.

I am differentiating between the two and it is YOU that is conflating them because I know how to use a dictionary and logic.....even to look up conflate lmfao get a fucking clue.

Miserable fail buddy maybe learn to grow pot here instead.

Ok. This is what you said: "United states notes indeed seem to be the "bonds" the Fed buys...........http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/154.asp. They are redeemable, just hard for you and I to do but easy for the Fed." You didn't differentiate them, you conflated them, saying United States Notes are the bonds the Fed buys! Treasury notes are not United States Notes, which haven't been issued since 1971. The fact that the word "note" is in the name of both things doesn't mean they're the same.

 

[tokeprep]

All aboard the Government/Fed owned Amtrak Fail Train woooooo wooooooo..................

You are correct insofar as 31USC5119 provides redeeming old currency.......12USC411 provides redeeming the new currency to the old currency.

31 USC 5119 instructs the secretary to "cancel and destroy such currency [old currency] upon redemption." If they have to destroy all of the old currency that comes into their hands, after exchanging it for equivalent value in Federal Reserve Notes, how could 12 USC 411 possibly provide for redeeming Federal Reserve Notes into old currency? Redemption in gold was deleted from the statute in the 1930s. This is why a court said Federal Reserve Notes can only be redeemed for Federal Reserve Notes!

 

[twostrokenut]

Since there are rules for reading and interpreting statutes, it does matter.You can't just pull out your dictionary and ignore court decisions to arrive at an interpretation. Likewise, you can't just assume text means what it says because Congress hasn't amended it--they don't do that in the regular course. They do pass new laws that are old consistent with old laws, and when that happens you have to read them to be consistent.

I had a ginkobiloba and an ogkush brownie for a snack. I admit these are my only credentials. If you are claiming legislative status you should state your credentials now.


As to the authority of the code (yeah it's wiki but sourced pretty well though):

The United States Code is the result of an effort to make finding relevant and effective statutes simpler by reorganizing them by subject matter, and eliminating expired and amended sections.


The authority for the material in the United States Code comes from its enactment through the legislative process and not from its presentation in the Code. For example, the United States Code omitted 12 U.S.C. § 92 for decades, apparently because it was thought to have been repealed. In its 1993 ruling in U.S. National Bank of Oregon v. Independent Insurance Agents of America, the Supreme Court ruled that §92 was still valid law.[10]

Only cases I can find without access to the annotated code(you prolly have that tho so please share) are such that courts deny redemption in specie and always offer FRN's as symbolic redemption......plantiffs always refuse and fail to endorse the redemption........


Milam v. U.S., 524 F.2d 629 (9th Cir. 1974) court denied that Milam could redeem his $50 for gold and ruled that the Fed notes, which were tendered and exchanged, constituted lawful money.....what was rejected as frivolous was that Milam insisted only gold and silver were lawful forms of redemption....


Hepburn v. Griswold held paper currency unconstitutional.......
Knox v. Lee and Parker v. Davis upheld paper money as legal tender;
Juilliard v. Greenman upheld US notes legal tender......


All else I can find is like Milam, court rules not redeemabe for exchange in specie as per


Even the Fed says they are not redeemable in commodity and that they are redeemable in lawful money:

Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver, or any other commodity.


Federal Reserve notes have not been redeemable in gold since January 30, 1934, when the Congress amended Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act to read: "The said [Federal Reserve] notes shall be obligations of the United States….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." Federal Reserve notes have not been redeemable in silver since the 1960s.

Then they explain what is considered lawful money these days just like I did earlier for you with the code:

The Congress has specified that Federal Reserve Banks must hold collateral equal in value to the Federal Reserve notes that the Federal Reserve Bank puts in to circulation. This collateral is chiefly held in the form of U.S. Treasury, federal agency, and government-sponsored enterprise securities.

So why don't these court interpretations you claim I don't understand influence the Fed's own page on this topic at this moment?

I don't think 1913-71 were the golden days of gold the latter was the pseudo gold standard only pointing out your error that the gold standard and Social Security coexisted for a while while the dollar was somewhat stable.

Fed notes cannot be Lawful Money and Redeemable for Lawful Money at the same time, that is a big ass error on your part. Courts upheld they can serve as Lawful Money though.

 

[twostrokenut]

• 
  But what do you mean it's supposed to be a fail-safe? How does it operate as a fail-safe if it has no effect?​
  
  
  
  

You don't even listen enough to go into it, do your own due diligence on this one......... Since the Fed is basically a big check clearing bank for other banks, it has to do with endorsement, and it is having some effects.

Ok. This is what you said: "United states notes indeed seem to be the "bonds" the Fed buys...........http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/154.asp. They are redeemable, just hard for you and I to do but easy for the Fed." You didn't differentiate them, you conflated them, saying United States Notes are the bonds the Fed buys! Treasury notes are not United States Notes, which haven't been issued since 1971. The fact that the word "note" is in the name of both things doesn't mean they're the same.

Obviously I was talking about FRN vs Securities, nice try though.

 

[tokeprep]

I had a ginkobiloba and an ogkush brownie for a snack. I admit these are my only credentials. If you are claiming legislative status you should state your credentials now.

I already said what I'm going to say. I'm not approaching it as a lay person.

As to the authority of the code (yeah it's wiki but sourced pretty well though):

They removed that section from the code because they mistakenly believed Congress had repealed it. Congress has never repealed the sections we're talking about, which is why they're in the code and supposed to be given effect--they're still the law, even if they don't even necessarily make sense as things have evolved.

Only cases I can find without access to the annotated code(you prolly have that tho so please share) are such that courts deny redemption in specie and always offer FRN's as symbolic redemption......plantiffs always refuse and fail to endorse the redemption........

Milam v. U.S., 524 F.2d 629 (9th Cir. 1974) court denied that Milam could redeem his $50 for gold and ruled that the Fed notes, which were tendered and exchanged, constituted lawful money.....what was rejected as frivolous was that Milam insisted only gold and silver were lawful forms of redemption....

Hepburn v. Griswold held paper currency unconstitutional.......
Knox v. Lee and Parker v. Davis upheld paper money as legal tender;
Juilliard v. Greenman upheld US notes legal tender......

All else I can find is like Milam, court rules not redeemabe for exchange in specie as per

These are all the cases you need. Milam says he handed them $50 in Federal Reserve Notes and they handed him $50 in Federal Reserve Notes right back. No problem. The supreme court, more than 100 years earlier, said that the constitution permits congress to issue paper currency and to make it lawful money. Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money; giving effect to your US code section requires only tendering an equivalent value of Federal Reserve Notes for a given amount of Federal Reserve Notes.

Even the Fed says they are not redeemable in commodity and that they are redeemable in lawful money:

Then they explain what is considered lawful money these days just like I did earlier for you with the code:

So why don't these court interpretations you claim I don't understand influence the Fed's own page on this topic at this moment?

This is the kind of interpretive jump that gets you into trouble. This is the FAQ question: "Is U.S. currency still backed by gold?" They say no, not in gold because of this amendment, and not in silver either. They then explain what US currency is supposedly backed by. There's no reason to believe the second paragraph is explaining what "lawful money" is--it's answering the question "What is US currency backed by then, if not gold?" The answer: the government's promise. Your FAQ never claims Federal Reserve Notes are redeemable for those securities (they certainly aren't--the court case says Federal Reserve Notes for Federal Reserve Notes), only that they technically collateralize currency in circulation.

I don't think 1913-71 were the golden days of gold the latter was the pseudo gold standard only pointing out your error that the gold standard and Social Security coexisted for a while while the dollar was somewhat stable.

Really? Because this is what you said: "Golden days of precious metals ended 1971." I never said social security and the gold standard didn't exist together, only that social security never existed in the "golden days" of the gold standard, by which I meant the time pre-Fed, before they started the printing presses.

What cost $1 in 1913 cost $4 in 1971. What cost $1 in 1800 was 49 cents in 1900. It seems clear where the golden days should be for goldbugs.

Fed notes cannot be Lawful Money and Redeemable for Lawful Money at the same time, that is a big ass error on your part. Courts upheld they can serve as Lawful Money though.

Milam upholds the exchange of Federal Reserve Notes for Federal Reserve Notes. Obviously they are both lawful money and redeemable for lawful money. What other conclusion can you draw from the case?

 

[tokeprep]

You don't even listen enough to go into it, do your own due diligence on this one......... Since the Fed is basically a big check clearing bank for other banks, it has to do with endorsement, and it is having some effects.



Obviously I was talking about FRN vs Securities, nice try though.

How high were you when you posted this after the first one?

 

[twostrokenut]

Disclaimer: Nothing I am saying is a reflection of "Austrians". Explaining how purchasing power is lost even when average prices stay the same as per your earlier examples was though.

I already said what I'm going to say. I'm not approaching it as a lay person.

I fully admit to being an average joe, you said you worked for a legislature in an attempt justify your authority and knowledge of what you are saying, then backed it up with that^^^^. Sounds bunk.

They removed that section from the code because they mistakenly believed Congress had repealed it. Congress has never repealed the sections we're talking about, which is why they're in the code and supposed to be given effect--they're still the law, even if they don't even necessarily make sense as things have evolved.

I am not arguing the section of code quoted in wiki just showing the authority of the code comes from legislature and that the code exists as current active cross references of the Statutes at Large........... Courts interpret the meaning but they don't change the words or what they mean, precedents they set from interpretations are also free to be interpreted again, differently, at any time. Even in the cases below the judges were split and all had different interpretations.

These are all the cases you need. Milam says he handed them $50 in Federal Reserve Notes and they handed him $50 in Federal Reserve Notes right back. No problem. The supreme court, more than 100 years earlier, said that the constitution permits congress to issue paper currency and to make it lawful money. Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money; giving effect to your US code section requires only tendering an equivalent value of Federal Reserve Notes for a given amount of Federal Reserve Notes.

Milam decision says the exchange of notes satisfied 12usc411.....Mr. Milam said they must be redeemed for specie and court said no, not in specie. Court upheld the Fed satisfied redemption by swapping out notes and that Milam refused the redemption because he did not get specie.

You say it doesn't matter, because it is just a note swap for the same notes...based on your authority that you have not defined....then why abide by it symbolically? Why entertain cases like this? If I say I want gold/silver for my FRN's that would be frivolous and has been ruled as such, redemption in securities that are not commodities hasn't.

This is the kind of interpretive jump that gets you into trouble. This is the FAQ question: "Is U.S. currency still backed by gold?" They say no, not in gold because of this amendment, and not in silver either. They then explain what US currency is supposedly backed by. There's no reason to believe the second paragraph is explaining what "lawful money" is--it's answering the question "What is US currency backed by then, if not gold?" The answer: the government's promise. Your FAQ never claims Federal Reserve Notes are redeemable for those securities (they certainly aren't--the court case says Federal Reserve Notes for Federal Reserve Notes), only that they technically collateralize currency in circulation.

Lol no trouble........It does not matter that it's in a FAQ about gold and silver, only that it reflects the code, nice dodge though....isn't the Fed's word your main talking points?........they simply are explaining what the code says because they are bound by it. Notice they also did not mention any Supreme Court rulings.......the first line is a summary of court cases.....the court cases have already had their influence.

31 USC 5119: Redemption and cancellation of currencyText contains those laws in effect on May 17, 2013From Title 31-MONEY AND FINANCESUBTITLE IV-MONEYCHAPTER 51-COINS AND CURRENCYSUBCHAPTER II-GENERAL AUTHORITY

(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.

The Congress has specified that Federal Reserve Banks must hold collateral equal in value to the Federal Reserve notes that the Federal Reserve Bank puts in to circulation. This collateral is chiefly held in the form of U.S. Treasury, federal agency, and government-sponsored enterprise securities.

What the Fed holds in exchange for FRN's is considered "lawful money."

Really? Because this is what you said: "Golden days of precious metals ended 1971." I never said social security and the gold standard didn't exist together, only that social security never existed in the "golden days" of the gold standard, by which I meant the time pre-Fed, before they started the printing presses.

What cost $1 in 1913 cost $4 in 1971. What cost $1 in 1800 was 49 cents in 1900. It seems clear where the golden days should be for goldbugs.

Golden age was gold backed to me. al fine'.

Milam upholds the exchange of Federal Reserve Notes for Federal Reserve Notes. Obviously they are both lawful money and redeemable for lawful money. What other conclusion can you draw from the case?

Embrace the truth indeed.

 

[twostrokenut]

How high were you when you posted this after the first one?

Pretty baked. I take cannabis to help with intestinal maintenance and get ripped occasionally as a consequence lol.

 

[Harrekin]

Pretty baked. I take cannabis to help with intestinal maintenance and get ripped occasionally as a consequence lol.

You need not justify your usage of the plant here good sir, we're not your parents...we likey to get high

At least you're not (failing at) playing professional economist online tho, unlike the joe who questioned your baked level.

 

[cannabineer]

My personal intestinal maintenance involves ripping and not getting ripped. cn

 

[tokeprep]

I fully admit to being an average joe, you said you worked for a legislature in an attempt justify your authority and knowledge of what you are saying, then backed it up with that^^^^. Sounds bunk.

Somehow telling you I worked in Senator Reid's office for five years, in this venue, seems like a particularly bad life choice for me. Obviously that's not where I worked, and I'm not even saying I worked for the federal legislature. But reading statutes is reading statutes...

I am not arguing the section of code quoted in wiki just showing the authority of the code comes from legislature and that the code exists as current active cross references of the Statutes at Large........... Courts interpret the meaning but they don't change the words or what they mean, precedents they set from interpretations are also free to be interpreted again, differently, at any time. Even in the cases below the judges were split and all had different interpretations.

Then you're saying court rulings never matter. Until another court overturns the previous ruling, everyone has to follow it.

Milam decision says the exchange of notes satisfied 12usc411.....Mr. Milam said they must be redeemed for specie and court said no, not in specie. Court upheld the Fed satisfied redemption by swapping out notes and that Milam refused the redemption because he did not get specie.

You say it doesn't matter, because it is just a note swap for the same notes...based on your authority that you have not defined....then why abide by it symbolically? Why entertain cases like this? If I say I want gold/silver for my FRN's that would be frivolous and has been rules as such, redemption in securities that are not commodities hasn't.

Lol no trouble........It does not matter that it's in a FAQ about gold and silver, only that it reflects the code, nice dodge though....isn't the Fed's word your main talking points?........they simply are explaining what the code says because they are bound by it. Notice they also did not mention any Supreme Court rulings.......the first line is a summary of court cases.....the court cases have already had their influence.

What the Fed holds in exchange for FRN's is considered "lawful money."

For exactly the reason you've given: there's a statute that says it's redeemable for lawful money, and Congress has never repealed it. The words can be given effect even if it's substantively meaningless. Trading Federal Reserve Notes for Federal Reserve Notes satisfies the redemption requirement of the statute.

That's because you can't redeem your Federal Reserve Notes for securities. You haven't shown anything indicating that you can, you've just asserted that the Fed defined "lawful money" as securities because that section was the second paragraph in a FAQ about gold backing, explaining that currency is collateralized with securities. Here's another Fed FAQ:

What is lawful money? How is it different from legal tender?

"Lawful money" is a term used in the Federal Reserve Act, the act that authorizes the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to issue Federal Reserve notes. The Act states that Federal Reserve 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." The Act did not, however, define the term "lawful money," but up until 1913, the only currency issued by the United States that was legally recognized as "lawful money" was various issues of "demand notes" (subsequently known as "old demand notes") and "United States notes" authorized by Congress during the Civil War.


At the time, some currency was not considered legal tender, although it could be used by national banking associations as "lawful money reserves." Thus, the term "lawful money" had a broader meaning than the term "legal tender."


In 1933, Congress changed the law so that all U.S. coins and currency (including Federal Reserve notes), regardless of when issued, constitutes "legal tender" for all purposes. Federal and state courts since then have repeatedly held that Federal Reserve notes are also "lawful money." Milam v. U.S., 524 F.2d 629 (9th Cir. 1974), is typical of the federal and state court cases holding that Federal Reserve notes are "lawful money." In Milam, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed a judgment denying relief to an individual who sought to redeem a $50 Federal Reserve Bank Note in "lawful money." The United States tendered Milam $50 in Federal Reserve notes, but Milam refused the notes, asserting that "lawful money" must be gold or silver. The Ninth Circuit, noting that this matter had been put to rest by the U.S. Supreme Court nearly a century before in the Legal Tender Cases (Juilliard v. Greenman), 110 U.S. 421 (1884), rejected this assertion as frivolous and affirmed the judgment.

Notice they say nothing here about securities being lawful money you can get by redeeming your Federal Reserve Notes, which seems peculiar if they defined "lawful money" to include those securities in the gold backing FAQ. Obviously the Fed didn't define "lawful money" to include said securities, you just misread it.

 

[tokeprep]

I followed some links after looking at 12 USC 411 again, and apparently it's at the center of a tax protestor argument. These crackpots think that by endorsing checks with a statement about lawful money under 12 USC 411 they won't have to pay any income taxes. Now the IRS is coming after them and assessing $5,000 penalties.

Here's a page purporting to debunk internet scams that makes much of my argument in discussing the tax protestor cases: http://quatloosia.blogspot.com/2012_10_01_archive.html.

I've tried very hard to find a success story about redemption for lawful money and I can't find a single one. If Federal Reserve Notes are redeemable for securities, as you claim, why hasn't anyone successfully done it?

 

[twostrokenut]

Oh wow dude I never said the Fed defined "lawful money" only that the Fed is bound by Congress' definition of "lawful money" that exist in Fed charter and Money and Banking statutes which is why they regurgitated on the FAQ page...... Fed uses 12usc411 to exchange their FRN's for securities that constitute "lawful money". This is how they are entered into circulation as a dynamic, non-static substitute.......not that "lawful money" is purely dynamic but it is limited by GDP.

Somehow telling you I worked in Senator Reid's office for five years, in this venue, seems like a particularly bad life choice for me. Obviously that's not where I worked, and I'm not even saying I worked for the federal legislature. But reading statutes is reading statutes...

Really? Seems conflictory with your earlier assertions.

Then you're saying court rulings never matter. Until another court overturns the previous ruling, everyone has to follow it.

Never said they didn't matter, just that they have already been considered in publications I referenced, including the code.

For exactly the reason you've given: there's a statute that says it's redeemable for lawful money, and Congress has never repealed it. The words can be given effect even if it's substantively meaningless. Trading Federal Reserve Notes for Federal Reserve Notes satisfies the redemption requirement of the statute.

That's because you can't redeem your Federal Reserve Notes for securities. You haven't shown anything indicating that you can, you've just asserted that the Fed defined "lawful money" as securities because that section was the second paragraph in a FAQ about gold backing, explaining that currency is collateralized with securities. Here's another Fed FAQ:




Notice they say nothing here about securities being lawful money you can get by redeeming your Federal Reserve Notes, which seems peculiar if they defined "lawful money" to include those securities in the gold backing FAQ. Obviously the Fed didn't define "lawful money" to include said securities, you just misread it.

I just misread it lmfao I have done no such thing. Insisting that dictionary definitions, court rulings and United States Statutes at Large in the form of indexed and updated in US Code are simply old and outdated is completely asinine.

The definition in the old code used to read:

CITE-
12 USC Sec. 152 01/24/94

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 12 - BANKS AND BANKING
CHAPTER 2 - NATIONAL BANKS
SUBCHAPTER IX - FORMATION OF ASSOCIATIONS TO ISSUE GOLD NOTES

-HEAD-
Sec. 152. Lawful money reserve of associations issuing gold notes;
receiving notes of other associations

-STATUTE-
Every association organized under section 151 of this title shall
at all times keep on hand not less than 25 per centum of its
outstanding circulation, in gold or silver coin of the United
States; and shall receive at par in the payment of debts the gold
notes of every other such association which at the time of such
payment is redeeming its circulating notes in gold coin of the
United States, and shall be subject to all the provisions of title
62 of the Revised Statutes: Provided, That, in the same to
associations organized for issuing gold notes, the terms ''lawful
money'' and ''lawful money of the United States'' shall be
construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States; and the
circulation of such associations shall not be within the limitation
of circulation mentioned in title 62 of the Revised Statutes.

-SOURCE-
(R.S. Sec. 5186.)
=================================
It now reads:
=========================================================
§§151 to 153. Repealed.
Pub. L. 103–325, title VI, §602(e)(22), (23), (f)(7), Sept. 23, 1994, 108 Stat. 2292, 2293

Section 151, R.S. §5185; Jan. 19, 1875, ch. 19, 18 Stat. 302, related to organization of associations to issue gold notes.
Section 152, R.S. §5186, related to mandatory establishment of lawful money reserves by associations issuing gold notes and reception by such associations of gold notes of other associations in payment of debts.
Section 153, act Feb. 14, 1880, ch. 25, 21 Stat. 66, related to conversion of gold banks into currency banks.
===========================================================

I intercept your next post here:

The fact that the section containing the definition of lawful money defined as silver and gold was repealed does not mean the term lawful money has been repealed....only redefined as not "construed to mean" gold and silver....this is evidenced further by the term "lawful money" being used extensively throughout Title 12.


The Fed is established and defined in Title 12 of the US Code. What say you?

 

[twostrokenut]

I followed some links after looking at 12 USC 411 again, and apparently it's at the center of a tax protestor argument. These crackpots think that by endorsing checks with a statement about lawful money under 12 USC 411 they won't have to pay any income taxes. Now the IRS is coming after them and assessing $5,000 penalties.

Here's a page purporting to debunk internet scams that makes much of my argument in discussing the tax protestor cases: http://quatloosia.blogspot.com/2012_10_01_archive.html.

I've tried very hard to find a success story about redemption for lawful money and I can't find a single one. If Federal Reserve Notes are redeemable for securities, as you claim, why hasn't anyone successfully done it?

You are not debating on merit sir.............I give you definitions, laws, statutes because you claim legislative status.

If you want to turn this into a tax protester argument then you are on the lunatic fringe.

You give me a website that has a Camel with a fucking knife in his mouth and a Sombrero on his head that talks of tax protesters.......Exactly like you were done when Harrekin did that to you.....your silence in the form of lacking either the effort, or capacity to research laws, is damning.................

Seriously why not go full blown 5 year old status and just give me a Tea Party Sucks website as your references????

Did Senator Reid sexually harass you, inflate some currency behind the curtain to buy you off, then fire you?

 

[tokeprep]

Oh wow dude I never said the Fed defined "lawful money" only that the Fed is bound by Congress' definition of "lawful money" that exist in Fed charter and Money and Banking statutes which is why they regurgitated on the FAQ page...... Fed uses 12usc411 to exchange their FRN's for securities that constitute "lawful money". This is how they are entered into circulation as a dynamic, non-static substitute.......not that "lawful money" is purely dynamic but it is limited by GDP.

You really need to stop telling me what you didn't say, because this is what you said: "Then they [the Fed] explain what is considered lawful money these days just like I did earlier for you with the code: [explanation of collateral "backing" currency]." What other evidence do you have that the securities you're referring to are lawful money other than the Fed's explanation? You haven't posted any!

If the code defines these securities as lawful money, show me where. If a court has defined these securities as lawful money, show me where.

Never said they didn't matter, just that they have already been considered in publications I referenced, including the code.

How have any of the court cases been considered in the code? The code doesn't mention any of them; the code hasn't been altered to reflect any of them.

I just misread it lmfao I have done no such thing. Insisting that dictionary definitions, court rulings and United States Statutes at Large in the form of indexed and updated in US Code are simply old and outdated is completely asinine.

The definition in the old code used to read:

CITE-
12 USC Sec. 152 01/24/94

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 12 - BANKS AND BANKING
CHAPTER 2 - NATIONAL BANKS
SUBCHAPTER IX - FORMATION OF ASSOCIATIONS TO ISSUE GOLD NOTES

-HEAD-
Sec. 152. Lawful money reserve of associations issuing gold notes;
receiving notes of other associations

-STATUTE-
Every association organized under section 151 of this title shall
at all times keep on hand not less than 25 per centum of its
outstanding circulation, in gold or silver coin of the United
States; and shall receive at par in the payment of debts the gold
notes of every other such association which at the time of such
payment is redeeming its circulating notes in gold coin of the
United States, and shall be subject to all the provisions of title
62 of the Revised Statutes: Provided, That, in the same to
associations organized for issuing gold notes, the terms ''lawful
money'' and ''lawful money of the United States'' shall be
construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States; and the
circulation of such associations shall not be within the limitation
of circulation mentioned in title 62 of the Revised Statutes.

-SOURCE-
(R.S. Sec. 5186.)
=================================
It now reads:
=========================================================
§§151 to 153. Repealed.
Pub. L. 103–325, title VI, §602(e)(22), (23), (f)(7), Sept. 23, 1994, 108 Stat. 2292, 2293

Section 151, R.S. §5185; Jan. 19, 1875, ch. 19, 18 Stat. 302, related to organization of associations to issue gold notes.
Section 152, R.S. §5186, related to mandatory establishment of lawful money reserves by associations issuing gold notes and reception by such associations of gold notes of other associations in payment of debts.
Section 153, act Feb. 14, 1880, ch. 25, 21 Stat. 66, related to conversion of gold banks into currency banks.
===========================================================

I intercept your next post here:

The fact that the section containing the definition of lawful money defined as silver and gold was repealed does not mean the term lawful money has been repealed....only redefined as not "construed to mean" gold and silver....this is evidenced further by the term "lawful money" being used extensively throughout Title 12.


The Fed is established, defined and regulated in Title 12 of the US Code. What say you?

What are these quotes supposed to show? That the definition of "lawful money" has changed isn't in dispute. The question is whether you can redeem Federal Reserve Notes for the securities supposedly underlying them; you've cited no authority in the code for that!

Indeed, since the definition was removed, it just means the definition of the phrase, where it appears in the code, cannot be the definition that was repealed. If anyone thought this was ambiguous, the courts settled it decades ago. There is no argument about what "lawful money" means--Federal Reserve Notes. You don't have a scrap of evidence otherwise, not in court cases, not in the code, not on the Fed's web site.

If you do I'm begging you to please show it to me. Show me where anything says I can trade my Federal Reserve Notes for underlying securities. Show me a single person who did it.

 

[tokeprep]

You are not debating on merit sir.............I give you definitions, laws, statutes because you claim legislative status.

You're telling everyone that the statute says Federal Reserve Notes can be redeemed for the securities underlying them because they constitute "lawful money." You based this on the original Fed FAQ you quoted, which explained how currency is "backed" if not by gold, and claimed that the Fed's material defined those securities as "lawful money." (Tell me you didn't say that and you're going to get the quotes thrown back at you.)

The code never defines lawful money, and the Fed's FAQ page on "lawful money" never mentions securities or redemption for securities.

The courts have defined "lawful money" to be Federal Reserve Notes and concluded that exchanging Federal Reserve Notes for Federal Reserve Notes satisfies the redemption requirement. Your answer seems to be that they didn't say Federal Reserve Notes weren't also redeemable for securities, even though the code doesn't say that, the courts have never said that, and you can't produce a single example of anyone ever redeeming their Federal Reserve Notes for said securities.

If you want to turn this into a tax protester argument then you are on the lunatic fringe.

You give me a website that has a Camel with a fucking knife in his mouth and a Sombrero on his head that talks of tax protesters.......Exactly like you were done when Harrekin did that to you.....your silence in the form of lacking either the effort, or capacity to research laws, is damning.................

Seriously why not go full blown 5 year old status and just give me a Tea Party Sucks website as your references????

Did Senator Reid molest you then fire you?

I linked to the web site because it went through the history of the statute and explained how the anachronism with redemption developed. I already made this case myself, above, so it makes no sense to say that I'm silent or haven't researched anything. The explanation was succinct and accurate and I simply thought it might be more helpful to read it in the words of someone else.

 

[twostrokenut]

My personal intestinal maintenance involves ripping and not getting ripped. cn

that's good shit!!! lol

 

[twostrokenut]

Bla bla blablablablablablablabla

Bla bla blablablablablablablabla

Bla bla blablablablablablablabla

I asserted my opinion these laws are here for our remedy, it's the internet and this is a forum!!

If I quote you I am talking to you!

I'm not telling everyone anything, go double check who I've been telling what on your own without an interpretive link from elsewhere fuck I bet this endless circle jerk conversation is old enough for it to be referenced by now.......... The twisted logic you follow is reaching its inevitable endless loop.

I am telling you why Federal Reserve Notes contain no value as per our discussion by sourcing the code and not the Fed FAQ. I said the Fed FAQ and earlier the Treasury online simply regurgitates the Code and the Court cases are already reflected in these regurgitation's and in the Code. Al fine'.

I have shown you the authority for how The Fed redeems these interest carrying, worthless debt notes for labor-backed securities....and court cases that assert this redemption even symbolically to common people trying in earnest to redeem in speci!!!! As per your request. Al fine'.

I claimed the Feds FAQ did not define shit just reflected the code! The Feds FAQ reflects what must remain on deposit in order to circulate Fed Notes figure it out legislator!

The courts have ruled Fed notes can also serve as lawful money not that they are!

I can produce trillions of examples of people redeeming Fed Notes for securities look at the defecit, bailouts, subsidies, lack of Federal budgets and the fucked up economy!!!