Bzzzzzzzzz wrong try again.
"The guy", Milam argued the notes were not lawful and ONLY GOLD AND SILVER are lawful, then he refused the paper form of lawful money, which is a FRN with the obligation removed.
I just said his argument was that Federal Reserve Notes are not lawful money. You seem to agree.
The court says nothing about Federal Reserve Notes "with the obligation removed." I don't understand why you're inserting that--there's no basis for it in the opinion. Quote me otherwise.
Its me that cant comprehend? Your source has lawful money in quotes like "lawful money" I literally asked you to find a source that doesn't do that. Where you find the definition the judges used to make that decision you will have done what I asked you to do and will have answered your own question and solved this matter.
You've already seen it over and over again because it's literally inside the Milam opinion: Juilliard v. Greenman: "
Congress is authorized to establish a national currency, either in coin or in paper, and to make that currency lawful money for all purposes..." No quotes.
The Milam court says this is the answer. According to the supreme court in the 1800s, congress has the power to establish a national paper currency and to make that currency lawful money. That's exactly what congress did. Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money, which is why they found Milam's contention's otherwise to be frivolous.
Here's a hint: The definition of US notes I gave you earlier says lawful money without quotes.
How can you not possibly understand why it is in quotes??? How is it you cannot possibly understand that case was about redeeming FOR GOLD OR SILVER??? How is it that you cannot possibly understand the act of redemption was UPHELD??? How is it you cannot comprehend what you just posted as evidence FRN's are "lawful money" and not just lawful money?
Here's your helpful legislative hint: when a court quotes directly from a source, they typically put the language in quotations. The phrase "lawful money" appears in 12 USC 411, which is the basis of Milam's suit. When you put statutory language in quotations, it merely means that you're conveying the literal text of the statute. It's in quotes because it's the phrase in the statute that's at dispute!
This case certainly is about redeeming gold and silver, sure, because the court makes clear the idea is ridiculous. But the basis of that case is Milam's challenge to the fact that Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money within the meaning of 12 USC 411. The court dismisses this by citing the supreme court precedent I quoted above, which says congress can establish a paper currency and make it lawful money. The case is necessarily about this issue at well.
The 50 that were offered were "lawful money" that decision does not by any stretch of the twisted imagination say:
All FRN's are lawful money.
It's just not there sorry you don't understand.
You're really reading way too much into the quotations. The statute doesn't distinguish between lawful money and "lawful money," and neither does the court. If you think the phrases below make the case otherwise, let's walk through why they don't.
It says plain as day in what you just quoted:
Appellant has filed a substantial brief and an adequate reply brief and has argued his full share of allotted time in support for a demand that his $50.00 Federal Reserve Bank Note be redeemed in "lawful money" of the United States, which he says, in effect, must be gold or silver[/quote
That says Milam wanted lawful money in the form of gold and silver.
Yes, I agree so far. This sentence says that Milam demanded his Federal Reserve Notes be redeemed in "lawful money," by which he meant gold or silver.
Appellant refused appellees' tender of an equivalent value in Federal Reserve Notes
That says Milam refused "lawful money". Which were the notes offered to him in exchange. What you don't understand is the Fed is required to make them non-negotiable upon demand...meaning they can't be fractionally lent. Milam refused his 50 but if he didn't the Fed would have to account for them in a very different way than elastic currency.
It doesn't say he refused "lawful money," it says he refused an equivalent value in Federal Reserve Notes. In the first sentence you quoted, "lawful money" is used in reference to Milam's argument that it must be gold and silver. Accordingly, the court notes that Milam refused a tender of equivalent value in Federal Reserve Notes, because they weren't lawful money, which he interpreted to require gold or silver.
Regardless, what's your basis for saying the Fed is "required to make them non-negotiable upon demand...meaning they can't be fractionally lent"? Statute? Court case? Show me the money.
And again, what's your statutory or court basis for saying the Fed would have to account for them very differently? This decision says absolutely nothing about that.
Milam wanted gold and silver which he can't have because the legal tender laws gave a time frame to redeem the old notes and certificates in specie....right? Cant get silver or gold for a FRN note anymore right?
Appellant's challenge to the validity of this legislation is meritless.
Appellant's challenge was to get gold or silver for FRN's. This is all that was denied in the decision.
I absolutely agree that Milam's argument was that only gold and silver were lawful money under the statute. What you don't seem to understand is that the question of whether Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money is necessarily answered in that decision. The court cites the supreme court case saying that congress can issue paper currency and make it lawful money; they refer to the Federal Reserve and say that it properly exercises this government power. Thus Federal Reserve Notes, our paper currency, are lawful money.
When the statute says redemption must be in lawful money, tender of equivalent value in Federal Reserve Notes constitutes redemption in lawful money. This is exactly the conclusion that Milam disputed in arguing that only gold or silver could be lawful money--he necessarily argues that Federal Reserve Notes are not. The court calls this claim frivolous; the tender of Federal Reserve Notes for Federal Reserve Notes satisfied the statute.
The Fed agreed to exchange notes for notes and redeem it's right there in what you quoted. Maybe this is over your head but you should be able to put it together from what's here in this thread. Milam wanted to redeem and the Fed complied as per 12usc411 and not in specie according to the Legal Tender Laws. Then Milam refused the redemption that was offered which was FRN's with the obligation REMOVED making them NON NEGOTIABLE just like US NOTES.
Remember the Fed saying "US Notes serve no purposed that can't be served by FRN's?
We agree on the facts up to where you say the redemption was Federal Reserve Notes with the obligation removed that are non-negotiable. The court case says nothing about any of that. All the court says is that Milam tried to redeem his $50 note and was given a $50 note back. Period. The court says the statute entitles him to do this and doesn't require gold or silver. Period.
There's nothing about removing obligations and making notes non-negotiable. Absolutely nothing.
