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

[tokeprep]

Well now according to you earlier they did not even exist except for old ones that merely need to be destroyed haha

That's an accurate statement. If you turn your United States Notes into the treasury for Federal Reserve Notes, they're obligated by statute to destroy the United States Notes.

 

[twostrokenut]

That's an accurate statement. If you turn your United States Notes into the treasury for Federal Reserve Notes, they're obligated by statute to destroy the United States Notes.

Where is that one? I believe that covers the old ones with specific dates i.e. ones with obligations of specie redemption, not the ones Treasury is authorized to issue right now. Also I can't think of a single reason to ever do that since what is to be destroyed is reflective of notes that were specified to specie redemption and that base has been covered by the Legal Tender Act....and would fetch a better price on Ebay lol

 

[tokeprep]

Where is that one? I believe that covers the old ones with specific dates i.e. ones with obligations of specie redemption, not the ones Treasury is authorized to issue right now. Also I can't think of a single reason to ever do that since what is to be destroyed is reflective of notes that were specified to specie redemption and that base has been covered by the Legal Tender Act....and would fetch a better price on Ebay lol

The statute authorizing United States Notes originated in the 1800s and has been on the books ever since. It's 31 USC 5115, as you may recall.

Now let's look at 31 USC 5119, entitled "Redemption and cancellation of currency":

"[Section (a) omitted because it deals with gold redemption]

(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.


(2) Redemption, cancellation, and destruction of currency.-The Secretary shall-

(A) redeem any currency described in paragraph (1) from the general fund of the Treasury upon presentment to the Secretary; and

(B) cancel and destroy such currency upon redemption.


The Secretary shall not be required to reissue United States currency notes upon redemption."

It doesn't cover "old ones with specific dates" and it has nothing to do with "obligations of specie redemption." The statute expressly provides for the redemption and destruction of United States Notes issued under 31 USC 5115.

I've already agreed with you that redeeming the old notes would be irrational because they're worth more as collectibles. That's why most of what the treasury is authorized to issue remains outstanding.

 

[twostrokenut]

And what's your authority for saying congress cannot delegate that authority? What statute or court case says that "lawful money" must be "directly issued by our government"?

IDK about statutes but the Constitution uses the word Money not money. The highest law of the land certainly qualifies this as Lawful............Gold and silver can be "tendered" by states and you and I have already determined bills of credit are issued by Federal Government not Federal Reserve duh Federal Reserve notes are not Bills of Credit.....remember trying to explain to me the process of how Fed notes enter circulation? I assert Bills of Credit are what is given to the Fed for this process.....prove me wrong.

What statute or court case says that the United States must put up "lawful money" as collateral in order for the Fed to issue Federal Reserve Notes?

What ever authorizes congress to deposit anything it issues with the Fed I reckon....maybe you should find it. Maybe it's buried in the Statutes and not referenced in the Code. In any case we both have been working on this assumption all along. Why should we assume there has ever been needed a court case for this.

Treasury is not authorized to issue FRN's. Fed buys Treasuries. Fed is authorized to issue FRN's to Reserve agents (fed branches) for the purpose of reserves to those agents. Scenario: Agent calls up the Fed and says "I need more "money"".


There's your problem. What's on their balance sheet didn't necessarily end up in circulation as Federal Reserve Notes. The amount of reserves on deposit at the Fed has climbed from a few billion pre-crisis into hundreds of billions of dollars, concurrent with QE. This money hasn't even been lent out once, let alone ten times. Beyond those reserves, when the Fed pays cash for securities, that cash can be consumed in many activities that have nothing to do with lending. The big banks, for example, have lately been focused on building up their capital reserves, buying back stock, and paying dividends to their shareholders, not lending.

Didn't necessarily?? How can you say this. Congress spends every dime it appropriates for bills does it not? Are you suggesting Congress spends anything other than FRN's to pay its bills? If Congress simply paid in lawful money there would be no need for the Fed. When The Government gives out money for anything like military spending or Social Security or infrastructure improvements...are you suggesting infrastructure workers or other government workers are paid in US notes and not Fed notes?


I understand what redemption means. The statute merely requires that Federal Reserve Notes be redeemable with lawful money. If they are lawful money, they're redeemable with other Federal Reserve Notes. We're talking about a fiat currency, so this should make total sense--there is nothing to do redeem it with because the currency exists by decree, not because there's anything valuable underlying it. Paper for paper.

Now it is you misreping the statute. FRN's are redeemable in lawful money not redeemable with lawful money. If FRN's are lawful money they are not redeemable.

Furthermore if FRN's are lawful money courts would have to rule the Federal Reserve Act Unconstitutional. You fail to see the sleight of hand here where Congress uses lawful money to borrow negotiable instruments which has been argued to have not been covered by the Constitution.

This wasn't always the case, because when that statute was passed we didn't have a fiat currency. But now we do, which renders that part of the statute meaningless.

Again, what year was the Federal Reserve Act, which actually IS 12usc411, passed???
Homework assignment lmfao.

Congress never defined "lawful money." The court could not possibly be referencing some definition that does not exist.

No the Constitution did. It defined Money and the Constitution is lawful. Congress expanded this definition to include a certain form of paper currency and the Court is free to use this definition willy nilly.

That is absolutely true, which is why it's exactly what the code says.

Right. Court also upheld FRN's are Legal Tender not Lawful Money, nice to be on the same page finally.

The court doesn't need to declare what's legal tender because congress has exercised its power. 31 USC 5103: "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."

Guess you are missing my point that if court can't declare what Legal Tender is then it certainly can't declare what Lawful Money is as you claim they did in Juiliard.

We're not talking about treasury notes.

Just showing Treasury Notes have been declared Legal Tender as well as Lawful Money....remember a rectangle is a square but a square is not a rectangle.

Yes, I agree with you, congress has absolute power over money. That's what enables the authorization of Federal Reserve Notes and the delegation of money powers to the Federal Reserve.

​Reading comprehension. The power is plenary. The power delegated is the power to issue notes from the plenary money power.

Your basis for saying lawful money may not be accepted for duties on imports or used for interest on the public debt? I take it it's this text in Juilliard, quoting the statute authorizing United States Notes:

"The notes of the United States, tendered in payment of the defendant's debt to the plaintiff, were originally issued under the acts of congress of February 25, 1862, c. 33; July 11, 1862, c. 142; and March 3, 1863, c. 73, passed during the war of the rebellion, and enacting that these notes should 'be lawful money and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States,' except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt."

This is clearly not a definition of lawful money. The statute merely says that the notes are lawful money and a legal tender, except in the specified cases. It does NOT say "'Lawful money' means money that may not be accepted for duties on imports or for interest on the public debt."

Yes it is. Read it here:http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=statRef&target=date:nonech:33statnum:12_345

Notice the 150 million now stands at 300 million in 31usc5115.
Notice they are good for all demands and debts of the US "except for interest on bonds and notes, which shall be paid in coin," (gold or silver then)"and shall be lawful money AND legal tender except for duties on imports and interest as aforesaid."

I showed you one in Ware too.....Ware quotes and states the defintion of lawful money in the form or US notes......you cannot find a quote that FRN's are lawful money without the "quotes" that is also legal tender can pay interest on the public debt.....bonds have to back legal tender. They are bonded which is why they trade "as" money. Gold needs no bond.


Once again, you keep accusing me of saying this law isn't effect. I never said that; indeed, I said exactly the opposite: the fact that the statute is in effect is the reason that it's still in the code, even though it's substantively meaningless. Congress is the only body that can remove the text from the code.

Why would congress need to do that? Well, they don't, which is really the reason why they haven't. The courts have answered the questions.

OK I think we are close to being on the same page now....Again the Statute is in effect because the Federal Reserve Act is still in effect lol.....Court cant change the wording of the Federa Reserve Act.......I just don't see how you can view it as something courts haven't answered yet which would be assuming court has power to change it or to make Congress change it.

Its not that Congress doesn't need to it's that Congress can't. It must remain in order to float a debt in Commercial Paper with roots in Common Law. It is Common Law Remedy for Commercial Paper.

Redemption is lawfully required because that's how congress chose to write the statute originally. We the people, who enacted the constitution, delegated money power to the federal government. Despite your whimpers to the contrary, there is no meaningful debate otherwise. The government has the right to issue coins and fix their values and it has the right to borrow money on government credit, backed by its taxing powers. How can you possibly argue that the money power somehow continued to reside in the people?

My wimpers? Do I read as if I am debating or merely explaining? Redemption is Remedy that is required by the First Judiciary Act. We The People delegated "the money power" to our branch not to the Federal Government at Large.

So where does the Government get the metal to issue lawful Silver Eagle coins from? Sunshine Mint? Are they The People?


You presently have the statutory right to redeem your Federal Reserve Notes for an equivalent value of Federal Reserve Notes. The constitution requires nothing more; the people have no power to override except by electing representatives, amending the constitution, etc., since that power was delegated to the federal government.

WTF????? Stop huffing gasoline. Congress only delegated the power to regulate the value thereof, at best despite your quite strange insistence otherwise. Fed reports to Congress and tells it the bullshit you keep spitting off here. Congress Constitutionally has defined Coins as lawful money and legal tender, USNotes as lawful money and legal tender and Federal Reserve Notes as legal tender only.

.............................

 

[twostrokenut]

Look man someone showed it to me this was and I really haven been able to disprove it otherwise it took me a long as time to understand all this shit getting processed lots of joints and long hours lol

 

[twostrokenut]

The statute authorizing United States Notes originated in the 1800s and has been on the books ever since. It's 31 USC 5115, as you may recall.

Now let's look at 31 USC 5119, entitled "Redemption and cancellation of currency":

"[Section (a) omitted because it deals with gold redemption]

(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.


(2) Redemption, cancellation, and destruction of currency.-The Secretary shall-

(A) redeem any currency described in paragraph (1) from the general fund of the Treasury upon presentment to the Secretary; and

(B) cancel and destroy such currency upon redemption.


The Secretary shall not be required to reissue United States currency notes upon redemption."

It doesn't cover "old ones with specific dates" and it has nothing to do with "obligations of specie redemption." The statute expressly provides for the redemption and destruction of United States Notes issued under 31 USC 5115.

I've already agreed with you that redeeming the old notes would be irrational because they're worth more as collectibles. That's why most of what the treasury is authorized to issue remains outstanding.

Cool yeah lets do it.

That say old USN's and new USN's may be destroyed when redeemed because when you redeem one of those they don't give out gold and silver anymore but they have to give you a savings bond or treasury's like the fed gets when doing business with Congress.

Because savings bonds and all other Gov issued paper have full backing on faith and credit of The People they have been argued lawful money. Because USN's have been argued to be a direct rep of these notes and bonds they are redeemable still (Edit:because they function as currency a.k.a. have legal tender status)and must be because they are legal tender also which means they bear an obligation which is to redeem for something like a savings bond or similar that bears no obligation by having a fixed price.

Look at what you just bolded not required to re-issue USN's if USN's are redeemed. If a FRN is redeemed into literally another FRN acting or serving as a USN which is authorized for issue in 31usc5115 after the accounting is done you have a USN now. According to what you bolded Treasury can say fuck off if you want to take your new redeemed note and get old note credit for it, after all they claim to have satisfied all those obligations by announcing you can't redeem in specie now prove otherwise with anything you like. You understanding this has no real obligation on anyone else who might.

Why the fuck would you go hand that back and get another USN that makes no sense that's what Milam did how did that work out for him?.

 

[tokeprep]

IDK about statutes but the Constitution uses the word Money not money. The highest law of the land certainly qualifies this as Lawful............Gold and silver can be "tendered" by states and you and I have already determined bills of credit are issued by Federal Government not Federal Reserve duh Federal Reserve notes are not Bills of Credit.....remember trying to explain to me the process of how Fed notes enter circulation? I assert Bills of Credit are what is given to the Fed for this process.....prove me wrong.

So you have no support for your assertion that lawful money must be issued directly by the federal government, then. Because nothing you said stands against the idea that congress can delegate its money powers just as it has delegated so many other powers.

I'm not going to prove you wrong about an assertion you just pulled out of your ass. If you want to make unsupported claims you're going to show us the constitutional clause, statute, or court case that says what you say. If Bills of Credit are indeed "given to the Fed" for the purpose of circulating currency, you'll find text in the Federal Reserve Act describing that process.

What ever authorizes congress to deposit anything it issues with the Fed I reckon....maybe you should find it. Maybe it's buried in the Statutes and not referenced in the Code. In any case we both have been working on this assumption all along. Why should we assume there has ever been needed a court case for this.

Treasury is not authorized to issue FRN's. Fed buys Treasuries. Fed is authorized to issue FRN's to Reserve agents (fed branches) for the purpose of reserves to those agents. Scenario: Agent calls up the Fed and says "I need more "money"".

The treasury can mint coins and deposit them at the Fed in order to increase its checkbook balance, absolutely. That has absolutely nothing to do with your claim about the federal government having to deposit lawful money in order to circulate Federal Reserve Notes though.

It's not hidden or buried, it just doesn't exist.

Didn't necessarily?? How can you say this. Congress spends every dime it appropriates for bills does it not? Are you suggesting Congress spends anything other than FRN's to pay its bills? If Congress simply paid in lawful money there would be no need for the Fed. When The Government gives out money for anything like military spending or Social Security or infrastructure improvements...are you suggesting infrastructure workers or other government workers are paid in US notes and not Fed notes?

What does congressional spending have to do with the Fed's balance sheet and Federal Reserve Notes in circulation...? As you are so fond of pointing out, these are separate entities, and yet it sounds like you're conflating everything together.

Now it is you misreping the statute. FRN's are redeemable in lawful money not redeemable with lawful money. If FRN's are lawful money they are not redeemable.

They have exactly the same meaning. I didn't put quotes around words as if I literally pulled them straight out of the statute.

Logically, your argument fails. Federal Reserve Notes are redeemable in lawful money, sure. Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money. Thus Federal Reserve Notes can be redeemed in Federal Reserve Notes. Why would they not be redeemable in lawful money because they are lawful money? The statute doesn't provide any such limit.

[quote]Furthermore if FRN's are lawful money courts would have to rule the Federal Reserve Act Unconstitutional. You fail to see the sleight of hand here where Congress uses lawful money to borrow negotiable instruments which has been argued to have not been covered by the Constitution.[/quote]

Why do you think the courts would have to rule the Federal Reserve Act unconstitutional if Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money?
US v. Gardiner:

"Gardiner next asserts that he was not subject to the jurisdiction of the IRS because he did not receive ‘money’ in 1970 and 1971 as the Federal Reserve Notes he received were not lawful money. Such an argument has been summarily found to be without merit, United States v. Scott, 521 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1975); cf. Milam v. United States, 524 F.2d 629 (9th Cir. 1974), and we so find here. His other arguments are of even lesser merit and the judgment is therefore

Affirmed."

I see no hesitation about the constitutionality of the Federal Reserve Act in this case.

Again, what year was the Federal Reserve Act, which actually IS 12usc411, passed???
Homework assignment lmfao.

In 1913, at least 50 years before the United States abandoned fiat currency, and almost 20 years before the Great Depression. Since this makes my point and not yours, what is this gloating about homework?

No the Constitution did. It defined Money and the Constitution is lawful. Congress expanded this definition to include a certain form of paper currency and the Court is free to use this definition willy nilly.

Are you kidding? The constitution defines money and the constitution is lawful, so the constitution defined "lawful money"? As the king of definitions in this thread, you cannot possibly be suggesting that.

Please tell us, in exact words, where the constitution defines lawful money as not holdable as reserves, non-negotiable, and with any other attribute you've identified. You cannot because it does not. "Lawful money" was never defined, so no court is using the definition willy nilly.

Right. Court also upheld FRN's are Legal Tender not Lawful Money, nice to be on the same page finally.

US v. Gardiner:

"Gardiner next asserts that he was not subject to the jurisdiction of the IRS because he did not receive ‘money’ in 1970 and 1971 as the Federal Reserve Notes he received were not lawful money. Such an argument has been summarily found to be without merit, United States v. Scott, 521 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1975); cf. Milam v. United States, 524 F.2d 629 (9th Cir. 1974), and we so find here. His other arguments are of even lesser merit and the judgment is therefore

Affirmed."

Guess you are missing my point that if court can't declare what Legal Tender is then it certainly can't declare what Lawful Money is as you claim they did in Juiliard.

Do you actually not understand the difference? There's a statute that says "legal tender" means these things. There is nothing that says "lawful money" means anything. Courts cannot declare what is legal tender because congress has explicitly done so; but it has no defined "lawful money," which you acknowledge in attempting to argue that the definition originates in the constitution.

​Reading comprehension. The power is plenary. The power delegated is the power to issue notes from the plenary money power.

What point are you trying to make about plenary power? The fact that the power is plenary has nothing to do with delegation.

Yes it is. Read it here:http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc-cgi/g...statnum:12_345

Notice the 150 million now stands at 300 million in 31usc5115.
Notice they are good for all demands and debts of the US "except for interest on bonds and notes, which shall be paid in coin," (gold or silver then)"and shall be lawful money AND legal tender except for duties on imports and interest as aforesaid."

I showed you one in Ware too.....Ware quotes and states the defintion of lawful money in the form or US notes......you cannot find a quote that FRN's are lawful money without the "quotes" that is also legal tender can pay interest on the public debt.....bonds have to back legal tender. They are bonded which is why they trade "as" money. Gold needs no bond.

I understand what the statute says. The words "and shall also be lawful money and a legal tender" do not transform the rest of the statute into adefinition of lawful money, which is what you claimed. You didn't contradict me saying it wasn't a definition, you just repeated yourself. Anyone who looks at the text can obviously see that it is not supposed to be a definition of lawful money.

We can see this in what you just said about Ware. According to you, it "quotes and states the definition of lawful money in the form or [sic] US notes." Where does it do that? You cannot possibly mean here: "United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt." This does not purport to be a definition of "lawful money" at all, it merely is quote of the statute that states a fact--United States Notes shall be lawful money.

OK I think we are close to being on the same page now....Again the Statute is in effect because the Federal Reserve Act is still in effect lol.....Court cant change the wording of the Federa Reserve Act.......I just don't see how you can view it as something courts haven't answered yet which would be assuming court has power to change it or to make Congress change it.

Its not that Congress doesn't need to it's that Congress can't. It must remain in order to float a debt in Commercial Paper with roots in Common Law. It is Common Law Remedy for Commercial Paper.

Of course courts cannot change the wording of the Federal Reserve Act, and I never said anything to the contrary. No change is required. The phrase "lawful money" was not defined anywhere in federal law, which left ambiguity. The court has every right to interpret the meaning of "lawful money" when congress has not chosen to specify one. That's their role in our system. If congress doesn't like the interpretation the court adopts, it can enact a new law, have the president sign it, and declare that "Lawful money is x, y, and z." This happens all the time.

Congress' money power is derived from the constitution, not from the common law, so what you just said about borrowing is totally irrelevant. The constitution says the federal government can borrow money. Period. There is no requirement that congress comply with the English common law in doing so--the power is absolute.

My wimpers? Do I read as if I am debating or merely explaining? Redemption is Remedy that is required by the First Judiciary Act. We The People delegated "the money power" to our branch not to the Federal Government at Large.

So where does the Government get the metal to issue lawful Silver Eagle coins from? Sunshine Mint? Are they The People?

What text in the Judiciary Act of 1789 are you talking about? I'll be happy to take a look. Of course, we the people delegated every power we gave to congress to congress , and that doesn't matter for a lick, so obviously it doesn't matter here. Do you not realize how much power congress has delegated to executive agencies? That's handing it from one branch to another. Of course, constitutional law tells us this is Ok so long as there is congressional oversight, etc., etc. This is why Ben Bernanke shows up in front of congress, because that's one of the requirements of a proper delegation of powers.

As for issuing Silver Eagles: the fact that the government needs metal to mint coins does not mean that the money power meaningfully resides in the people. The people cannot make money under the constitution and that's that. They do not retain any power over it; not selling metal is exercising freedom of transaction, not exercising money power.

WTF????? Stop huffing gasoline. Congress only delegated the power to regulate the value thereof, at best despite your quite strange insistence otherwise. Fed reports to Congress and tells it the bullshit you keep spitting off here. Congress Constitutionally has defined Coins as lawful money and legal tender, USNotes as lawful money and legal tender and Federal Reserve Notes as legal tender only.

Really, the Federal Reserve Act says "We, congress, delegate only our power to regulate the value thereof"? What's your basis for saying that otherwise?

 

[twostrokenut]

Title 31 is Money which is why USN's are there. Title 12 is Banks and Banking which is why Fed Bank Notes are there and are referenced as money sometimes or usually "money" and always "lawful money" for the exact reason Milam's exchange was upheld as lawful, even though it was FRN for FRN exchange it's fuckin sleight of hand near as I care to figure. You certainly have not shown otherwise merely argued the elastic Title 12 version is best for all your noble best for humanity speil that sounds like it came right out of Bernanke's mouth.

FRN's and USN's are two completely different things. The 31usc5115 is definitive proof you are dead nuts wrong FRN's bear no interest since it defines what are public debts that bear no interest.

As you say this is all supposed to work to our advantage but guess what happens when more bank notes are issued when there are resources to cover it? So here's the part where you claim growth has kept up with inflation but it is all government growth. Which are net tax consumers. Net tax contributors are leaving if they can, going overseas to save a buck outsourcing everything to make a buck our taxes are too high already. Tax breaks are offset with other taxes and Net tax contributors big companies and such are leaving all the time.

Right now what is the fed pissed at China for?

tokeprep you are confused about the difference between lawful and legal and applying attributes of one to the other that only works one way according to law.

 

[tokeprep]

Cool yeah lets do it.

That say old USN's and new USN's may be destroyed when redeemed because when you redeem one of those they don't give out gold and silver anymore but they have to give you a savings bond or treasury's like the fed gets when doing business with Congress.

Where does that statute say they have to give you a savings bond or treasury?

Because savings bonds and all other Gov issued paper have full backing on faith and credit of The People they have been argued lawful money. Because USN's have been argued to be a direct rep of these notes and bonds they are redeemable still (Edit:because they function as currency a.k.a. have legal tender status)and must be because they are legal tender also which means they bear an obligation which is to redeem for something like a savings bond or similar that bears no obligation by having a fixed price.

The arguments aren't the law. The law is that Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money.

Look at what you just bolded not required to re-issue USN's if USN's are redeemed. If a FRN is redeemed into literally another FRN acting or serving as a USN which is authorized for issue in 31usc5115 after the accounting is done you have a USN now.

If a Federal Reserve Note is redeemed into literally another Federal Reserve Note acting as a United States Note which is authorized for issue in 31 USC 5115 after the accounting is done? Let's describe all the problems with this.

1) There is no statute that permits a Federal Reserve Note to "act as" a United States Note.
2) The authorization of United States Notes under 31 USC 5115 has nothing to do with Federal Reserve Notes and is not connected in any way.
3) There is no statute describing this supposed process or any accounting for it.
4) The treasury hasn't issued any United States Notes since 1971.

According to what you bolded Treasury can say fuck off if you want to take your new redeemed note and get old note credit for it, after all they claim to have satisfied all those obligations by announcing you can't redeem in specie now prove otherwise with anything you like. You understanding this has no real obligation on anyone else who might.

Why the fuck would you go hand that back and get another USN that makes no sense that's what Milam did how did that work out for him?.

Hand what back to get another United States Note? And how is that what Milam did...?

 

[tokeprep]

Title 31 is Money which is why USN's are there. Title 12 is Banks and Banking which is why Fed Bank Notes are there and are referenced as money sometimes or usually "money" and always "lawful money" for the exact reason Milam's exchange was upheld as lawful, even though it was FRN for FRN exchange it's fuckin sleight of hand near as I care to figure. You certainly have not shown otherwise merely argued the elastic Title 12 version is best for all your noble best for humanity speil that sounds like it came right out of Bernanke's mouth.

Federal Reserve Notes aren't always referenced as "lawful money." I keep repeating this and you keep refusing to acknowledge it: on the Fed page you linked to as evidence, they refer to both United States Notes and Federal Reserve Notes as "lawful money." Second, I just gave you a case that doesn't put lawful money in quotes at all, which you also haven't yet acknowledged even though I posted it several pages back in this thread.

FRN's and USN's are two completely different things. The 31usc5115 is definitive proof you are dead nuts wrong FRN's bear no interest since it defines what are public debts that bear no interest.

It's definitive proof of nothing. I never claimed they were the same thing or that United States Notes weren't still authorized.

As you say this is all supposed to work to our advantage but guess what happens when more bank notes are issued when there are resources to cover it? So here's the part where you claim growth has kept up with inflation but it is all government growth. Which are net tax consumers. Net tax contributors are leaving if they can, going overseas to save a buck outsourcing everything to make a buck our taxes are too high already. Tax breaks are offset with other taxes and Net tax contributors big companies and such are leaving all the time.

Right now what is the fed pissed at China for?

tokeprep you are confused about the difference between lawful and legal and applying attributes of one to the other that only works one way according to law.

Alas, you are the one who is confused. Your case is based on quotation marks, which should be the first sign of trouble.

 

[twostrokenut]

So you have no support for your assertion that lawful money must be issued directly by the federal government, then. Because nothing you said stands against the idea that congress can delegate its money powers just as it has delegated so many other powers.

Well quit yer yappin and show me the Money!!! Nothing in the Federal Reserve Act (from Congress) supports "the idea that congress can delegate its money powers".

Stay on track that is the BILLIONTH time you braodly mentioned "money powers" being delegated with no proof of anything being delegated EXCEPT VALUE THEREOF by allowing the fed to run "monetary policy" as it applies to Fed Notes only which absolutely affect the price of lawful money look at gold prices for fucks sake.

Constitutional definition just isn' t doing it for you bud still jaded with all you America hating garbage?

New plan we will just spend days and days on each little section you don't quite get won't that be fun.

Motorboats!!
Beach Balls!!!
Beach balls are Motorboats by Judicial Decree!!!!

What have you shown to say otherwise?????

From the 37th Congress the Congressional definition pertaining to the EXACT notes we are talking about and how to fund a floating debt based on substance and lawful money currency. Which mentions the lawful money backing the currency has.......wait you didn't read this did you.
Obviously I am wasting my time on you.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=statRef&target=date:nonech:33statnum:12_345


"the Secretary of the Tresury is hereby authorized to issue, on the credit of the United States, United States Notes, and shall also be lawful money."



From Congress:


Title 31-MONEY AND FINANCE
SUBTITLE IV-MONEY
CHAPTER 51-COINS AND CURRENCY
SUBCHAPTER II-GENERAL AUTHORITY
SECTION 5115 UNITED STATES NOTES


§5115. United States currency notes

(a) The Secretary of the Treasury may issue United States currency notes. The notes-
(1) are payable to bearer; and
(2) shall be in a form and in denominations of at least one dollar that the Secretary prescribes.

(b) The amount of United States currency notes outstanding and in circulation-
(1) may not be more than $300,000,000; and
(2) may not be held or used for a reserve.

(
Pub. L. 97–258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 983.)



From Congress in the Federal reserve Act:

"Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System"







Title 31 is Money and Finance not money and Finance
Subtitle 4 Money
Chapter 51 Coins and Currency
Subchapter 1 Monetary System
Section 5103 Legal Tender

"United States money is expressed in dollars, dimes or tenths, cents or hundreths,1 and mills or thousandths. A dime is a tenth of a dollar, a cent is a hundredth of a dollar, and a mill is a thousandth of a dollar.
(Pub. L. 97–258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 980.)


The word “money” is substituted for “money of account” to eliminate unnecessary words. As far as can be determined, the phrase “money of account” has not been interpreted by any court or Government agency. The phrase was used by Alexander Hamilton in his “Report on the Establishment of the Mint” (1791). In that Report, Hamilton propounded 6 questions, including:


1st. What ought to be the nature of the money unit of the United States?
Thereafter, Hamilton uses the phrases “money unit of the United States” and “money of account” interchangeably and in the sense that the phrases are used to denote the monetary system for keeping financial accounts. In short, the phrases simply indicate that financial accounts are to be based on a decimal money system:
. . ., and it is certain that nothing can be more simple and convenient than the decimal subdivisions. There is every reason to expect that the method will speedily grow into general use, when it shall be seconded by corresponding coins. On this plan the unit in the money of account will continue to be, as established by that resolution [of August 8, 1786], a dollar, and its multiples, dimes, cents, and mills, or tenths, hundreths, [sic] and thousands.
Thus, the phrase “money of account” did not mean, by itself, that dollars or fractions of dollars must be equal to something having intrinsic or “substantive” value. This concept is supported by earlier writings of Thomas Jefferson in his “Notes on the Establishment of a Money Unit, and of a Coinage for the United States” (1784), and the 1782 report to the President of the Continental Congress on the coinage of the United States by the Superintendent of Finances, Robert Morris, which was apparently prepared by the Assistant Superintendent, Gouverneur Morris. See Paul L. Ford, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. III (G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1894) pp. 446–457; William G. Sumner, The Financier and the Finances of the American Revolution, vol. II (Burt Franklin, 1891, reprinted 1970) pp. 36–47; and George T. Curtis, History of the Constitution, vol. I (Harper and Brothers, 1859) p. 443, n2. The words “or units” and “and all accounts in the public offices and all proceedings in the courts shall be kept and had in conformity to this regulation” are omitted as surplus."

"


So everything you say is based on this "money of account".

 

[twostrokenut]

money of account simply known as money these days not capitalized Money in the middle of a sentence tokeprep. Catch the pun?

 

[cannabineer]

So society says no one has the right to grow weed. The same society we are all talking about here. The one that exists on the federal level in the sense we are all citizens of the US. Then a state, a higher authority says that it's smaller society may grow because it's society is independent of the other and retains its right to redefine what is "medicinal".

So there is no right to grow on the most basic individual level, outside state and federal society then?

I believe we have a right to try to not get caught. Being irreligious, I cannot find a basis for any right that we do not make for ourselves starting from vacuum. cn

 

[twostrokenut]

Federal Reserve Notes aren't always referenced as "lawful money." I keep repeating this and you keep refusing to acknowledge it: on the Fed page you linked to as evidence, they refer to both United States Notes and Federal Reserve Notes as "lawful money." Second, I just gave you a case that doesn't put lawful money in quotes at all, which you also haven't yet acknowledged even though I posted it several pages back in this thread.

Like I said lot going on here I am not above going back and checking my work specifically against these new cases you presented but until then why not use one liners and your source so we may simplify this rambling I have been asking you for specific quotes all along. Notice: If you don't and I don't get to them you will have succeeded to the fact whatever case just as quoted Congress' definition I quoted you. I have linked a shitload more than a fed page as evidence too so why don't you find the fed sites opinion of the matter and prove what you say with a simple one liner and your source in a post all by itself.

It's definitive proof of nothing. I never claimed they were the same thing or that United States Notes weren't still authorized.

Oh OK this is where you start sounding like Ben Bernanke. You claimed FRN's were not debt instruments, literally not per say. You said the authority for this was that the surplus is returned to Treasury on the debt and how this benefits us all because it is so productive.
You said this is how the greatest wealth was created failing to realize wealth is what backs benefits which is why things like Social Security and the Post Office are operating in the red on borrowed money.

Newsflash Hamilton's dream has failed yet again to do what it was created to do. We do it much better ourselves that's why the military is volunteers.



Alas, you are the one who is confused. Your case is based on quotation marks, which should be the first sign of trouble.

I am not in trouble at all you fail to cite otherwise by the definitive decider in this issue which is Congress. Your whole case simply rests on The Fed wielding Congressional power you claim exists yet you can find not source for. Congress tokeprep.

Not Bacon!!!
Racoons!!
But Congress.

My case "is based on quotation marks," has never been out of the context of THIS SENTENCE based on you being Congress and me being the judges decision in juilard then the decision in Milam or the Feds page like I said put it in a reply all by itself.

To take it out of this context it is on YOU to prove Congress gave the power to declare what is lawful money without quotes. Where is courts specific new declaration of what is Legal Tender and What is Lawful Money in any case or law that lays everything is specific detail?????
Find it, quote it in a simple sourced one liner.

.......................

 

[twostrokenut]

We all know it is inherent to resist the collective. We are not social like ants we are social like wolves.

 

[twostrokenut]

I believe we have a right to try to not get caught. Being irreligious, I cannot find a basis for any right that we do not make for ourselves starting from vacuum. cn

Irreligious or not we all can agree that we would not exist without, say earth's sun. Since life would not exist without it I can lawfully deem it The Creator to claim rights if I truly believe that. I personally choose whoever the fuck invented phi.

 

[tokeprep]

Well quit yer yappin and show me the Money!!! Nothing in the Federal Reserve Act (from Congress) supports "the idea that congress can delegate its money powers".

Stay on track that is the BILLIONTH time you braodly mentioned "money powers" being delegated with no proof of anything being delegated EXCEPT VALUE THEREOF by allowing the fed to run "monetary policy" as it applies to Fed Notes only which absolutely affect the price of lawful money look at gold prices for fucks sake.

Constitutional definition just isn' t doing it for you bud still jaded with all you America hating garbage?

Why would the Federal Reserve Act be the basis of delegation? The act is the delegation of power. The constitution itself is the source of the idea that congress can delegate its powers; the body of constitutional law built up on that idea regulates when congress can permissibly delegate power to another body. There is no question that congress' delegation of power to the Fed was constitutional. For example (actually, in looking to demonstrate this, I found another example for lawful money!):

Peter v. Fisher: "Plaintiff contends that Defendant “unlawfully usurp[ed] the power of Congress to coin Money.” (Compl. at 2). This claim fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because Congress delegated its power to establish a national currency when it created the Federal Reserve System. 12 U.S.C. § 411, 412; Mathes v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 576 F.2d 70, 71 (5th Cir.197."

Mathes v. CIR: "Congress has delegated the power to establish this national currency which is lawful money to the Federal Reserve System. 12 U.S.C. s 411. Congress has made the Federal Reserve note the measure of value in our monetary system, 12 U.S.C. s 412 (196,1 and has defined Federal Reserve notes as legal tender for taxes, 31 U.S.C. s 392 (1965)."

New plan we will just spend days and days on each little section you don't quite get won't that be fun.

Motorboats!!
Beach Balls!!!
Beach balls are Motorboats by Judicial Decree!!!!

What have you shown to say otherwise?????

From the 37th Congress the Congressional definition pertaining to the EXACT notes we are talking about and how to fund a floating debt based on substance and lawful money currency. Which mentions the lawful money backing the currency has.......wait you didn't read this did you.
Obviously I am wasting my time on you.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=statRef&target=date:nonech:33statnum:12_345

"the Secretary of the Tresury is hereby authorized to issue, on the credit of the United States, United States Notes, and shall also be lawful money."

Do you not understand what quotation marks mean, Twostroke? If you aren't reproducing the literal text, you need to indicate so. This is how you should have rendered the sentence: "the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized to issue, on the credit of the United States...United States Notes...and shall also be lawful money." You might consider this insignificant, but there are 11 lines of text between United States Notes and "and shall also be lawful money," so I think what you excised is actually quite significant to my argument.

Of course, your version still makes it look like an attribute. The treasury is authorized to issue United States notes on the credit of the United States, and they shall also be lawful money. That does not mean that lawful money is United States Notes; it only means that United States Notes are lawful money, because the statute says they are. So where is the definition at, Mr. Definition? I'm asking you how "and shall also be lawful money" means that the whole statute is a definition of lawful money. It's merely an attribute in a list of attributes.

If it were definition, it would saw "Lawful money is x, y, and z" just as the legal tender statute says "Legal tender is x, y, and z." Instead, United States Notes, with all of the specifies attributes in the statute, are ALSO "lawful money." The text does not suggest that lawful money has all of the attributes of the statute or purport to define lawful money at all.

From Congress:

Title 31-MONEY AND FINANCE
SUBTITLE IV-MONEY
CHAPTER 51-COINS AND CURRENCY
SUBCHAPTER II-GENERAL AUTHORITY
SECTION 5115 UNITED STATES NOTES

§5115. United States currency notes

(a) The Secretary of the Treasury may issue United States currency notes. The notes-
(1) are payable to bearer; and
(2) shall be in a form and in denominations of at least one dollar that the Secretary prescribes.

(b) The amount of United States currency notes outstanding and in circulation-
(1) may not be more than $300,000,000; and
(2) may not be held or used for a reserve.

(Pub. L. 97–258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 983.)

From Congress in the Federal reserve Act:

"Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

Title 31 is Money and Finance not money and Finance
Subtitle 4 Money
Chapter 51 Coins and Currency
Subchapter 1 Monetary System
Section 5103 Legal Tender"

So everything you say is based on this "money of account".

Now show me where the statutes distinguish between "money" and "money of account." If they don't, why are you pretending they do? The fact that congress has authorized currency under more than one title of the United States code is totally irrelevant.

I see you edited your post to include the note from the section explaining that they couldn't find any legal difference between "money" and "money of account." I'm not sure why you've emphasized it as if it makes your case, since the note you quoted is explaining why there's no distinction...

 

[tokeprep]

money of account simply known as money these days not capitalized Money in the middle of a sentence tokeprep. Catch the pun?

And what's your legal basis for that assertion?

 

[tokeprep]

Like I said lot going on here I am not above going back and checking my work specifically against these new cases you presented but until then why not use one liners and your source so we may simplify this rambling I have been asking you for specific quotes all along. Notice: If you don't and I don't get to them you will have succeeded to the fact whatever case just as quoted Congress' definition I quoted you. I have linked a shitload more than a fed page as evidence too so why don't you find the fed sites opinion of the matter and prove what you say with a simple one liner and your source in a post all by itself.

Mathes v. CIR: "Congress has delegated the power to establish this national currency which is lawful money to the Federal Reserve System. 12 U.S.C. s 411. Congress has made the Federal Reserve note the measure of value in our monetary system, 12 U.S.C. s 412 (196,[SUP]1[/SUP] and has defined Federal Reserve notes as legal tender for taxes, 31 U.S.C. s 392 (1965). Taxpayers' attempt to devalue the Federal Reserve notes they received as income is, therefore, not lawful under the laws of the United States."

US v. Gardiner: "Gardiner next asserts that he was not subject to the jurisdiction of the IRS because he did not receive ‘money’ in 1970 and 1971 as the Federal Reserve Notes he received were not lawful money. Such an argument has been summarily found to be without merit, United States v. Scott, 521 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1975); cf. Milam v. United States, 524 F.2d 629 (9th Cir. 1974), and we so find here."

Poe v. CIR: "With respect to the capital gain realized by petitioners on the sale of their residence, they contend that the amount of deficiency determined by respondent was incorrect because the amounts they received upon the sale of their residence were in Federal Reserve notes, which are not lawful money... It is well established that Federal Reserve notes are lawful money even though not backed by gold and silver."

US v. Rickman: "Defendant argues that the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, s 8, United States Constitution. We have held to the contrary. United States v. Ware, 10 Cir., 608 F.2d 400, 402-403. We find no validity in the distinction which defendant draws between “lawful money” and “legal tender.” ... In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money. Defendant received Federal Reserve Notes when he cashed his pay checks and used those notes to pay his personal expenses. He obtained and used lawful money."

Bates v. US: "The standard unit of computation is the money dollar, an abstract or ideal unit of account. This standard unit of money has not changed in money value throughout the existence of our monetary system. There have been changes from time to time in the form of the physical representatives of money, but lawful money in the United States has been the same since the Act of Congress of April 2, 1792, provided that “The money of account of the United States shall be expressed in dollars or units, dimes or tenths, cents or hundredths, and mills or thousandths, a dime being the tenth part of a dollar, a cent the hundredth part of a dollar, a mill the thousandth part of a dollar * * *.”" (Decided in the 1980s, so they necessarily reference Federal Reserve Notes.)

Wilson v. US: "Plaintiffs further seek an injunction against the Internal Revenue Service...contending that federal reserve notes are not lawful money of the United States “as defined and intended by the spirit of the Constitution” and that Congress has violated the separation of powers doctrine by issuing federal reserve notes which are not redeemable in coin, thereby rendering federal reserve notes “counterfeit securities.” Pls. Brf. At ¶ 17–30, 37–39. Plaintiffs are incorrect."

Maxwell v. US: "The only thing “new” in the Motion to Alter is his assertion that the Order (Docket Entry No. 45) is unlawful because it “imposes sanctions of borrowed fiat Federal Reserve Notes (‘FRNs') or some tender other than lawful money of account of the United States” and that “[l]awful money of account is only standard weights of Coins as set by Congress[.]” (Docket Entry No. 47 at 3). Petitioner further argues that “[t]here is currently no such lawful money in general circulation or purchasable at par value by any tender that is in general circulation.” (Id. at 4). This is nonsense."

US v. Darcy: "This construction does not help defendant because her Standing Objection is without any legal or factual merit. She bases her claims of fraud and perjury on her nonsensical view that no lawful money of value is in circulation for private use by the public. As she says, “There are no lawful dollars out there only credit and debt ledger entries, and no one gets paid for anything with anything of valuable substance. The IRS can't tax credit, debt, or barter.” Standing Objection, dkt. # 11, at 1. She goes on with her explanation of “the problem”: A person getting an education loan receives a negotiable instrument that the applicant must cash at a bank where she is given Federal Reserve Notes, which are worthless.” Id. at 2."

Oh OK this is where you start sounding like Ben Bernanke. You claimed FRN's were not debt instruments, literally not per say. You said the authority for this was that the surplus is returned to Treasury on the debt and how this benefits us all because it is so productive.
You said this is how the greatest wealth was created failing to realize wealth is what backs benefits which is why things like Social Security and the Post Office are operating in the red on borrowed money.

Newsflash Hamilton's dream has failed yet again to do what it was created to do. We do it much better ourselves that's why the military is volunteers.

The origin of this discussion was my presentation of three scenarios that created currency without any underlying debt or interest. Debt monetization by central bank lending was one of them, correct. I focused on that one because I thought it was the simplest to understand.

But you're caught up on possibility instead of reality. Your concerns would be founded if the government financed all of its spending by monetizing debt, but that isn't the case. This year, approximately $3.2 trillion of the $3.8 trillion the government spends will come from taxes, leaving only $600 billion to be borrowed. The treasury isn't going to borrow this money by monetizing debt through the central bank--creating fresh new currency--they're borrowing existing cash from other people in the market.

If you want to cry QE there, keep in mind what I've already said about the growth in reserves at the Fed and the uses of cash by banks. If money isn't lent out, there is no money multiplier and a dollar is a dollar.

I am not in trouble at all you fail to cite otherwise by the definitive decider in this issue which is Congress. Your whole case simply rests on The Fed wielding Congressional power you claim exists yet you can find not source for. Congress tokeprep.

Not Bacon!!!
Racoons!!
But Congress.

See above on that point. If you would like more cases upholding the constitutionality of congress' delegation to the Fed, I will be more than happy to find them for you so that you'll drop this.

My case "is based on quotation marks," has never been out of the context of THIS SENTENCE based on you being Congress and me being the judges decision in juilard then the decision in Milam or the Feds page like I said put it in a reply all by itself.

To take it out of this context it is on YOU to prove Congress gave the power to declare what is lawful money without quotes. Where is courts specific new declaration of what is Legal Tender and What is Lawful Money in any case or law that lays everything is specific detail?????
Find it, quote it in a simple sourced one liner.

I just gave you a big list of cases, and several of them call Federal Reserve Notes lawful money without quotation marks. They're not one liners, but I don't think one liners are productive. You're going to tell me I'm distorting the meaning of the cases if I don't give you context.

 

[heckler73]

time will reveal your foolishness, i shall remember this moment when it does.

Pineapple!

Chicken kebabs!

oh yah?!?!!?!? Well i can count to potato!