Dude you are so bunk you claim understanding that I do not posses which is true because it only exist in your mind and not law. You claim this as some kind of authority over me and my understanding YOU HAVE NONE you are merely a person.
I actually worked in this field every single day. I stared at and fought with the United States Code pretty much every single day, working on it for countless hours. I was trained, supervised by, and worked with an office full of people who have given years and decades of their lives to this field.
I understand what the code is, I understand how it's put together, I understand when and why it gets changed, and I understand how court cases affect the code because it was my job to do so. I am not standing here as an ignorant internet preacher pretending to comprehend things I only lightly brushed over; you jumped into a subject that I intimately understand from my very real professional experience. I told you this at the very beginning of this discussion and you were intent on declaring that I was just bullshitting you because I'm not stupid enough to tell you where I worked, so that was that.
I certainly do not claim to be infallible in my understanding of things. I genuinely considered your case at every turn; I thoroughly looked at all of the statutes and court cases in order to follow your argument. Unfortunately, all you've done is blatantly misapply and misinterpret things in order to fit this insane story about meaningful currency redemption that is obviously utter nonsense. You declare definitions that are not definitions, you ignore the text you quote, you backstop with "hundreds of years of commercial law" whenever law whenever nothing says what you need it to say, and you twist court cases in ways that would be incomprehensible to any talented attorney.
There is no legal difference in "money" and "money of account" read much??
That defines lowercase money as something never interpreted by any court of government agency.....and currently applies to any case you have presented.
.......................
Do you not even read what you post and highlight?
Your source is what says there's no legal difference: "
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." This note expressly says that "money" and "money of account" do not have distinct legal definitions in federal law, which is why they edited "money of account" down to "money" in the statute.
Because you fail to notice 12usc411 and the Federal Reserve Act are the same thing. Are you not claiming 12usc411 the source of the delegation? Indeed you are. The Act is very specific and does not say what you want it to
Oh yes, I understand that. You said the act says nothing about delegation, and you're right--it wouldn't. That was my point. The source of congress' authority to delegate isn't the acts they delegate authority in.
"fails to state claim upon which relief can be granted because. 12usc411."
"This claim" fails to demand redemption.
Says defendant failed to demand lawful money.
I didn't cite this case for lawful money but for this line about delegation: "
Congress delegated its power to establish a national currency when it created the Federal Reserve System." You said congress didn't have the authority to delegate its money power and told me to show you what said they did...
Congress has indirectly delegated the Fed the power to establish the national currency that Congress HAS ALREADY DEFINED by facilitating the demand to do so.
In your view why, then, has the Fed only been contempt with using what Congress only established as Legal Tender? Indeed "congress has made the FRN the measure of value"12usc412 and the Fed controls this value only which is why 12usc411 is cited.
If the court meant to say congress indirectly did something, they would have said "indirectly delegated" and not "delegated." Mr. Definitions, doesn't "delegated" mean "delegated" and not "indirectly delegated"?
The court says nothing about any previous definition of lawful money. It says congress has delegated the power to establish a national currency which is lawful money to the Fed and they cite 12 USC 411, which is the statute authorizing Federal Reserve Notes. Your spin on this absolutely clear case makes no sense.
proper name is twostroke dumbass please continue to explain the written English language.
Proceed to include what ever is missing to back up your argument to utter failure instead of diverting with distractions and complicating something that is really simple.
Your argument that the whole thing is a definition of lawful money makes less since when "lawful money" appears near the end of the place you started and you have to excise 11 lines of text to fit it there. It's obviously not a definition and I think you edited the text of the statute down knowing that it didn't look very good for your case that congress had defined "lawful money."
Of course, your version still makes it look like an attribute.congress' version.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. the latter is correct So where is the definition at, Mr. Definition? 37th congress 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.
xyz definition in the constitution
Your quoted text was not from the 37th congress, it was your own version. The latter is correct based on what? Your assertion? Your inability to recognize the definition of a phrase such as "and shall also be," which is very clearly just defining another attribute in a list?
And quote me that definition from the constitution, please. Thanks.
