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

[tokeprep]

Still waiting on the Published Rules of Statutory Judicial Proceedings so that one may understand how to proceed without a lawyer. Thanks.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[tokeprep]

Still waiting on the Published Rules of Statutory Judicial Proceedings so that one may understand how to proceed without a lawyer. Thanks.

The first Judiciary Act "saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy"......all cases not just common law cases civil cases statutory cases ALL cases. Yeah 12usc411 provides for the currency to go from legal statutory to lawful Constitutional what is so hard to comprehend?

You realize you're excising a key part of that sentence, right? "...the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it." "In all cases" still means in admiralty cases, and nonetheless, a common law remedy is only preserved where the common law is competent to give it.

Nevermind that most court proceedings have nothing to do with admiralty, the common law generally isn't competent to provide very many remedies in the modern era of statutory law. So the idea that we have a common law remedy, in all cases, based on this admiralty jurisdiction statute, is totally preposterous, because the statute itself expressly limits its application to where the common law is competent.

You haven't described any distinction between "legal statutory" and "lawful Constitutional." Still waiting on that supposed definition from the constitution from you.

 

[tokeprep]

\
For clarity:

The bank upon which the check is drawn does not actually draw down all the money that was created, the created money is only drawn down by 10% minus the vig the bank gets. So if you move $10 from one bank to the next, there is still the matter of the $90 that was created and is earning interest for the bank, that money doesn't magically go "Poof" when you take from one account and deposit in another. Banking is not a zero sum game.

For clarity, the bank didn't create $90 from $10. When you deposited your $10, the bank could lend $9, assuming a 10% reserve requirement. The money multiplier is based on that lend-deposit cycle being repeated to exhaustion system-wide; it doesn't purport to leave the same bank with $90 in loans off a $10 deposit. That money "earning interest for the bank" is money on deposit at other banks totally unconnected to the initial deposit and loan (it was spent on land, inventory, whatever, and put into the hands of other parties). I agree with you that it's not affected by the movement of the first deposit because the other transactions aren't going to be unwound.

So the $10 moves. That leaves our first bank short $10. Do they call the loan or do they sell it? Presumably they just sell it. Here I point out a major problem in your argument, which is assuming that all money that comes into the bank is immediately lent out. Empirically, that is totally false right now--the banks have hundreds of billions of dollars in excess reserves that they aren't lending. If the $10 isn't lent out a single time, it cannot possibly be the basis of $90 in loans. Banks buy and sell loans from each other all the time in order to balance their books. If the $10 gets redeposited, the new bank could very well buy the loan instead of underwriting its own new loan.

While I agree that banking is not a zero sum game, there are limits to money creation based on reserve requirements. Simply playing musical chairs with temporary bank deposits does not result in the creation of huge sums of new money; that presumes that all of the deposits are being lent out to the limit of the cycle immediately and ignores the fact that there's no change in aggregate bank reserves (which I suggest understates interbank activity).

 

[tokeprep]

Just keep in mind what you are saying here if its common law it is not Statutory! Is the Constitution Statutory? Are inalienable rights statutory? Is the Constitution not based on Natural and Common Law? So the right to defend yourself, in a court or otherwise Statutory or not?

That's exactly what I'm saying, that the law is either one or the other. If it's common law, it's judge made and not based on statutes; if it's statutory law, the law is the statute. Some things originate as common law and then become statutory law, with wrongful death being an excellent example. It originated with the California supreme court, but the California legislature codified it. Thus wrongful death in California, even though it originated as common law, is now statutory law, because your legal rights would be based on the statute.

The constitution is "statutory law" in that it is written down and was enacted by the people, after a long and reasoned debate that saw the text well publicized. But no one calls it a "statute" because it's the ultimate legal authority and not changeable at will by congress. The rights we have under the constitutional are constitutional rights; they are granted to us by our constitution, not by natural or common law. The right to defend myself, likewise, is based on the constitution.

You're confusing the source of an idea or a principle with its modern legal basis. Obviously English common law was the source of many of the rights that our framers wrote into our constitution, but the legal basis of our constitutional rights is that constitution where they were written down, not the English common law that influenced the framers.

 

[tokeprep]

The Constitution is Law I don't have to show or convince you it defines Money you know how you just explained title 31 is positive so it's text is Law? Constitution is higher and more positive even Wilbur Jackleg it doesn't need a "definitions" page it says "shall be" because it is not a Statute it does not require any clarity on what Money is

I'm not disputing that the constitution is the law. I'm saying there is no such definition of money in there and demanding that you share it, knowing that it does not exist. That's why you won't show or convince me, because you already ran that path with the constitution much earlier in this thread, and it went nowhere. The constitution is only clear about money at the state level; it is totally ambiguous at the federal level.

it has already been settled in courts and statutes retain references and text changes and indicies so you can go back and read it all yourself should take a good week or so minimum buddy but I bet you will do it in a hour cause your a genius and a lawyer/judge right?

What was settled in what court? The constitutional definition of money? Quote me that! You won't be able to do it.

BTW 12usc411 can't be prima facie of Fed Act if the wordings are exactly the same title 12 not being positive law literally would mean that the Fed act is prima facie evidence of the law......of society. Prima facie evidence of the law of society..which is not common law......what's another word for that is it statute? So if I make a statute that you must wear a name tag in my society I can make a law pertaining to that statute where I fine tokeprep for not wearing his name tag? Everyone will think its Law? sweet I'm gonna be rich beeeeeeeiatch.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Title 12 is an editorial collection of statutes culled from the Statutes at Large; the actual law is the text enacted in the Statutes at Large. Thus the text of 12 USC 411 is prima facie evidence that the Federal Reserve Act, in the Statutes at Large, says "X, y, and z." The wording in Title 12 might be exactly the same as the wording in parts of the Federal Reserve Act, but that doesn't make the code the law, which is still the Federal Reserve Act, even with exactly the same wording. Titles enacted into positive law are the law; you need not reference the Statutes at Large at all because the text of the title itself is literally the law. There is no disputing what the text says because congress literally enacted it into law.

So if this were to come up as a practical matter, let's say I cite 12 USC 411 with the redemption provision removed. You would argue to the court that 12 USC 411 is only prima facie evidence of what the law is and cite the Federal Reserve Act in the Statutes at Large, where the redemption provision was actually enacted into law. Since neither of us is arguing that 12 USC 411 says anything different than the Federal Reserve Act, it makes no sense for us to be having this positive versus non-positive law discussion.

 

[twostrokenut]

That's exactly what I'm saying, that the law is either one or the other. If it's common law, it's judge made and not based on statutes; if it's statutory law, the law is the statute. Some things originate as common law and then become statutory law, with wrongful death being an excellent example. It originated with the California supreme court, but the California legislature codified it. Thus wrongful death in California, even though it originated as common law, is now statutory law, because your legal rights would be based on the statute.

The constitution is "statutory law" in that it is written down and was enacted by the people, after a long and reasoned debate that saw the text well publicized. But no one calls it a "statute" because it's the ultimate legal authority and not changeable at will by congress. The rights we have under the constitutional are constitutional rights; they are granted to us by our constitution, not by natural or common law. The right to defend myself, likewise, is based on the constitution.

You're confusing the source of an idea or a principle with its modern legal basis. Obviously English common law was the source of many of the rights that our framers wrote into our constitution, but the legal basis of our constitutional rights is that constitution where they were written down, not the English common law that influenced the framers.

You forget the constitution cannot grant rights only protect them and specify some as basic.....the 9th settles that.

It also protects powers in the 10th....not grants them.....powers and rights are only granted to federal government......not the states and people. All power and rights not mentioned are reserved for higher sovereign governments which would be the states and the people.

Btw specifically not addressing your madness point by point is boredom not implied consent of agreement with little gems like the Constitution is "statutory law" to any end is just ignorance of american jurisprudence and severely limits my capacity to consider any thing you say as even approaching serious or factual.

 

[tokeprep]

Are you serious? Court held and positive law IS US notes ARE lawful money and MAY NOT be used for INTEREST on the PUBLIC DEBT or for DUTIES on IMPORTS. You think the court held to the contrary of Congress? Your are incorrect. That's what I have been saying all along.

Then you have the nerve to not see Accounting terms? The Equitable Terms?

Title 31 actually wasn't enacted as positive law until 1982, and the statute from title 31 that you keep citing doesn't say United States Notes are lawful money. So what positive law actually does say that, then, if you're going to keep making the argument?

As for the court: I agree, they say United States Notes are lawful money but that they are not lawful money for those specific purposes. That's exactly what the court said, and all it did was follow congress, which defined United States Notes in exactly that way. Neither congress nor the court says that "lawful money shall not be used for these purposes." Instead, both repeat the congressional command, which was that United States Notes shall not be lawful money for those specific purposes. There was no attempt by anyone to define "lawful money" as anything.

"31usc5115 WAS Constitutional"......WTF? Care to explain that one?

It was challenged in Juilliard and was held constitutional by the supreme court. Is this in dispute...?

Where is your documentation that says "interest" and "duties" are not equitable terms and used in accounting that would be associated with emitting bills of credit? Isn't that your whole argument this whole time your unfounded assertions that FRN's are literally bills of credit in legal tender currency form? How can that be true if they do not enjoy lawful money status? See now you know they are not but US Notes are. Bills of credit lawful reserves....FRN's are fractional reserves whew glad that's over.

"Interest" and "duties" are not equitable terms used in accounting "associated with emitting bills of credit." Interest means interest and duties means duties. The words have nothing to do with accounting, unless you don't know what accounting is (I've had 5-6 years of it). As for my argument, that has never been my argument. Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money and legal tender. Period. I merely follow the law.

 

[twostrokenut]

Interest and duties are covered in money and finance for accounting of government we are talking about gubmit not your cpa buisness accounting .....I doubt lawful reserves comes up much in accounting as accountant for taco bell nice one.

Btw 31usc5115 literally does say us notes are lawful money...denial is not just a river in egypt buddy.....and may not be used for interest on the public debt.......then title 12 grants fed lawful money reserves to float bank notes which are obligations of the us.....so who do you think the national debt is lawfully owed to then?

 

[tokeprep]

Potato ummm yeah actually it is prima facie evidence of a contract I am unaware of can you tell me what it is please? Thanks. I already told you I think its endorsing your paycheck or perhaps the Fed Act serves as this contract on my behalf if my Rep is my fiduciary agent but I don't remember giving permission for that so you will need to identify it please tokeprep. Thanks.

My point was that you're distorting what "prima facie evidence" meant. The codified text is prima facie evidence of what the Statutes at Large say; that's all it means.

The Federal Reserve Act isn't contractual. There is no contract. Your employer doesn't pay you with checks because they need to bind you into a contract--they pay you with a check because it's an efficient way to move money around versus removing hundreds of dollars from a bank, transporting them, and handing them to you in cash, every week or two. The idea that endorsing checks is contractual permission for anything is totally absurd.

..... 12usc411 literally is about something that only has legal tender status, then gets Redeemed and now has lawful money status. My way is the way that makes sense to me your way is just asserting stuff with no backing.....I am not a lawyer I am allowed to do my own thing and put it together myself and you have to back what you say with real Law and definitions because you claimed authority over aaaaaaaaaaaaaalllllllllllllll of that shit.........

You're ignoring the fact that the application of words written in 1913 changed substantially over the following fifty years, when all redemption of currency ceased and all currency in existence became fiat currency. That's what destroyed the distinction between "legal tender" and "lawful money" that had existed. Alas, the fact that it's an anachronism isn't apparent from the code.

All I've done is give you real law. You took my slew of court cases and totally distorted what they meant; you made quotations significant when they weren't; you rambled about endorsement when the opinion said nothing about a check; you concluded that coins must have been the reason when coins weren't even mentioned; you droned endlessly about the tax court when I said to drop it and take up all of these other issues in other opinions instead. You've ignored the real law in favor of your twisted, fanciful construction of it.

Just went from International Commercial World Reserve "money of account" to just United States lawful paper currency that cant be used for interest on the debt or for duties on imports.....can you show me one other than a US Note to refute what I am saying? Or a Federal Reserve Note with verified transaction accounting attached? Go ahead it's on you Title 12 banks and banking prima facie means I rebutt and you must now prove otherwise, thanks glad that's over.

I have no idea what I'm supposed to be refuting. I agree that the act of congress says United States Notes were lawful money but not for those purposes. There's no such thing as "verified transaction accounting," and Title 12 says nothing about it, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

"Prima facie evidence" means that what Title 12 says is somewhere in the Federal Reserve Act, in the Statutes at Large. Apparently you've warped it to mean something else entirely.

Title 31 Money and Finance actual law means no arguing with the accounting of lawful money it is not up for debate. US notes are also legal tender not up for debate.

FRN's are legal tender for everything US Notes are INCLUDING duties on imports and interest on the public debt? That is perfectly valid question since no law supports evidence to the contrary. whew glad thats over LOL

You haven't shown us where Title 31 says United States Notes are lawful money, so why isn't it up for debate? The provision you cited doesn't say it. I agree that United States Notes are legal tender.

Yes, Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and lawful money for all purposes. The congress imposed no limitation on Federal Reserve Notes in their authorizing statute, whereas the congress did so in the authorizing statute for United States Notes.

 

[twostrokenut]

I'm not disputing that the constitution is the law. I'm saying there is no such definition of money in there and demanding that you share it, knowing that it does not exist. That's why you won't show or convince me, because you already ran that path with the constitution much earlier in this thread, and it went nowhere. The constitution is only clear about money at the state level; it is totally ambiguous at the federal level.



What was settled in what court? The constitutional definition of money? Quote me that! You won't be able to do it.



I have no idea what you're talking about. Title 12 is an editorial collection of statutes culled from the Statutes at Large; the actual law is the text enacted in the Statutes at Large. Thus the text of 12 USC 411 is prima facie evidence that the Federal Reserve Act, in the Statutes at Large, says "X, y, and z." The wording in Title 12 might be exactly the same as the wording in parts of the Federal Reserve Act, but that doesn't make the code the law, which is still the Federal Reserve Act, even with exactly the same wording. Titles enacted into positive law are the law; you need not reference the Statutes at Large at all because the text of the title itself is literally the law. There is no disputing what the text says because congress literally enacted it into law.

So if this were to come up as a practical matter, let's say I cite 12 USC 411 with the redemption provision removed. You would argue to the court that 12 USC 411 is only prima facie evidence of what the law is and cite the Federal Reserve Act in the Statutes at Large, where the redemption provision was actually enacted into law. Since neither of us is arguing that 12 USC 411 says anything different than the Federal Reserve Act, it makes no sense for us to be having this positive versus non-positive law discussion.

Ya ambiguous at the federal level except for bills of credit you really need to learn to read.

Constitution is law, it says what Money is, what it says Money is, is Law and lawful money...burst into flames now please.

Federal reserve act is prima facie..which is why quoting it verbatim in title 12 is prima facie ...it literally is the authority of fed notes...you keep saying it says they are lawful money....this title ...specifically section 411 "issuing authority" is where that has to be and its not.there ..which would still be prima facie....but its not so that's why it is still here in discussion....because you keep imagining things that are not there...and repeating it over and over with no backing at all except in philosophy.

Btw another fyi the interest on the public debt and duties on imports reference the legal tender currency status of us notes not lawful money attribute soooo go read some more.

 

[tokeprep]

You forget the constitution cannot grant rights only protect them and specify some as basic.....the 9th settles that.

I'd say it directly contradicts your point: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The Ninth Amendment actually refers to rights being enumerated in the constitution. Enumerate: "to mention separately or in order; name one by one; list." The constitution certainly can and does grant rights, and the Ninth Amendment merely says that fact should not be used to deny or disparage that other rights--some not specifically enumerated--are retained by the people.

It also protects powers in the 10th....not grants them.....powers and rights are only granted to federal government......not the states and people. All power and rights not mentioned are reserved for higher sovereign governments which would be the states and the people.

Well, here it is: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Again, the text doesn't purport to say that the constitution doesn't grant rights, it merely reserves other powers.

Btw specifically not addressing your madness point by point is boredom not implied consent of agreement with little gems like the Constitution is "statutory law" to any end is just ignorance of american jurisprudence and severely limits my capacity to consider any thing you say as even approaching serious or factual.

Why is the constitution unlike statutory law? Do explain.

 

[tokeprep]

Interest and duties are covered in money and finance for accounting of government we are talking about gubmit not your cpa buisness accounting .....I doubt lawful reserves comes up much in accounting as accountant for taco bell nice one.

Show us that's the case then. Thanks. You won't succeed because you're misconstruing what the words mean.

Btw 31usc5115 literally does say us notes are lawful money...denial is not just a river in egypt buddy.....and may not be used for interest on the public debt.......then title 12 grants fed lawful money reserves to float bank notes which are obligations of the us.....so who do you think the national debt is lawfully owed to then?

I just looked, and no, it doesn't say that. It does say United States Notes can't be used as a reserve, but that's it.

The national debt is owed by the federal government.

 

[tokeprep]

Ya ambiguous at the federal level except for bills of credit you really need to learn to read.

Yeah, you should probably use those reading skillz and actually pick the constitution up: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility." The constitution says that no state shall emit bills of credit. The end. It says nothing about the federal government.

Constitution is law, it says what Money is, what it says Money is, is Law and lawful money...burst into flames now please.

Then show me where. You cannot because the constitution does not say what money is. If it did, you could easily quote it and make me look like a fool. You cannot because you are blatantly wrong.

Federal reserve act is prima facie..which is why quoting it verbatim in title 12 is prima facie ...it literally is the authority of fed notes...you keep saying it says they are lawful money....this title ...specifically section 411 "issuing authority" is where that has to be and its not.there ..which would still be prima facie....but its not so that's why it is still here in discussion....because you keep imagining things that are not there...and repeating it over and over with no backing at all except in philosophy.

The Federal Reserve Act is not prima facie anything, it's the law. Period. The statute is prima facie evidence of what the Federal Reserve Act says; the Federal Reserve Act is literally the authority of Federal Reserve Notes.

But I never said the statute said Federal Reserve Notes were lawful money. Not once. The courts have concluded that Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money, and that's my basis. Having discussed it so much, you are certainly aware of that fact. I'm the one saying that "lawful money" has no definition and that statutes must be read together with court cases to determine the law.

Btw another fyi the interest on the public debt and duties on imports reference the legal tender currency status of us notes not lawful money attribute soooo go read some more.

Again, perhaps you should spend more time with that reading, because you're dead wrong again: "...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." 12 St. 345, 532, 709. The interest and duties clause applies to both.

 

[twostrokenut]

Show us that's the case then. Thanks. You won't succeed because you're misconstruing what the words mean.



I just looked, and no, it doesn't say that. It does say United States Notes can't be used as a reserve, but that's it.

The national debt is owed by the federal government.

Interest is interest the public debt is the public debt and duties are in the Constitution. Why cant US notes be used as interest on the public debt? Cause they aren't borrowed from anyone else.

Us notes lawful money status evidenced in Juiliard and 37th congress simplified to may not be issued for reserves in the code been there done that iirc you failed then too.

Owed to what entity...to whom. Thanks.

 

[twostrokenut]

I'd say it directly contradicts your point: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The Ninth Amendment actually refers to rights being enumerated in the constitution. Enumerate: "to mention separately or in order; name one by one; list." The constitution certainly can and does grant rights, and the Ninth Amendment merely says that fact should not be used to deny or disparage that other rights--some not specifically enumerated--are retained by the people.



Well, here it is: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Again, the text doesn't purport to say that the constitution doesn't grant rights, it merely reserves other powers.



Why is the constitution unlike statutory law? Do explain.

Why is it unlike statutory law? Why not save that question for your shrink?

 

[tokeprep]

Interest is interest the public debt is the public debt and duties are in the Constitution. Why cant US notes be used as interest on the public debt? Cause they aren't borrowed from anyone else.

Except that's not the answer. United States Notes cannot be used in that way because the statute authorizing them said so. It's not because "they aren't borrowed from anyone else."

Us notes lawful money status evidenced in Juiliard and 37th congress simplified to may not be issued for reserves in the code been there done that iirc you failed then too.

No disagreement that United States Notes are lawful money in the case, because the case merely quotes the statute, which says so. But as you point out, Title 31 is positive law. It is is literally the law. So you don't see the omission as the least bit problematic? If Title 31 is positive law, isn't what you're saying not the law?

Owed to what entity...to whom. Thanks.

Whoever owns the treasury debt the federal government issued.

 

[tokeprep]

Why is it unlike statutory law? Why not save that question for your shrink?

I take it you have no substantive answer then.

 

[twostrokenut]

Yeah, you should probably use those reading skillz and actually pick the constitution up: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility." The constitution says that no state shall emit bills of credit. The end. It says nothing about the federal government.


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

congress literally borrows the bonds and other Treasuries and Securities it gives the Fed for consideration of the loan from the Fed. congress borrows these "on the credit of the United States".....Then what they get in exchange from the Fed has the "benefit" of getting expanded to infinity and the "benefit" of being legal tender.




Then show me where. You cannot because the constitution does not say what money is. If it did, you could easily quote it and make me look like a fool. You cannot because you are blatantly wrong.

Its right there in your first quote.

The Federal Reserve Act is not prima facie anything, it's the law. Period. The statute is prima facie evidence of what the Federal Reserve Act says; the Federal Reserve Act is literally the authority of Federal Reserve Notes.

Na its non positive evidence of law up for rebuttal. Thanks for repeating me about the authority of Fed Notes really helps your cause and makes you look smart.

But I never said the statute said Federal Reserve Notes were lawful money. Not once. The courts have concluded that Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money, and that's my basis. Having discussed it so much, you are certainly aware of that fact. I'm the one saying that "lawful money" has no definition and that statutes must be read together with court cases to determine the law.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=012/llsl012.db&recNum=376
US notes are lawful money and can't bear interest. Was that not taught in your Lincoln worshiping class?
What court case has nullified parts of the Fed Act or added provisions to currency authorized in it?? None. That's not what you said either you said Statutes were not Law and court cases are Law....you also said The Fed act is law and you pretend it is positive law but it's not. You have no legal basis to state the claim FRN's are lawful money other than your own delusions.

Again, perhaps you should spend more time with that reading, because you're dead wrong again: "...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." 12 St. 345, 532, 709. The interest and duties clause applies to both.

Payment of debts public and private is what legal tender is for......this particular legal tender may not be used for interest on the public debt because it is also lawful money that can bear no interest cause that is what was needed to fund the Civil War and courts and Law agreed that the Government has a right to issue it's own interest free fiat currency. Legal tender makes this lawful money currency.

This particular currency note can not be used for duties on imports because those must be paid in currency issued by the importing nation........and these notes are issued by the US....why should we pay for import taxes? Why should we pay interest on the debt?

If savings bonds were legal tender they would be currency also so whew glad that madness is over.

Guess what is national US legal tender, not lawful money, a private bank note and can be used for import duties and interest on the public debt negotiable and be used for the World Reserve currency not just one of our National Currencies?

Wait let me derive a derivative on your success rate in answering the question real quick aaaaand go.

 

[twostrokenut]

I take it you have no substantive answer then.

Nope remember I specifically reserved silence is not evidence of acknowledgment of anything you say or approval of it....just boredom...you can metaphorically speak of the constitution as a statute or state it as a simile like you did I just don't care to go down that road of fail. My silence is not ratification of your unfounded viewpoints.

 

[tokeprep]

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

congress literally borrows the bonds and other Treasuries and Securities it gives the Fed for consideration of the loan from the Fed. congress borrows these "on the credit of the United States".....Then what they get in exchange from the Fed has the "benefit" of getting expanded to infinity and the "benefit" of being legal tender.

Nothing to do with a constitutional definition of money.

Its right there in your first quote.

My quote? My quote said no state, it said nothing about congress.

Na its non positive evidence of law up for rebuttal. Thanks for repeating me about the authority of Fed Notes really helps your cause and makes you look smart.

The statute is positive evidence up for rebuttal. The Federal Reserve Act is not.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=012/llsl012.db&recNum=376
US notes are lawful money and can't bear interest. Was that not taught in your Lincoln worshiping class?
What court case has nullified parts of the Fed Act or added provisions to currency authorized in it?? None. That's not what you said either you said Statutes were not Law and court cases are Law....you also said The Fed act is law and you pretend it is positive law but it's not. You have no legal basis to state the claim FRN's are lawful money other than your own delusions.

Thanks. That's about United States Notes. Federal Reserve Notes are not United States Notes.

I never said any court nullified or added anything. And I have consistently said throughout this thread that statutes and court cases must be read together to understand what the law is; you were the one telling us that the code was the comprehensive, constantly updated source of the law that integrated all court decisions. Alas, that was absolute bullshit and you had to abandon it, but don't turn that on me and tell me it was my claim. It was yours.

Finally, the Federal Reserve Act is law. You seem to be confused again. The codification in the United States code at 12 USC 411 is only evidence of what the Federal Reserve Act says because it is not actually the text congress enacted into law; but congress did enact the Federal Reserve Act, so the act itself is law.

I have half a dozen court cases that say Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money. Your delusions are what prevent you from admitting it.

Payment of debts public and private is what legal tender is for......this particular legal tender may not be used for interest on the public debt because it is also lawful money that can bear no interest cause that is what was needed to fund the Civil War and courts and Law agreed that the Government has a right to issue it's own interest free fiat currency. Legal tender makes this lawful money currency.

Why did you just say any of that? The statute says they are lawful money and legal tender. It says they are not lawful money and legal tender for those purposes. Period. You cannot read in beyond what the text specifies. All we know from the text is that United States Notes are lawful money and legal tender, except for those purposes; we have no idea what lawful money or legal tender means, because there's no explanation.

This particular currency note can not be used for duties on imports because those must be paid in currency issued by the importing nation........and these notes are issued by the US....why should we pay for import taxes? Why should we pay interest on the debt?

If savings bonds were legal tender they would be currency also so whew glad that madness is over.

Guess what is national US legal tender, not lawful money, a private bank note and can be used for import duties and interest on the public debt negotiable and be used for the World Reserve currency not just one of our National Currencies?

Wait let me derive a derivative on your success rate in answering the question real quick aaaaand go.

You don't seem to comprehend that you're mired in a logical fallacy. This is basically your argument: "United States Notes are lawful money and thus lawful money must mean x, y, and z attributes of United States Notes." But that's a total bastardization of the statute, because it doesn't purport to define lawful money. It merely says they are lawful money, except for those purposes. Period. It's a fact, not an explanation of what lawful money is supposed to mean.

Congress authorized Federal Reserve Notes with no such limitations; it declared them legal tender, just as it declared United States Notes legal tender, and specified that Federal Reserve Notes were redeemable in lawful money. The federal government ceased currency redemption of any kind, which rendered any redemption provision in the law substantively meaningless, along with any legal distinction between lawful money and legal tender, for the purposes of that statute. The courts have taken my view, not yours. They have said there is no distinction between legal tender and lawful money, and they have said that Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money. There is no debate.

You only get to a debate by dismissing a case that says "Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money" with "Oh, surely they received coins, which are lawful money, and thus everything in the transaction was lawful money, so Federal Reserve Notes actually weren't." Ok, ok, not literal words, but that is exactly the argument you made. It was so fantastically absurd that it exposed your blind, absolute dedication to this fanciful tax protestor bullshit.