I actually did find a statutory definition of "apple." The fact that the law is too complex for the average guy to understand is irrelevant.
Proceedings are either civil or criminal, correct. On the second point, again, I think you're casting the United States as a civil law system and ignoring that we have a common law system. Yes, if the source of a crime is the statute, you are bound to the text of the statute and its definitions. But the statute is only one piece of the law. Because court decisions are precedential, you also have to look to court decisions, because they can substantively alter statutes without changing the text.
To be clear, the Board of Governors is a federal agency; the reserve banks are corporations. But another logical fallacy regardless. The fact that the reserve banks and Harpo are both corporations does not mean that they are comparable entities. Corporations are efficient organizational structures, so you shouldn't be surprised that a bank would be organized as a corporation. The reserve banks are specially empowered by federal statutes to do things other corporations cannot; and unlike corporations, they earn no profits, ownership of shares bestows no control, and the shares of stock are impossible to transfer.
Except we don't practically have two currencies. The treasury can issue $61 million in United States Notes forever; the government will spend $3.8 trillion in Federal Reserve Notes this year. Almost all United States currency is Federal Reserve Notes, save some tiny, insignificant fraction. This redemption stuff has been around for 30 years; if it were true, surely all the United States Notes would have been claimed.
How to answer with the same tact......the fact the "law" is too complex for the average guy to understand is irrelevant, is irrelevant.
No we don't practically have two note currencies which is the problem.....we literally have two note currencies and we literally have the right to choose whichever one but we have no practical access to the other choice.....not technically a monopoly but practically the monopoly is very real.
"I didn't understand, the law was too complex!" isn't a defense when the government charges you with a crime.
The fact that statutes are the main source of law doesn't mean we have a civil law system. We have a common law system because the courts are empowered to interpret the statutes, issuing decisions that are binding on all future parties. This is why we don't have civil law system at all.
Essentially, yes, I agree with all of that.
You seem to be confusing the idea of "jurisdiction" with sources of law. Jurisdiction is just the right to hear a case. The federal courts have the right to hear cases when the constitution or a federal statute says they do; otherwise, some other court has the right to hear cases. The Judiciary Act merely says that federal courts have the right to hear admiralty cases, except that you can seek common law admiralty remedies in state courts where they're available.
Correct. Bernanke was appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate to serve as the head of a federal agency, the Board of Governors, which is why he must make periodic reports to the congress. The Board of Governors is not a corporation.
What you linked says nothing about a "contract into equity" or "maritime law."
The lack of practical access is why I said we don't practically have two currencies. There's $15 trillion in economic activity in this country each year and only $61 million in United States Notes that haven't been issued; no new ones have been issued in more than 40 years. The other $239 million of those notes isn't circulating as currency in the economy, it's held by collectors. Practically, it is impossible to access and use United States Notes in everyday economic activity.
I never said the $300 million limit couldn't be raised. To raise it, all congress would have to do is pass a statute that says "'$x' is substituted for "$300,000,000" in subparagraph 1 of paragraph b of section 5115 of title 31 of the United States Code." Upon the president's signature, the limit on United States Notes would be whatever $x is.
If you shit gold would you be in need of a job to pay your bills?
And "bought" it all at what $30 per oz? Even all the way up to the end of Bretton Woods?
I don't think people understand that the Banks are the biggest holders of gold of them all. They think gold bugs hold a bunch for some reason. Gold bugs hold less than 1% of what the banks have.
Some control? They retain full control of US Notes and full control of Fed Notes and the Fed's charter........Congress merely acts like the Fed Controls things and knows best because it serves Congress to act ignorant.......this arrangement merely allows Congress to spend more than it takes in for taxes ultimately taxing you without your knowledge in the form of inflation.....that is not a Constitutional tax buddy.
For sure even the 1928 FRN was only 40% backed by gold iirc so that literally means it took $4 worth of gold to back a $10 bill.....and you never have to worry about the bill clearing the bank LOL.
This currency redemption scheme (the tax protestor arguments, not the statute) has been in existence for more than 30 years. If you don't think $61 million worth of United States Notes would have been redeemed in that time, I don't know what to tell you. The average person makes about $30,000 a year; if 2,000 average people had redeemed all of their currency in a single year, they would have exhausted the supply of United States Notes that the treasury can issue.
Irrelevant. The limit is the limit until the limit is raised.
See, I'd say congress is happy to have one less thing to worry about, because they don't know shit about monetary policy. Nothing. Their staff is going to do whatever it is you would like for the congressperson to do anyway, but the congressperson really just doesn't care. They have 100 other pressing issues on their plate, most of them far more important to re-election than monetary policy.
There is no contract. You cannot identify any contract. When congress delegated its monetary powers to the Fed in the Federal Reserve Act, congress did not "make a contract," it delegated its powers by legislation enacted by congress and signed by the president. The Fed is not in any contract; it exercises the powers congress gave it until congress sees fits to remove those powers by repealing or amending the legislation.
It's true that the Board of Governors is not funded by a congressional appropriation; they pay their expenses before returning profits to the treasury. So yes, the Board of Governors is paid out of funds generated by the Fed. But we know how much they make; we know exactly how the Fed spends its money. So unless there's something damning about that, I don't see how you have a case. We know exactly how much money Ben Bernanke makes every year; there is no sweetheart reserve bank stock option deal because there's no such thing.