UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
the deep insight of the right.
Impossible! The deficit is falling as well as unemployment Obama wrecking economy
- Thread starter ChesusRice
- Start date
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
when your right your right
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
.......................
Its fucking lawfully required breadcrumbs chief. If they can just spell it out for you against the menagerie of law there would only be one law.
Do wtf I told you because I tell you!!!
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Hey tokeprep guess what I found at the bottom of 31usc5103???
Would that be a reference to a court case at the bottom of some USCode?????
I am going to answer your court cases don't worry that's all that's really left to do.
Would that be a reference to a court case at the bottom of some USCode?????
I am going to answer your court cases don't worry that's all that's really left to do.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Ever considered to just slow down, stop and ponder:
Fed Notes are Commercial Paper
You merely declare them Money because you don't read the "except for" subsections of what you quoted....then base all you whining on this, your misunderstanding.
UCC is the Uniform Commercial Code
UCC has provisions for local gov laws that precede UCC for what is money and legal tender.
UCC says money is non-negotiable because they mean Money, which is already defined here for hundreds of years as courts have upheld this definition and provided for the redemption of the Commercial Paper.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Sweet Tea!!!
Berber Carpet!!!
31usc5115 said:
Care to discuss the Resumption Act of 1875?? See how old statutes work as law yet?
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
BTW I hope you caught this section:
"In subsection (b), before clause (1), the words “in circulation” are substituted for “to be used as a part of the circulation medium” to eliminate unnecessary words."
So care to discuss how that would "eliminate unnecessary words"? Because it is actually a longer substitution.
"In subsection (b), before clause (1), the words “in circulation” are substituted for “to be used as a part of the circulation medium” to eliminate unnecessary words."
So care to discuss how that would "eliminate unnecessary words"? Because it is actually a longer substitution.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Assertion with no backing.
USnotes sell at high prices to collectors and the notes ready for issue have not been adjusted since the 1800s.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Dissenting opinion. That would be suggesting that life has identity, intent, purpose. cn
No, I read your link, and it definitely doesn't say that. If it says that, why don't you quote it?
The 37th congress could not possibly have said that Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money because they didn't exist, so you're not going to find an answer to this question. Of course, I read your link entirely, and obviously it doesn't answer the question.
The very text you posted says that there is no legal distinction between money and "money of account." Some of the court cases I posted mention this as well and affirm exactly what I'm saying, but you haven't dealt with those yet.
31 USC 5115 has nothing to do with commercial law.
Yeah, only one problem: the statute and the courts have said absolutely nothing about that.
What statute says that lawful money must be used to facilitate "bonding fed notes to float them"? How could this possibly true with only $300 MILLION in United States Notes outstanding and more than $1 TRILLION in currency outstanding...?
If you mean redemption, yeah. The Fed exchanges money, quite literally. Totally agree. Federal Reserve Notes for Federal Reserve Notes.
If other people are doing it, how has not a single note been issued for more than 40 years?
I totally agree that Milam's redemption was documented and upheld. But it was a redemption for Federal Reserve Notes and nothing more, which is what makes it "effectively irrelevant." The other court cases I've cited entirely agree.
Commercial definitions are only applicable when they're applicable. That's what you don't seem to understand. When a source of law saws that it is expressly not applicable, that's that.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
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.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!):
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.
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."
"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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Oooops!! You are correct for once!!! Rejoice! A quick search reveals it at 31usc5101 "decimal system" NOT 31usc5103 "legal tender" source:look in the notes from Cornell http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5101
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...
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.
.......................
I declare them money based on the definition in the Uniform Commercial Code, which is totally independent of our discussion of the statute because it isn't based on it at all. The UCC says nothing about lawful money.
You don't know how to read the UCC then. When the UCC defines a word, that is the definition of the word in the code. Period. This stuff about already being defined for hundreds of years has nothing to do with the UCC definition.
Because Federal Reserve Notes are "money" under the UCC definition--now matter what you think about about the lawful money dicussion--Article 3 is expressly inapplicable to them.
I realize you read that literally to mean that the text of the code is never changed, but I meant by court cases, as should be obvious from my focus on the 20 court cases that wouldn't change the text and having to look at the 20 court cases to figure out what the text means.
Your claim was that the code is updated to reflect court cases. It is not. Notice that none of the changes you just highlighted has anything to do with a court case, which is exactly what I said in the first place.
Do you not understand that the changes you just displayed aren't substantive ones at all? Do you still not understand what it means to "update" the code even when it's sitting right there in your own post?
How is it a longer substitution? 2 words versus 10 words...?
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
I bet you like a longer "substitution" from a man, right down your throat.
Riddle me this, tokenfag...
If PM's are such a bad investment...why have central banks around the world been trading their funny money for metals like there's no tomorrow?
The Fed FLEW up the rankings for gold ownership in the last few years...explain please.
There court says absolutely nothing about money of account. And what restrictive endorsement is this that you're talking about? You can restrictively endorse a check you give to a bank and get lawful money...?
[quote]No nice try the quote "at issue" here was 'money' in this one then court correctly uses Congressional definition of lawful money "
- as the Federal Reserve Notes he received were not lawful money."
Totally frivolous.
In short "
- Such an argument has been summarily found to be without merit"
- "he received were not lawful money"
The court doesn't correctly use any definition, they state the defendant's argument, which is that Federal Reserve Notes are not lawful money. They saw that argument--that Federal Reserve Notes are not lawful money--has been found to be without merit.
This would mean that Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money. Period. All your nonsense about demand has nothing to do with it.
Again, to make this absolutely clear: "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."
Defendant's Argument: He didn't receive 'money' because Federal Reserve Notes are not lawful money.
The Court's Answer: Your argument is total bullshit.
The defendant said nothing about specie, redemption, demand--he argued that Federal Reserve Notes are not lawful money, which is exactly the same thing you're arguing. Why does it matter what you have to do to get lawful money? How does that change the fact that Federal Reserve Notes are not lawful money? It doesn't. He doesn't make any specific argument about specie OR demand, he merely argues that the notes are not lawful money.
If you the courts were actually adopting the tack you claim, this is how the opinions would read: "Defendant argues that he did not receive lawful money because he received Federal Reserve Notes. While Federal Reserve Notes are not lawful money, defendant was entitled to make his demand under 12 USC 411 and failed to do so. Accordingly, defendant's argument is without merit and his specific request is denied."
What says the Fed flew up in the rankings for gold ownership in the last few years?
If you want to spend your note in commerce, you're going to get $1 for $1 today. Since $1 buys substantially less than it did in the 1800s, it has not held its value at all. The price to be fetched from collectors has nothing to do with it; the notes are only valuable collectors items because they haven't been issued for a long time and will presumably never be issued again.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Even if the sole purpose is to expand and contract?