It always has been. I have repeated the argument over and over and over again in this thread and otherwise in this forum.
If only they weren't lawful money!
Impossible! The deficit is falling as well as unemployment Obama wrecking economy
- Thread starter ChesusRice
- Start date
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Dude look you have not one shred of evidence to support your Fed Notes are lawful money theory except court cased that acknowledge what I say. I would be more than happy to discuss them line by line in a controlled stable manner. No more long post crybaby shit by you or I.
Juiliard upheld congress' right to establish fiat currency indeed Greenbacks were fiat and only argued to be lawful money. They fractionally issued them something to the tune of 15 million which were to be "drawn in" really fast....iirc from 37th congress. Two US notes were established there. Juiliard follows up the statement you think gives power to the Fed then restricts it to 12usc411......not gives it power not privy to 12usc411.
Fed notes are not fiat but US notes are? You say Fed Notes were not established as fiat currency because they were redeemable.....US notes were redeemable too so you fail to make any sense...especially since they remain as originally established since the Fed Act has only been amended to remove redemption in specie and not amended to remove redemption in lawful money. It's just too conflicted a view to address really sorry.
You claim to have read everything involved and you have merely skimmed over and continue to assert personal opinion as law. Honestly how do you feel about Marxism?
12usc411 gives rise to the idea of redemption? How silly why don't you and your work buddies simply edit it out then? This still would not make you right but would help your cause a little.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Looked it over about as well as your:
Good enough for government work I rekon. You think you visited the forum yourself? You would not say that if you did, you would know. He is still at it in 2013 going strong for years and years.
Your conclusion is definitive proof you don't read shit then claim authority on anything against your viewpoint.
You know a lot of those people are not protesting taxes simply trying to do their part in reducing the debt.
I am not arguing tax code with you simply explaining why Fed Notes are debt instruments and carry interest as per our original disagreement.
Maybe go back and read what has become of the $5k penalties too.
In an unrelated aside, since you insist on your red herring tax protester speak what has become of Joe Bannister?
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
pffft I know you are but what am I?
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Now we get to the meat of the matter. Redemption is all about flying the civil flag and providing common law remedy as provided for in the First Judiciary Act. All the court decisions upheld congressional definitions. Even upheld commercial contracting off of lawful money according to Congressional stipulation.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
The fact it is from Princeton does not further the argument the fact Money is Money does. I literally failed to cite the correct version as you pointed out.
It furthers my sentiment that all mention of Money is obviously lawful. So borrow Money means to write bonds on the future then, so be it. Even worse. Now tell me fiat Greenbacks were completely gold backed and held their value well as opposed to being borrowed Money.
Hamilton's definition is not law but is the definition used in law and legalities of the US and a partridge in a pear tree ee ee.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Prove it. Cite the case again it will be dismantled. Again.
I gave you a whole slew of cases that make my case, and they certainly don't acknowledge what you say. I would be more than happy to focus on those.
I don't understand what you're trying to say about 12 USC 411. When congress enacted 12 USC 411, it was within its constitutional authority under Juilliard. The courts have held that the authorization to issue Federal Reserve Notes was a delegation of congress authority to issue a paper currency and make it lawful money. That's that.
United States Notes weren't redeemable in the statute you posted here and when considered in Juilliard, no? Congress only made them redeemable later, by amending the statute, first in gold and then in silver, if I'm recalling correctly.
Again, you have to follow the history. In 1913, when the Federal Reserve Act was passed, there was redemption for gold. When congress edited 12 USC 411 in 1934 to strike out redemption in gold and retained the provision for redemption in lawful money, the government still redeemed in silver. The provision was still operative. Only when the link to silver was completely severed did the provision cease to be meaningful, because there was nothing available to redeem Federal Reserve Notes with.
Obviously I don't skim over anything. I reply in detail to everything you say, typically criticizing your sources more than you did. Indeed, I quote them back at you with different emphasis all the time, so this claim that I'm not reading makes no sense.
I despise Marxism.
The provision for redemption in 12 USC 411 cannot just be edited out. To strike that part of the law, both houses of congress would need to pass a bill and the president would have to sign it. Since there's no question about the meaning of 12 USC 411 and it has absolutely no effect on the functioning of the government, why would any of those busy people have reason to care? They don't. That's why the section has never been amended.
This just proves your faulty reading comprehension. Evidently you think that sentence says 10 words are being substituted for 2, since you've now repeated it twice. In reality, it says 2 words are being substituted for 10: "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." Thus the statute says "in circulation," reflecting the substitution.
If you can't even get that right, why do you trust yourself to understand the rest?
No, it was in May, I believe. His forum was not particularly active. Do you have the link? We can back it up right now.
Yeah, and there's zero evidence they reduced the debt at all. The whole thing is farcical because the treasury couldn't possibly remove a United States Notes from circulation at a whim--they're issued and outstanding, in the hands of collectors. The treasury would have nothing to remove from circulation if someone presented a redemption request.
You never demonstrated that they carry interest. None of this is about the notes carrying interest, it's all about the magical redemption provision that results in magic Federal Reserve Notes that don't increase the national debt.
You tell me. Did they conclude he was just a total crackpot, take pity on him, and decide that he didn't really mean to commit a crime? Because they certainly didn't uphold any of his claims about the income tax.
Common law remedy as provided for the in the First Judiciary Act: please tell me where I can find this supposed remedy in the act.
Court decisions upheld congressional definitions: definitions of what in what court decisions?
Upheld commercial contracting off of lawful money according to congressional stipulation: and what case is that that did that?
heckler73
Well-Known Member
Reiteration/Replication is still not contraction. Entropy remains the winner.
Now tell me, do the statutes say "Money" or "money"? If this distinction that you claim exists actually exists, shouldn't the statutes recognize it by only referring to money in your context as "Money"? That is the argument you're making, correct?
"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."
According to the very source of your claim, there is no distinction between the things--they say "money of account" has no legally distinct meaning from "money." The purpose of this note is to explain that there is no difference in order to justify their deletion of the extra words. The fact that you don't understand this is baffling.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
Is the answer "angry French Underwear model"?
Oh ho ho! Oui Oui! Je suis une saloppe!!
Here's 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."
Defendant's Argument.
Court's Decision.
Notice that the defendant's argument says nothing about redemption, demand, specie, or anything else--it is that Federal Reserve Notes are not lawful money. The court says this argument is without merit. The end.
Here's the whole list of cases, excluding Milam (primarily so that I don't have to dig for it again like I just did):
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). Taxpayers' attempt to devalue the Federal Reserve notes they received as income is, therefore, not lawful under the laws of the United States."
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."
US v. Wangrud: “For the tax years in question the defendant received checks...He now argues that he did not receive money, since the checks could be cashed only for federal reserve notes and that these are not redeemable in specie. We publish this opinion solely to make it clear that this argument has absolutely no merit. We affirm this conviction. By statute it is established that federal reserve notes, on an equal basis with other coins and currencies of the United States, shall be legal tender for all debts, public and private, including taxes. 31 U.S.C. s 392 (Supp.1976). This statute is well within the constitutional authority of Congress. U.S.Const. art. I, s 8...We have considered appellant's other argument and we find it to be without merit.”
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
..................
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Your mom can shot-put? That is special.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
Not only "special", but SUBSIDIZED by your tax dollars.
By the way, who is that character on your avatar? I recognize him but can't remember who it is
They did uphold redemption, I've totally agreed with that all along. Alas, the redemption that they upheld was Federal Reserve Notes for Federal Reserve Notes and nothing more. If they meant otherwise they would have said so; your argument to the contrary is based on "lawful money" being in quotation marks. Patently absurd.
Yet more evidence that you don't even read the stuff you accuse me of not reading. The language you're quoting makes United States Notes convertible into United States bonds. Are you telling me government debt securities are lawful money? Because I thought that your argument was Federal Reserve Notes are debt securities, which means they can't be lawful money...
The provision for gold redemption was struck from 12 USC 411 in 1934. I don't think there was an actual provision for silver redemption, but at that time, there were other forms of lawful money in existence (including silver certificates), so the redemption provision still had effect. When the these other forms of lawful money ceased to be issued and were removed from circulation, and when the government stopped redeeming silver certificates in silver, all United States currency became fiat currency. The lawful money redemption provision that had been meaningful was no longer meaningful because there was nothing but fiat currency left to redeem Federal Reserve Notes with.
You think this is Marxism? Are you smoking weed or crack?
Uh, no, it cannot be edited out because it's the law as enacted by congress until congress says otherwise. It has nothing to do with natural common law, it's just what the constitution requires. But the constitution also empowers the courts to interpret the law, which is why courts can say that some provision of the law is effectively meaningless.
If you want to know what the law is, you start with the statute, which is what congress has said, and then you look at the court cases, which are what the courts have said. You must look at both.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
You've completely lost me. The Big Bang is presumed to be the "emergence" of the entire spacetime continuum from (...) to, well, here. Its recontraction has not been established but is a popular hypothesis and not theory. I'm trying to see how that relates to the perception of having rights, or to the universe having a "purpose". Purpose is necessarily more than naked timeline. cn
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
................