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

[twostrokenut]

There's no such thing as "civil criminal" actions. The first case in that instance was a criminal case seeking criminal penalty for murder, required to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt; the second case was a civil case seeking financial redress for wrongful death, with a much lower burden of proof. The actions were totally separate.

Obviously some crimes can create both criminal and civil liability, such as murder (murder plus wrongful death). If you burned a house down, you would be criminally liable for arson and civilly liable for the property you destroyed. Whether the state wins or loses the criminal arson case, the owner of the house is entitled to sue you in civil court for the value of the house. Of course, the state need not bring an arson case for the owner to bring a civil case; and just because the state brings an arson case it doesn't mean the owner has to bring a civil case.

Totally separate, new trials and everything.

Yep first case was murder which is common law and wrongful death was a civil suit..........neither awards judgement for the government.

 

[twostrokenut]

OK so I am trying to put everything more basic and condense everything.

There seems to be a lot of confusion going on. Lawful Money means constitutional money, which we know US Notes from 37th Congress codified in 31usc5115 have been upheld by courts of competent jurisdiction (Supreme and Federal District even State common law) to be in fiat "bills of credit" form......and also as currency which their legal tender status accomplishes which was challenged Juiliard among others........that's all that happened in Juiliard legal tender status was challenged on Greenbacks......Congress's def's of lawful money and legal tender upheld....Constitutional defs of money and Tender upheld.........still very unclear how anyone thinks this case could be misconstrued to mean Congress or the Fed may invent new currency and declare it legal tender let alone lawful money....Congress declared US Notes legal tender, court upheld Congress, that is that.

So we got Julliard in 1884 challenging US notes as not "legal tender" and this is fresh off the decision of February 25th 1862 of 37th Congress to circulate US notes as legal tender currency so ya obviously it got upheld those notes saved the Union and tons of debt to bankers right?. Then we go to Milam in 1974 now that law and equity is blended since 1938 right?

So we see Milam refusing the Notes redeemed offered by the Fed.........let that sink in good........Milam refused the Tender of Notes The Court allowed The Fed to Tender which satisfied The Statute which is the Law part of law and equity and resides codified in 12usc411 and originated in The Federal Reserve Act by Congress..........Court says Milam's def of "lawful money" is denied because Milam asserts only gold and silver as "lawful money" ignoring the Civil War already solved that issue so court is like whatever don't even mention it common knowledge......

So there's the big cases cited by the Fed asserting Fed notes in quotes "lawful money" what's missing here is something tokeprep should be aware of is that title 12 of the USC is not positive law in the US code. Title 31 is. The US notes in title 31, issued in section 5115 are lawful money in positive law and legal evidence of the law 37th Congress passed.....http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=statRef&target=date:nonech:33statnum:12_345

........title 12 is not positive law and only prima facie evidence of the laws contained in the Statute.....which were passed by Congress as well in 1913 its called The Federal Reserve Act.........http://www.llsdc.org/attachments/files/105/FRA-LH-PL63-43.pdf

So the title 12USC that issues Fed notes is only prima facie evidence of the Fed Act, which is prima facie evidence of what exactly? Both were passed by Congress right so what? Both establish currencies that look very similar except the red ink and Note issuer...........Oh yeah one involves a private bank in the world of commerce, which allows economic manipulation........ by way of consent from the general public that endorsed the system and allow it to continue fine, great, keep endorsing it I like to cash my checks too.........the other involves issuing money to People to run the Economy on as they please and would return Congress to merely your Reps asking your permission to spend money......

We all can agree Congress is out of hand all of them, on the left and right it's just time to realize why they are able to grant favors and ignore you when you have a question or how they are able to give millions to a Delta Smelt and none to gay people that get married.....its all retarded I am completely neutral on the subject but its high time we all know how the system works maybe it wont be all bad like Henry Ford said it would.

We can sit here and argue weather or not The Fed is doing a good job of manipulating the markets through Congress, Treasury and Wall Street maybe even Court (but I refuse to beleive that one) handshakes with their Notes or not that is an entirely different matter than what establishes them the Authority to do so.

That is a whole nother argument to have once you have established Fed Notes are merely currency not lawful money. Then you see why Fed Notes really have to be negotiable and carry interest and all the other special rules that commercial paper has benefits of..........the folly is in the thinking this really benefits you any. Maybe you could argue it did in the New Deal Days possibly but I haven't seen anything on this thread that would justify thinking artificial capital is really helping anything now......especially since the Fed Act doesn't mention you once unless you assume your are a reserve agent cause you are holding their notes......congress is failing at Fiduciary Agents because of Conflicts of Interest lol That is that.

 

[tokeprep]

Right it moves from your boss' bank where it was already a Deposit there and lent upon....then it moves to your bank as a deposit where it can be loaned upon .....and yes both banks will order more notes from the Fed to cover loans or deposits beyond the "necessary reserves" which is 10%....so you think your paycheck is a UCC Article 3 instrument but not what you endorsed it for.....the "elastic" cash......right.

You make it sound like any loans on the original deposit remain intact when the money moves. Once the money is withdrawn, any lending on the money must be withdrawn as well. Then at the new bank it could be lent upon, certainly. I don't see why both banks would need more notes, since amounts are just being transferred from one bank to another.

If we were talking about a negotiable instrument for silver, the fact that the paper is a negotiable instrument doesn't mean that the underlying silver is. The check is a negotiable instrument, but the Federal Reserve Notes you get for the check are not negotiable instruments.

Let's say you get a $500 check each month from your boss so you think the $500 sitting in bossman's account does not get used for lending deposit? No it counts wherever it is because it is checkbook money in the system....NEGOTIABLE checkbook money credits.....the actual physical notes are demand notes from essentially the SAME BANK.....you think when you endorse your $500 negotiable instrument it becomes non negotiable because it is cash now or merely computer deposit? If it became non negotiable on deposit the bank could not loan it out simple as that......I see where you may think the physical Notes may be non-negotiable cause they are in your hand but they are lent on soon as you spend them and the vendor or goods/service provider deposits them.

You have to separate moving money from lending it. When your take $500 from your employer's bank account, they can't lend on that money anymore because it's off their books. The bank you deposited the money into can lend on the funds. The net result of this transaction is exactly the same amount of lending. You're making it sound like the bank that initially had the $500 had $4,500 in loans outstanding on it, and still has that when the money moves, after which the new bank can make $4,500 in loans on the same $500. In reality, the bank has to come up with new cash or ditch those loans, on a daily basis.

 

[tokeprep]

Yep first case was murder which is common law and wrongful death was a civil suit..........neither awards judgement for the government.

Ignorance at work again. Criminal law, including murder, is almost entirely statutory law, not common law. At the federal level, there's no such thing as a common law crime--statutory crimes are the only kind. At the state level, most states have likewise abolished common law crimes in favor of statutory criminal law. The fact that the murder case was brought by the state or that it was a criminal action does not mean it was "common law." In California, murder is statutory law.

Ironically, wrongful death in California started as common law. Many civil claims are based on common law.

 

[tokeprep]

OK so I am trying to put everything more basic and condense everything.

There seems to be a lot of confusion going on. Lawful Money means constitutional money, which we know US Notes from 37th Congress codified in 31usc5115

"Lawful money" has no definition. The text from the 37th congress says that United States Notes are lawful money, it does not purport to define that term; the codification at 31 USC 5115 doesn't purport to define lawful money either.

have been upheld by courts of competent jurisdiction (Supreme and Federal District even State common law) to be in fiat "bills of credit" form......and also as currency which their legal tender status accomplishes which was challenged Juiliard among others........that's all that happened in Juiliard legal tender status was challenged on Greenbacks......Congress's def's of lawful money and legal tender upheld....Constitutional defs of money and Tender upheld.........still very unclear how anyone thinks this case could be misconstrued to mean Congress or the Fed may invent new currency and declare it legal tender let alone lawful money....Congress declared US Notes legal tender, court upheld Congress, that is that.

Juilliard doesn't purport to uphold any definition of "lawful money" or "legal tender." You claim that they upheld congress' "definition," but in reality all the court did was quote it: "The notes of the United States, tendered in payment of the defendant's debt to the plaintiff, were originally issued under the Acts of Congress of February 25, 1862, c. 33; July 11, 1862, c. 142, and March 3, 1863, c. 73, passed during the war of the rebellion, and enacting that these notes should "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 Stat. 345, 532, 709."

Then the line we've seen over and over again: "Congress is authorized to establish a national currency, either in coin or in paper, and to make that currency lawful money for all purposes, as regards the nation government or private individuals." Follow by the conclusion: "It follows that the Act of May 31, 1878, c. 146, is constitutional and valid, and that the circuit court rightly held that the tender in Treasury notes, reissued and kept in circulation under that act, was a tender of lawful money in payment of the defendant's debt to the plaintiff." So basically, because the act of congress says "United States Notes are lawful money" and because congress has the power to issue fiat paper currency that is lawful money, the United States Notes received in this transaction were lawful money. There is no definition; no court claims there is a definition; no court ever claims to uphold some congressional definition.

The courts cite Juilliard when they say congress has delegated its authority to authorize a national currency and to make it lawful money.

So we got Julliard in 1884 challenging US notes as not "legal tender" and this is fresh off the decision of February 25th 1862 of 37th Congress to circulate US notes as legal tender currency so ya obviously it got upheld those notes saved the Union and tons of debt to bankers right?. Then we go to Milam in 1974 now that law and equity is blended since 1938 right?

So we see Milam refusing the Notes redeemed offered by the Fed.........let that sink in good........Milam refused the Tender of Notes The Court allowed The Fed to Tender which satisfied The Statute which is the Law part of law and equity and resides codified in 12usc411 and originated in The Federal Reserve Act by Congress..........Court says Milam's def of "lawful money" is denied because Milam asserts only gold and silver as "lawful money" ignoring the Civil War already solved that issue so court is like whatever don't even mention it common knowledge......

Milam brought a some Federal Reserve Notes to a reserve bank and sought redemption. They offered him Federal Reserve Notes worth an equivalent value in exchange. He argued this was insufficient because lawful money meant specie, and the court said this was frivolous. They said Milam was entitled to redeem his note, but not in specie. The only redemption he was entitled to, under the case, is the Federal Reserve Notes he was offered.

So there's the big cases cited by the Fed asserting Fed notes in quotes "lawful money" what's missing here is something tokeprep should be aware of is that title 12 of the USC is not positive law in the US code. Title 31 is. The US notes in title 31, issued in section 5115 are lawful money in positive law and legal evidence of the law 37th Congress passed.....http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=statRef&target=date:nonech:33statnum:12_345

I am aware of that, but it find it incredibly peculiar that you would try to make this argument. 31 USC 5115 doesn't purport to define "lawful money." If it is the law and there is no definition of lawful money there, how can argue that the 37th congress defined lawful money?

........title 12 is not positive law and only prima facie evidence of the laws contained in the Statute.....which were passed by Congress as well in 1913 its called The Federal Reserve Act.........http://www.llsdc.org/attachments/files/105/FRA-LH-PL63-43.pdf

Since you aren't claiming that the Federal Reserve Act says things that are different from the codification in the code, I don't see why it matters.

So the title 12USC that issues Fed notes is only prima facie evidence of the Fed Act, which is prima facie evidence of what exactly? Both were passed by Congress right so what? Both establish currencies that look very similar except the red ink and Note issuer...........Oh yeah one involves a private bank in the world of commerce, which allows economic manipulation........ by way of consent from the general public that endorsed the system and allow it to continue fine, great, keep endorsing it I like to cash my checks too.........the other involves issuing money to People to run the Economy on as they please and would return Congress to merely your Reps asking your permission to spend money......

12 USC 411 is prima facie evidence of what the Federal Reserve Act says. Again, what the Federal Reserve Act says isn't in dispute here, so I don't understand why you're bringing it up.

We all can agree Congress is out of hand all of them, on the left and right it's just time to realize why they are able to grant favors and ignore you when you have a question or how they are able to give millions to a Delta Smelt and none to gay people that get married.....its all retarded I am completely neutral on the subject but its high time we all know how the system works maybe it wont be all bad like Henry Ford said it would.

We can sit here and argue weather or not The Fed is doing a good job of manipulating the markets through Congress, Treasury and Wall Street maybe even Court (but I refuse to beleive that one) handshakes with their Notes or not that is an entirely different matter than what establishes them the Authority to do so.

That is a whole nother argument to have once you have established Fed Notes are merely currency not lawful money. Then you see why Fed Notes really have to be negotiable and carry interest and all the other special rules that commercial paper has benefits of..........the folly is in the thinking this really benefits you any. Maybe you could argue it did in the New Deal Days possibly but I haven't seen anything on this thread that would justify thinking artificial capital is really helping anything now......especially since the Fed Act doesn't mention you once unless you assume your are a reserve agent cause you are holding their notes......congress is failing at Fiduciary Agents because of Conflicts of Interest lol That is that.

The debate should be about the merits of the system because the lawful money question is settled. Alas, you incomprehensibly continue to believe otherwise.

 

[twostrokenut]

You make it sound like any loans on the original deposit remain intact when the money moves. Once the money is withdrawn, any lending on the money must be withdrawn as well. Then at the new bank it could be lent upon, certainly. I don't see why both banks would need more notes, since amounts are just being transferred from one bank to another.

The loans will remain intact when the money moves because they are receiving monthly payments that also satisfy reserve requirement.....10% down payment would do it right there.

If we were talking about a negotiable instrument for silver, the fact that the paper is a negotiable instrument doesn't mean that the underlying silver is. The check is a negotiable instrument, but the Federal Reserve Notes you get for the check are not negotiable instruments.

Silver is non-negotiable gee thanks for the insight. We aren't talking about a negotiable instrument for silver obviously Milam taught us that. And no if US notes or savings bonds were tendered for your paycheck then those would be non-negotiable because they can't be fractionally lent upon by banks............like FRN's can cause they are extra special and enjoy a lot more of what you would call "rights" than any non-negotiable instrument does.



You have to separate moving money from lending it. When your take $500 from your employer's bank account, they can't lend on that money anymore because it's off their books. The bank you deposited the money into can lend on the funds. The net result of this transaction is exactly the same amount of lending. You're making it sound like the bank that initially had the $500 had $4,500 in loans outstanding on it, and still has that when the money moves, after which the new bank can make $4,500 in loans on the same $500. In reality, the bank has to come up with new cash or ditch those loans, on a daily basis.

They can loan the $4500 why not? I bought a 4500 car my credit was less than perfect they made me put 500 down and charged 15%interest......that 5 hundie satisfies the "books" on the spot.....even with nothing down and good credit my first two payments or three will be the required reserve my boss puts payroll in his account quarterly so no problemo......maybe my boss deposits weekly cause he lives week to week also but this is about the only way I can think to make your way actually plausible....myth busted next.

 

[twostrokenut]

Ignorance at work again. Criminal law, including murder, is almost entirely statutory law, not common law. At the federal level, there's no such thing as a common law crime--statutory crimes are the only kind. At the state level, most states have likewise abolished common law crimes in favor of statutory criminal law. The fact that the murder case was brought by the state or that it was a criminal action does not mean it was "common law." In California, murder is statutory law.

Ironically, wrongful death in California started as common law. Many civil claims are based on common law.

How ironic you can recognize Civil claims having common law basis but fail to provide the same good grace to the Constitution and its common law anyone can understand right to be your own attorney approach ....really twisted way of looking at it......Please define "statutory law" and point me to laws of criminal statutory judicial proceedings.......I can find the civil ones........I can find the maritime admiralty ones that's easy it's the contract........I can find the commercial ones easy that's the UCC.........I can find the judiciary act that gives common law resolutions to any case common law remedy is applied.....I can find this remedy in. 12usc411 lawful money would take you out of equity unless you knowingly and willingly entered......I see remedy for commercial instruments in ucc "without prejudice" which reserves common law jurisdiction and ucc "restrictive endorsement" provides opprotunity to demand common law remedy as well....... so where's the "statutory" ones got a link there buddy? Thanks.

 

[twostrokenut]

"Lawful money" has no definition. The text from the 37th congress says that United States Notes are lawful money, it does not purport to define that term; the codification at 31 USC 5115 doesn't purport to define lawful money either.

Incorrect The Constitution is the Law now you are the monetary conspiracy theorist......Money is defined in the Constitution and its the origin of all US Law ....31usc5115 only defines US notes as constitutional Lawful Money.............phew glad that's over.

The text from 37th Congress is Law because it's in harmony with the definition of Money....evidenced by Title 31USC being enacted into positive law. Those notes can't be fractionally lent upon or be tendered as payment for the public debt.........Whhew glad that's over.





Juilliard doesn't purport to uphold any definition of "lawful money" or "legal tender." You claim that they upheld congress' "definition," but in reality all the court did was quote it: "The notes of the United States, tendered in payment of the defendant's debt to the plaintiff, were originally issued under the Acts of Congress of February 25, 1862, c. 33; July 11, 1862, c. 142, and March 3, 1863, c. 73, passed during the war of the rebellion, and enacting that these notes should "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 Stat. 345, 532, 709."

Juliard upheld US notes lawful money status and Congress and 31usc5115 in entirety........INCLUDING THE ACCOUNTING of lawful money evidenced by "except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt"...........there you go Case Law of the Accounting.

Then the line we've seen over and over again: "Congress is authorized to establish a national currency, either in coin or in paper, and to make that currency lawful money for all purposes, as regards the nation government or private individuals." Follow by the conclusion: "It follows that the Act of May 31, 1878, c. 146, is constitutional and valid, and that the circuit court rightly held that the tender in Treasury notes, reissued and kept in circulation under that act, was a tender of lawful money in payment of the defendant's debt to the plaintiff." So basically, because the act of congress says "United States Notes are lawful money" and because congress has the power to issue fiat paper currency that is lawful money, the United States Notes received in this transaction were lawful money. There is no definition; no court claims there is a definition; no court ever claims to uphold some congressional definition.

The definition is in the Constitution just cause you deny it doesn't mean a Court especially district court can........Yeah there you go "Congress establish NATIONAL CURRENCY" so what makes it lawful money? It's issued by the NATION not the BANK in contract FOR reserves provided by the NATION need proof? See 12usc411 for Fed Notes then see 31usc5115 for US Notes and report back who issues what hurry now points deducted for lateness.......whew glad that's over.

The courts cite Juilliard when they say congress has delegated its authority to authorize a national currency and to make it lawful money.

Yes we have two currencies go read all about it in the Treasury FAQhttp://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/currency/pages/legal-tender.aspx One of those currencies is lawful money and may serve as lawful reserves to float fed notes along with other forms of lawful money but these notes are bound by statute and may not exceed 300 million so that's no way for Congress to "be your daddy" at all can't even mandate single payer healthcare for that chump change man.........fed notes then serve as fractional reserves for more fed notes which makes them negotiable so ya whew glad that's over.



Milam brought a some Federal Reserve Notes to a reserve bank and sought redemption. They offered him Federal Reserve Notes worth an equivalent value in exchange. He argued this was insufficient because lawful money meant specie, and the court said this was frivolous. They said Milam was entitled to redeem his note, but not in specie. The only redemption he was entitled to, under the case, is the Federal Reserve Notes he was offered.

Milam ask how the offered redemption satisfied the Statute? Nope he refused the offer of non-negotiable notes not knowing or caring what they were or asking for accounting of them.......reckon Milam was a know it all like someone here on this thread who assumes something enjoys lawful money status from its issuance because of this case.

I am aware of that, but it find it incredibly peculiar that you would try to make this argument. 31 USC 5115 doesn't purport to define "lawful money." If it is the law and there is no definition of lawful money there, how can argue that the 37th congress defined lawful money?

I am not making that argument I am saying Money is defined in the constitution and the constitution is the Law..........31usc5115 is positive law absolute evidence that US notes are lawful money. ......civil war and courts settled it .......End of story. Also factual evidence lawful money may not be used to pay interest on the national debt or for dues on imports are import taxes supposed to be collected from other countries?



Since you aren't claiming that the Federal Reserve Act says things that are different from the codification in the code, I don't see why it matters.

Oh you wouldn't at this juncture would you my my isn't that convenient for you having worked coding statutes. The term "lawful money" is used in the Fed Act so this is prima facie evidence of the accounting at the Fed........prima facie evidence Constitutional Money emitted by Congress serves as Reserves.........Prima facie evidence of the actual evidence of "bills of credit" in the Constitution and "lawful money" in positive 31usc5115..........but hey your were already aware whatever.

12 USC 411 is prima facie evidence of what the Federal Reserve Act says. Again, what the Federal Reserve Act says isn't in dispute here, so I don't understand why you're bringing it up.

Federal Reserve Act says "lawful money" in it the way I explain it which contradicts what you explain so ya I wouldn't read it either if I were you just crushes your case which mostly is consisting of you popping your head out of the sand once in a while and asserting "fed notes are lawful money"with not proof whatsoever.

The debate should be about the merits of the system because the lawful money question is settled. Alas, you incomprehensibly continue to believe otherwise.

It's not settled not by a long shot until all we have discussed reaches the Supreme Court much less your crappy arguments and false assertions. You can't debate the merits of the system without knowing it's foundation and all its parts...soon as you are ready to talk about debt instruments that bear interest that ultimately steal wealth from the poor then maybe you could qualify for such a discussion.

 

[twostrokenut]

12usc411 is prima facie evidence of frn legal tender status only....if the fed tenders frns as lawful money the burden is on the fed and court and tokeprep to explain why they are lawful money now when asked because this false assertion has been succesfully rebutted by even the fed acts use of "lawful money"which is never applied to fed notes not once....... and 37th congress and the first judiciary act and title 31 usc which are not prima facie and not up for rebuttal.....better have better evidence than fictional court common law decision paraphrases that have no backing statutes or law or history.

 

[tokeprep]

They can loan the $4500 why not? I bought a 4500 car my credit was less than perfect they made me put 500 down and charged 15%interest......that 5 hundie satisfies the "books" on the spot.....even with nothing down and good credit my first two payments or three will be the required reserve my boss puts payroll in his account quarterly so no problemo......maybe my boss deposits weekly cause he lives week to week also but this is about the only way I can think to make your way actually plausible....myth busted next.

You're making a mistake in thinking of this in terms of individual transactions. In reality, the bank has a huge loan book and a huge deposit base, with money constantly flowing in and out. The bank can only lend on its deposits.

For example, let's say our bank has $10,000 in deposits and $9,000 in loans, with $1,000 in cash. If you remove $2,000 in deposits, the bank is going to have to come up with $1,000 from its loan book, and then it will have to come up with reserves from there, further hitting its loan book. When you take your $2,000 to the other bank, they only need to keep $200 on hand if the reserve requirement is 10% and they can lend the other $1,800 out. So a cash withdrawal at one bank reduces its deposit base, directly reducing its ability to make loans; the new cash deposit increases the second bank's deposit base, increasing its ability to make loans.

The car loan has nothing to do with bank deposits. Your down payment is a payment on the loan, designed to earn a return on the bank's cash, not a bank deposit that serves as the basis for fractional lending. If the bank has to sell $4,500 in car loans to meet its reserve requirement, your down payment on the car loan will be irrelevant.

 

[tokeprep]

How ironic you can recognize Civil claims having common law basis but fail to provide the same good grace to the Constitution and its common law anyone can understand right to be your own attorney approach ....really twisted way of looking at it......

I don't consider it a "good grace" at all. You're praising the common law, but in reality the common law is judicial activism. It is literally judges making up their own rules, without any direction from the people or a legislature, as they please. When someone first sued on wrongful death in California, there was no state statute that said people had the right to recover civilly for causing the wrongful death of another person. The California supreme court--almost literally--said "We think it would be a good policy for people to be able to recover civilly, so yeah, that's going to be the law from now on" and that was that. The people of California? They never agreed to that. The legislature in California? The governor? They had absolutely no say.

With that said, it should be obvious that it makes no sense for you to call the constitution common law. The constitution is an intentioned document setting down absolute law; it is the reasoned construction of dozens of delegates acting on behalf of the people, ratified by the colonies on behalf of the people.

Please define "statutory law" and point me to laws of criminal statutory judicial proceedings.......I can find the civil ones........I can find the maritime admiralty ones that's easy it's the contract........I can find the commercial ones easy that's the UCC.........I can find the judiciary act that gives common law resolutions to any case common law remedy is applied.....I can find this remedy in. 12usc411 lawful money would take you out of equity unless you knowingly and willingly entered......I see remedy for commercial instruments in ucc "without prejudice" which reserves common law jurisdiction and ucc "restrictive endorsement" provides opprotunity to demand common law remedy as well....... so where's the "statutory" ones got a link there buddy? Thanks.

Statutory law is any law enacted as statutes. The California Penal Code is statutory law; the United States Code is statutory law; the Uniform Commercial Code, as enacted by the states, is statutory law. Anything that is based on a statute is statutory law.

Now isn't that funny. The Judiciary Act gives common law resolutions to any case common law remedy applied, and you find this in 12 USC 411? So let me get this straight, you're finding a common law remedy in statutory law? That doesn't make any sense. If it's common law, it's not a statute!

"Take you out of equity"--that just doesn't make any sense, because you can't be taken out of equity.

 

[tokeprep]

Incorrect The Constitution is the Law now you are the monetary conspiracy theorist......Money is defined in the Constitution and its the origin of all US Law ....31usc5115 only defines US notes as constitutional Lawful Money.............phew glad that's over.

The text from 37th Congress is Law because it's in harmony with the definition of Money....evidenced by Title 31USC being enacted into positive law. Those notes can't be fractionally lent upon or be tendered as payment for the public debt.........Whhew glad that's over.

Show me where the constitution defines money then. You haven't ever been able to show me where it does because it doesn't.

You just agreed with me? You said 31 USC 5115 only defines United States Notes as lawful money, which is exactly what I've been saying all along. That's all the statute does--it defines United States Notes as lawful money. They never tell us what "lawful money" means.

As for positive law: 31 USC 5115 is the law. Period. As you so kindly point out, congress has enacted that part of the code as positive law, and it says nothing about lawful money. Indeed, according to the Office of the Law Revision Counsel's page on this: "Statutory text appearing in a positive law title is the text of the statute and is presumably identical to the statutory text appearing in the Statutes at Large. Because a positive law title is enacted as a whole by Congress, and the original enactments are repealed, statutory text appearing in a positive law title has Congress's "authoritative imprimatur" with respect to the wording of the statute. See Washington-Dulles Transp., Ltd. v. Metro. Wash. Airports Auth., 263 F.3d 371, 378 n.2 (4th Cir. Va. 2001); see generally Norman J. Singer & J.D. Shamble Singer, Statutes and Statutory Construction, § 36A.10, (7th ed. 2009). Recourse to other sources such as the Statutes at Large is unnecessary when proving the wording of the statute unless proving an unlikely technical error in the publication process."

Juliard upheld US notes lawful money status and Congress and 31usc5115 in entirety........INCLUDING THE ACCOUNTING of lawful money evidenced by "except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt"...........there you go Case Law of the Accounting.

I agree with you 100% on what the court held, which is that United States Notes were lawful money and that 31 USC 5115 was constitutional. But the "accounting" you're talking about isn't accounting at all. Juilliard merely says that United States Notes are lawful money and a legal tender, "except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt." That's what the statute says, and all it means is that United States Notes aren't lawful money or a legal tender for those specific purposes.

The definition is in the Constitution just cause you deny it doesn't mean a Court especially district court can........Yeah there you go "Congress establish NATIONAL CURRENCY" so what makes it lawful money? It's issued by the NATION not the BANK in contract FOR reserves provided by the NATION need proof? See 12usc411 for Fed Notes then see 31usc5115 for US Notes and report back who issues what hurry now points deducted for lateness.......whew glad that's over.

Once again, I beg you to show me that definition. It's not in there. No court has ever said that the constitution defines money. As for what "national currency" means, congress authorized the Fed and it authorized the Fed to issue for Federal Reserve Notes; we already went through whether or not the congress constitutionally delegated such authority, and the courts held that it did. Question settled. Your thoughts about what national currency should be are irrelevant.

The constitution does not say that national currency must be issued directly by the treasury and not used as reserves for fractional reserve lending. The fact that United States Notes were and could not be so used is irrelevant to whether the federal government has the power to do such things.

Yes we have two currencies go read all about it in the Treasury FAQhttp://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/currency/pages/legal-tender.aspx One of those currencies is lawful money and may serve as lawful reserves to float fed notes along with other forms of lawful money but these notes are bound by statute and may not exceed 300 million so that's no way for Congress to "be your daddy" at all can't even mandate single payer healthcare for that chump change man.........fed notes then serve as fractional reserves for more fed notes which makes them negotiable so ya whew glad that's over.

It's too bad the treasury didn't make those distinctions or claims in that page.

Milam ask how the offered redemption satisfied the Statute? Nope he refused the offer of non-negotiable notes not knowing or caring what they were or asking for accounting of them.......reckon Milam was a know it all like someone here on this thread who assumes something enjoys lawful money status from its issuance because of this case.

Absolutely right, he refused non-negotiable notes. You seem to be agreeing with me a lot now!

I am not making that argument I am saying Money is defined in the constitution and the constitution is the Law..........31usc5115 is positive law absolute evidence that US notes are lawful money. ......civil war and courts settled it .......End of story. Also factual evidence lawful money may not be used to pay interest on the national debt or for dues on imports are import taxes supposed to be collected from other countries?

Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but 31 USC 5115 says nothing about United States Notes being lawful money. That title is positive law, so it is the law, right? Does that mean United States Notes aren't lawful money, since the statute doesn't say it?

Again, the statute says United States Notes shall be lawful money and a legal tender except for those purposes. It does not say that lawful money cannot be used for those purposes in a general sense.

Oh you wouldn't at this juncture would you my my isn't that convenient for you having worked coding statutes. The term "lawful money" is used in the Fed Act so this is prima facie evidence of the accounting at the Fed........prima facie evidence Constitutional Money emitted by Congress serves as Reserves.........Prima facie evidence of the actual evidence of "bills of credit" in the Constitution and "lawful money" in positive 31usc5115..........but hey your were already aware whatever.

I never said I did that. I said I worked extensively with the code.

Anyway, I have no idea what you're trying to say. Non-positive law is a collection of statutes strung together; the collection is evidence of the law, which is scattered in the various statutes that comprise it (perhaps hundreds of acts over dozens of congresses). Positive law is a statutory scheme that is enacted into law itself--it is literally the law. The term "lawful money" in the Federal Reserve Act is the law because the act is the statute; the text of 12 USC 411 is the codification of the statute, and is prima facie evidence of what the Federal Reserve Act says because it has not been enacted into positive law. The text of the code is evidence of what the statutes say, but the statutes are what congress has enacted, not the code, so the statutes are technically the law. You're using prima facie evidence to mean something totally different.

Federal Reserve Act says "lawful money" in it the way I explain it which contradicts what you explain so ya I wouldn't read it either if I were you just crushes your case which mostly is consisting of you popping your head out of the sand once in a while and asserting "fed notes are lawful money"with not proof whatsoever.

Quote that text for me then. Thanks. Obviously it does no such thing.

It's not settled not by a long shot until all we have discussed reaches the Supreme Court much less your crappy arguments and false assertions. You can't debate the merits of the system without knowing it's foundation and all its parts...soon as you are ready to talk about debt instruments that bear interest that ultimately steal wealth from the poor then maybe you could qualify for such a discussion.

Yet more ignorance. When courts decide cases, their decisions are the law until overturned. Period. The supreme court has not addressed these matters, so the court decisions we have are the law. Period. Indeed, the supreme court refused to take some of the cases we've discussed. They didn't feel the need or want to weigh in.

 

[tokeprep]

12usc411 is prima facie evidence of frn legal tender status only....if the fed tenders frns as lawful money the burden is on the fed and court and tokeprep to explain why they are lawful money now when asked because this false assertion has been succesfully rebutted by even the fed acts use of "lawful money"which is never applied to fed notes not once....... and 37th congress and the first judiciary act and title 31 usc which are not prima facie and not up for rebuttal.....better have better evidence than fictional court common law decision paraphrases that have no backing statutes or law or history.

12 USC 411 isn't about the legal tender status of Federal Reserve Notes, so how could it possibly be prima facie evidence of "legal tender status only"? 12 USC 411 is prima facie evidence of what the Federal Reserve Act says because the act is actually the law and the code is just an editorial statement of the law.

The fact that the Federal Reserve Act doesn't use "lawful money" is irrelevant because the term was never defined. The 37th congress didn't define it; the Judiciary Act didn't define it; 31 USC 5115 doesn't define it. The courts have said that someone who obtains and uses Federal Reserve Notes receives and spends lawful money. There's no spinning out of that one.

 

[twostrokenut]

I don't consider it a "good grace" at all. You're praising the common law, but in reality the common law is judicial activism. It is literally judges making up their own rules, without any direction from the people or a legislature, as they please. When someone first sued on wrongful death in California, there was no state statute that said people had the right to recover civilly for causing the wrongful death of another person. The California supreme court--almost literally--said "We think it would be a good policy for people to be able to recover civilly, so yeah, that's going to be the law from now on" and that was that. The people of California? They never agreed to that. The legislature in California? The governor? They had absolutely no say.

With that said, it should be obvious that it makes no sense for you to call the constitution common law. The constitution is an intentioned document setting down absolute law; it is the reasoned construction of dozens of delegates acting on behalf of the people, ratified by the colonies on behalf of the people.



Statutory law is any law enacted as statutes. The California Penal Code is statutory law; the United States Code is statutory law; the Uniform Commercial Code, as enacted by the states, is statutory law. Anything that is based on a statute is statutory law.

Now isn't that funny. The Judiciary Act gives common law resolutions to any case common law remedy applied, and you find this in 12 USC 411? So let me get this straight, you're finding a common law remedy in statutory law? That doesn't make any sense. If it's common law, it's not a statute!

"Take you out of equity"--that just doesn't make any sense, because you can't be taken out of equity.

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

 

[twostrokenut]

I don't consider it a "good grace" at all. You're praising the common law, but in reality the common law is judicial activism. It is literally judges making up their own rules, without any direction from the people or a legislature, as they please. When someone first sued on wrongful death in California, there was no state statute that said people had the right to recover civilly for causing the wrongful death of another person. The California supreme court--almost literally--said "We think it would be a good policy for people to be able to recover civilly, so yeah, that's going to be the law from now on" and that was that. The people of California? They never agreed to that. The legislature in California? The governor? They had absolutely no say.

With that said, it should be obvious that it makes no sense for you to call the constitution common law. The constitution is an intentioned document setting down absolute law; it is the reasoned construction of dozens of delegates acting on behalf of the people, ratified by the colonies on behalf of the people.



Statutory law is any law enacted as statutes. The California Penal Code is statutory law; the United States Code is statutory law; the Uniform Commercial Code, as enacted by the states, is statutory law. Anything that is based on a statute is statutory law.

Now isn't that funny. The Judiciary Act gives common law resolutions to any case common law remedy applied, and you find this in 12 USC 411? So let me get this straight, you're finding a common law remedy in statutory law? That doesn't make any sense. If it's common law, it's not a statute!

"Take you out of equity"--that just doesn't make any sense, because you can't be taken out of equity.

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?

 

[NoDrama]

When you deposit a check, you're just moving existing money from one account to another account. So yes, your deposit becomes one on which new loans could be created, but the money removed from the other bank correspondingly reduces its ability to make loans. Meeting cash demand doesn't necessarily require ordering more notes when people cash their checks, of course, because money is moving around constantly. Your employer's bank loses funds when money is transferred to your account at another bank, but your employer's bank also has lots of people getting paid and depositing checks drawn on other banks.

\
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.

 

[twostrokenut]

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?

 

[twostrokenut]

Show me where the constitution defines money then. You haven't ever been able to show me where it does because it doesn't.

You just agreed with me? You said 31 USC 5115 only defines United States Notes as lawful money, which is exactly what I've been saying all along. That's all the statute does--it defines United States Notes as lawful money. They never tell us what "lawful money" means.

As for positive law: 31 USC 5115 is the law. Period. As you so kindly point out, congress has enacted that part of the code as positive law, and it says nothing about lawful money. Indeed, according to the Office of the Law Revision Counsel's page on this: "Statutory text appearing in a positive law title is the text of the statute and is presumably identical to the statutory text appearing in the Statutes at Large. Because a positive law title is enacted as a whole by Congress, and the original enactments are repealed, statutory text appearing in a positive law title has Congress's "authoritative imprimatur" with respect to the wording of the statute. See Washington-Dulles Transp., Ltd. v. Metro. Wash. Airports Auth., 263 F.3d 371, 378 n.2 (4th Cir. Va. 2001); see generally Norman J. Singer & J.D. Shamble Singer, Statutes and Statutory Construction, § 36A.10, (7th ed. 2009). Recourse to other sources such as the Statutes at Large is unnecessary when proving the wording of the statute unless proving an unlikely technical error in the publication process."

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, 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?

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.

 

[twostrokenut]

I agree with you 100% on what the court held, which is that United States Notes were lawful money and that 31 USC 5115 was constitutional. But the "accounting" you're talking about isn't accounting at all. Juilliard merely says that United States Notes are lawful money and a legal tender, "except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt." That's what the statute says, and all it means is that United States Notes aren't lawful money or a legal tender for those specific purposes.

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?

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

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.

 

[twostrokenut]

12 USC 411 isn't about the legal tender status of Federal Reserve Notes, so how could it possibly be prima facie evidence of "legal tender status only"? 12 USC 411 is prima facie evidence of what the Federal Reserve Act says because the act is actually the law and the code is just an editorial statement of the law.

The fact that the Federal Reserve Act doesn't use "lawful money" is irrelevant because the term was never defined. The 37th congress didn't define it; the Judiciary Act didn't define it; 31 USC 5115 doesn't define it. The courts have said that someone who obtains and uses Federal Reserve Notes receives and spends lawful money. There's no spinning out of that one.

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.

..... 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.........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.

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