Your answer is an unsourced article with zero attribution? This is how you know the article cannot possibly be reliable: "Oddly enough, the dollar bills that we carry around in our wallets are not considered lawful money." According to the very case you quoted, Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money. It's not up for dispute.
Impossible! The deficit is falling as well as unemployment Obama wrecking economy
- Thread starter ChesusRice
- Start date
Straight from FDR? Let's see, it's 1933 and the government is borrowing $3 of every $5 it spends, and FDR is encouraging the purchase of government bonds...It's like a square and a rectangle................one is itself and the other; the other is itself and not the other.
Straight from FDR if you prefer.........middle paragraph, right page beginning with "Recognized Government bonds"........:
This is not a statute or a court case, it's the American president, whose command is irrelevant without the blessing of congress.
What point are you trying to make with this? That United States Notes are outstanding? That means they were issued pre-1971 and that they haven't been redeemed to the treasury, otherwise they would have destroyed them according to 31 USC 5112.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
That was literally the firs hit.........Lol @ the unsourced and not up for dispute go read USvsRickman.......that decision still stands.
Then read USvs Thomas..........................more court influence that does not support you.
The cases I mentioned earlier were per your request and have been explained already, and you are flat out wrong. The redemption was supported and once exchanged the NEW FRN's were ruled lawful just as Greenbacks were back in the day. A private bank may not issue private credit and circulate it as lawful money.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Executive order 6102 made any American holding more than $100 face of gold a criminal under the Trading with the Enemy Act...revised in the Emergency Banking Act of 1933.....Congress approval indeed.....Do you deny that we are still operating under the Emergency Act today?
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
I give up on you. You are obviously mentally handicapped. You are intentionally avoiding the part that says "National and Federal Reserve Bank Notes assumed by the United States on deposit of lawful money FOR THEIR RETIREMENT" to sway the conversation anywhere but proving that FRN's are legal tender and not lawful money but they may be exchanged for lawful money.
Rickman: "Defendant argues that the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, § 8, United States Constitution. We have held to the contrary...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."
What in this case is supposed to support your unsourced article?
I presume this is the line you like in Thomas: "Paper currency, in the form of the Federal Reserve Note, is defined as an obligation[ ] of the United States that may be redeemed in *645 lawful money on demand. 12 U.S.C. § 411 (2002). These bills are not money per se but promissory notes supported by the monetary reserves of the United States."
The case says nothing else about redemption or lawful money. Notice that it doesn't say Federal Reserve Notes aren't "lawful money" either--it says the bill aren't "'money' per se." Nonetheless, the next lines from that case: "When an individual engages in a criminal transaction with paper currency, although the individual certainly uses the notes to accomplish the criminal end, the currency's monetary value funds the transaction and is also an appropriate target of forfeiture." This case doesn't really support your proposition.
Only if you aren't reading the cases. We talked about Milam, which is quite easy.
Milam: "Appellant's contentions, in our view, were put at rest close to a century ago in Juilliard v. Greenman [which says:] "Congress is authorized to establish a national currency, either in coin or in paper, and to make that currency lawful money for all purposes"...The power so precisely described in Juilliard has been delegated to the Federal Reserve System under the provisions of 12 U.S.C. 411. Appellant's challenge to the validity of this legislation is meritless." A tender of Federal Reserve Notes for Federal Reserve Notes was perfectly acceptable. The case says nothing about "NEW FRN's" and doesn't even make an allusion to United States Notes.
You tried to argue that this case only means that the request for redemption in precious metal was meritless and that it said nothing about other possible means of redemption. Of course, the problem with that is that it says nothing else about other possible means of redemption. This case endorses a trade of Federal Reserve Notes for Federal Reserve Notes to satisfy 12 USC 411, saying absolutely nothing about United States Notes or treasuries. You have produced no cases sustaining your contentions about United States Notes or treasuries--none! None of the cases discussed in this post support your claims!
Indeed, since this case is so brief, why don't you do me a favor and highlight the part that supports what you just said in the text I quoted:
You're trying to use that quote to say that treasuries and currency are equivalent when it's a sales pitch from the the president who is borrowing $3 of every $5 in federal spending. That makes zero sense. If you don't have a statute or a court case that says it, and the best you can come up with is some line in a speech given by the president, obviously your assertion is dubious.
For their retirement! You emphasized it yourself and you're suggesting that this line item is for some special lawful money you can exchange a Federal Reserve Note for?
Your treasury statement contains a laundry list of old currencies no longer in use under the title "outstanding debts." 31 USC 5119 is what enables you to redeem these for Federal Reserve Notes. This isn't "lawful money" the treasury has on hand, it's what remains outstanding from historical issues. You think collectors want to redeem the United States Notes you were talking about selling on eBay? Of course not! They're worth more as national bank notes, United States Notes, silver certificates, etc., which is why they remain unconverted, which is why they're included in that statement of public debt, since the owners of the old currency remain legally entitled to convert it into new currency (redeem it for Federal Reserve Notes).
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
I am of the opinion that he is too.
In Rickman the court held note for note EXCHANGE MADE THE NEW NOTES LAWFUL....which is why the "unsourced" article is a reflection of the CASE LAW. I am afraid the only evidence you will find to the contrary will come from the Fed's own site where they use words in quotes like "lawful money"......they even quote Milam and say they tendered the exchange, just as you are doing. You can underline, bold and italicize the whole fuckin thing and it won't change. You are denying the exchange took place entirely and quoting decisions that are not there because you fail at reading. Here's that highlight you asked for:
What was put to rest with Julliard v Greenman was that paper could be lawful money and legal tender ...and that decision almost did not happen it was so split. Notice also that case involved gov-backed security, which is different than bank-backed security which is backed by gov-backed security which is backed by future taxes.
If you scroll down the treasury statement to see the accounting you find that they (redeemed ones) are now listed as simply Treasury Notes.
If you go at it like a 3rd grader, starting from the top, you will notice the date is 2011. If you are in 4th grade you might notice it is a monthly statement and the chances "old currencies" are being redeemed monthly are slim to none.
Notice also the table 4 on p.11 that shows the total public debt expressed in millions of dollars and the fact it has almost DOUBLED since 2007.
I wondered aloud to myself once "what is a million million?"
So is Mr. Obama really making that number any lower? Will it surely continue when the Bailouts and shit like that make it to the bottom aside from this theoretical production increase you speak of?
In Rickman the court held note for note EXCHANGE MADE THE NEW NOTES LAWFUL....which is why the "unsourced" article is a reflection of the CASE LAW. I am afraid the only evidence you will find to the contrary will come from the Fed's own site where they use words in quotes like "lawful money"......they even quote Milam and say they tendered the exchange, just as you are doing. You can underline, bold and italicize the whole fuckin thing and it won't change. You are denying the exchange took place entirely and quoting decisions that are not there because you fail at reading. Here's that highlight you asked for:
- A tender of Federal Reserve Notes for Federal Reserve Notes was perfectly acceptable.
What was put to rest with Julliard v Greenman was that paper could be lawful money and legal tender ...and that decision almost did not happen it was so split. Notice also that case involved gov-backed security, which is different than bank-backed security which is backed by gov-backed security which is backed by future taxes.
If you scroll down the treasury statement to see the accounting you find that they (redeemed ones) are now listed as simply Treasury Notes.
If you go at it like a 3rd grader, starting from the top, you will notice the date is 2011. If you are in 4th grade you might notice it is a monthly statement and the chances "old currencies" are being redeemed monthly are slim to none.
Notice also the table 4 on p.11 that shows the total public debt expressed in millions of dollars and the fact it has almost DOUBLED since 2007.
I wondered aloud to myself once "what is a million million?"
So is Mr. Obama really making that number any lower? Will it surely continue when the Bailouts and shit like that make it to the bottom aside from this theoretical production increase you speak of?
Show me the text that says that. The case is easy to look up and ready, so why are we relying on your assertion when I actually quoted the case? It's easy.
I didn't ask you for contrary evidence, I asked you for your evidence. If these cases say what you say they say, quote them!
I said that. If you're using it to further your argument, you don't know what it means.
Since the treasury owns $366 billion in gold at $1,400 an ounce and Federal Reserve Notes are partially collateralized with that gold, you could say $366 billion of $1 trillion in notes outstanding is fully backed by gold. An aside.
Anyway, the details you're scrutinizing aren't in contention. The court that said Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money based on that precedent felt it necessary to consider none of what you just said. Their written opinion was extraordinarily brief for a court, which means all of the arguments must have truly been totally frivolous.
Please more specifically explain your claim about the treasury statement. What page/what table are you looking at? Because I did look at it, and I just looked at the whole thing again, and what you said about the "redeemed ones" being "listed as simply Treasury Notes" doesn't make any sense.
Yes, we've been running huge deficits under Obama. Let's hope the economy is finally turning around. At least this year the deficit is projected to be under $700 billion.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Lol...$366 billion dollars worth of gold to back the whole supply of federal reserve currency in existence?
The people at Federal Reserve wipe their arse with $366 billion of fed notes...
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Keeping in mind the defendant is arguing that the notes THAT WERE EXCHANGED did not constitute lawful money, that is what I ment by "new notes" smarty pants.........
Defendant was arguing the notes he received weren't lawful, court said they were and upheld the redemption, see it?
He's arguing the notes that were exchanged didn't constitute lawful money because they were Federal Reserve Notes and because Federal Reserve Notes are not lawful money. The court makes this expressly clear with the last sentence of the paragraph that you didn't emphasize: the defendant got Federal Reserve Notes in exchange for checks; those notes were lawful money.
What redemption? He's arguing about notes received in exchange for his paycheck, according to what you just quoted. There's no redemption going on in this case, within either of the redemption statutes we've discussed.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
- tokeprep said:
So it's going to rise by under 700 billion?
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Given how brief the decision was I would think that specifically mentioning the notes were, in fact, exchanged and specifically mentioning Congress' law that they are redeemable would not be there if the court wasn't required to put it in, as you claim they are not.
About the court's decision on Rickman's paycheck do you think the court was aware that Rickman endorsed his check? What sense does it make to fully endorse something you are challenging? That is the opposite of a demand. Notice the case reflects that when the demand was made, at the Fed, the Fed complied.
12usc411 is section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act I am pretty sure.
Don't even start about the gold the Treasury supposedly holds that was confiscated from Americans for 20 bucks an ounce via The Gold Reserve Act of 1934.....they are claiming it's there, they also claim the purity has increased.
About the court's decision on Rickman's paycheck do you think the court was aware that Rickman endorsed his check? What sense does it make to fully endorse something you are challenging? That is the opposite of a demand. Notice the case reflects that when the demand was made, at the Fed, the Fed complied.
12usc411 is section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act I am pretty sure.
Don't even start about the gold the Treasury supposedly holds that was confiscated from Americans for 20 bucks an ounce via The Gold Reserve Act of 1934.....they are claiming it's there, they also claim the purity has increased.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
not really following the gold in the treasury thing.....366 billion at $1400 per oz is still $366 billion.
The case was about the effect of the redemption provision. Tendering Federal Reserve Notes for Federal Reserve Notes was sufficient--that's the point. You don't need to add any details or conclusions.
Where does the case reflect that when "the demand was made...the Fed complied"?
I don't see why endorsement matters at all. It doesn't change anything the case says; it doesn't transform the case into supporting anything you're advocating.
So what? In the time of stability you're advocating, the government pulled all kinds of shit.
And if you aren't going to believe the numbers, there's nothing that can be done about that. You have no evidence supporting your suspicions except those suspicions.
And the amount of Federal Reserve Notes outstanding is around $1 trillion. What don't you understand?