FRNs and "Lawful Money" (U.S. v. Thomas)

[David Merrill]

Redeeming lawful money is supported by the Fed Act and Title 12 USC §411 cited in the quote from the Opinion. There is nothing illegal about demanding lawful money;


They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...

I think it more an ego-power trip of yours Wserra. You cannot accept that the Third Circuit is correct in that opinion, especially when it agrees coherently with Congress. Anybody can make their demand for lawful money without offending anybody or the law.

This is immensely entertaining that you folks have to face up to this reality check. Thanks for posting the thread Wserra!!


Regards,

David Merrill.

[jg]

But just what is "lawful money"?

From http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_15197.htm

In 1933, Congress changed the law so that all U.S. coins and currency (including Federal Reserve notes), regardless of when issued, constitutes "legal tender" for all purposes. Federal and state courts since then have repeatedly held that Federal Reserve notes are also "lawful money." Milam v. U.S., 524 F.2d 629 (9th Cir. 1974), is typical of the federal and state court cases holding that Federal Reserve notes are "lawful money." In Milam, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed a judgment denying relief to an individual who sought to redeem a $50 Federal Reserve Bank Note in "lawful money." The United States tendered Milam $50 in Federal Reserve notes, but Milam refused the notes, asserting that "lawful money" must be gold or silver. The Ninth Circuit, noting that this matter had been put to rest by the U.S. Supreme Court nearly a century before in the Legal Tender Cases (Juilliard v. Greenman), 110 U.S. 421 (1884), rejected this assertion as frivolous and affirmed the judgment.

According to the courts, Federal Reserve notes are "lawful money."

[David Merrill]

But just what is "lawful money"?

From http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_15197.htm

In 1933, Congress changed the law so that all U.S. coins and currency (including Federal Reserve notes), regardless of when issued, constitutes "legal tender" for all purposes. Federal and state courts since then have repeatedly held that Federal Reserve notes are also "lawful money." Milam v. U.S., 524 F.2d 629 (9th Cir. 1974), is typical of the federal and state court cases holding that Federal Reserve notes are "lawful money." In Milam, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed a judgment denying relief to an individual who sought to redeem a $50 Federal Reserve Bank Note in "lawful money." The United States tendered Milam $50 in Federal Reserve notes, but Milam refused the notes, asserting that "lawful money" must be gold or silver. The Ninth Circuit, noting that this matter had been put to rest by the U.S. Supreme Court nearly a century before in the Legal Tender Cases (Juilliard v. Greenman), 110 U.S. 421 (1884), rejected this assertion as frivolous and affirmed the judgment.

According to the courts, Federal Reserve notes are "lawful money."

You are quoting an article on the Board of Governors website.



However you are accurate about the demand for gold and silver. That was MILAM's error. Since 1933 the endorsement of salary checks has been the bonding for the extra currency generated by fractional lending.

[fortinbras]

The distinct meaning of "lawful money" has been, well, indistinct. The general usage by economists and historians is that "lawful money" is a broader term than "legal tender". Legal tender is the "real" money issued by a govt - it is the best kind of currency and no better kind of currency exists or can be demanded. Lawful money includes legal tender and currency that isn't quite as good as legal tender but all of which is commonly accepted in daily business practices. For a large chunk of the 19th and early 20th centuries, gold and silver coins - precious metal - was legal tender, and other currencies such as the paper gold certificates, silver certificates, etc. were lawful money.

But in 1862, in the midst of the Civil War, the US govt needed to produce a domestic currency other than precious metal so it issued United States Notes - a genuine fiat currency since it had no specific collateral except the full faith of the govt. In order to make it acceptable Congress explicitly declared the USNs to be both legal tender and lawful money; apparently there had originally been two bills proposed, each using one of those terms, and when the bills were consolidated into one final bill both terms ended up in the final version. To be fair, the law very strictly limited the dollar amount of USNs that could be issued, so there were never very many USNs floating around, and it was very difficult for the govt to calculate how many were in or out of circulation so replacement USNs were seldom issued.

Oddly enough, I couldn't find any other currency - not even gold coins - explicitly described as "lawful money" by an Act of Congress, although, as legal tender, they certainly qualified as lawful money in the economists' usage.

When the Federal Reserve System was set up, FRNs were declared to be exchangeable for lawful money, which seems to be a roundabout way of making them lawful money, but they were not originally declared legal tender. Then, in 1933, gold was taken out of circulation - with very good reason - and this was followed by a law that explicitly declared that ALL the currency issued by the govt - expressly including by name Federal Reserve Notes - was legal tender.

This had a very significant effect because, in the decades preceding this, "gold clauses" had become needlessly ubiquitous in contracts. These were clauses that specified that various payments had to be made in gold coin - not silver, not gold certificates, not FRNs, not USNs, but only gold metallic coin. As a direct result, gold coins, being needed for the ritual of making payments under all these contracts, acquired a premium value far higher than their face value or the corresponding value of gold certificates that were supposed to be exchangeable for them; it was calculated that there was not enough gold coin to go around if all those gold clauses became payable on the same day. By declaring gold clauses to be "against public policy", it was possible to make that part of the contracts unenforceable, and by making all the other currencies legal tender it then became possible to satisfy the contracts by using virtually any US currency.

But the 1913 provision about making FRNs redeemable in lawful money was not amended. However, as you can see, other legislation effectively changed the situation.

There are some other references in federal laws to lawful money -- in various laws relating to transportation and shipping, to the effect that lost luggage will be compensated in lawful money, that shipyard workers will be paid in lawful money, etc. This meant that those persons would be paid in US dollars, not foreign money and not some sort of scrip or discount coupons - it is not necessary, however, that they be paid in cash directly, but suffices if they are paid with checks or money orders that are immediately cashable in US currency.

[David Merrill]

I am inserting my responses and comments in teal.

The distinct meaning of "lawful money" has been, well, indistinct. The general usage by economists and historians is that "lawful money" is a broader term than "legal tender". Legal tender is the "real" money issued by a govt - it is the best kind of currency and no better kind of currency exists or can be demanded. Lawful money includes legal tender and currency that isn't quite as good as legal tender but all of which is commonly accepted in daily business practices. For a large chunk of the 19th and early 20th centuries, gold and silver coins - precious metal - was legal tender, and other currencies such as the paper gold certificates, silver certificates, etc. were lawful money.

I have constructed the correct definition of Lawful Money from Congress and the Courts. While you are correct that the distinct meaning is indistinct, I cannot think of any better method. Congress says that FRNs are not lawful money because they may be redeemed in lawful money;

They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...

That clause was amended for the lack of gold clause (HJR-192) in 1934 but to see my point that is a lot of time for Congress to correct the ambiguous verbiage and yet it remains exactly the same as you see. I enjoy supporting the fact not only with Title 18 USC §333 "FRNs are evidence of debt" but with two court cases:

In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money.

and

United States notes shall 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.

But in 1862, in the midst of the Civil War, the US govt needed to produce a domestic currency other than precious metal so it issued United States Notes - a genuine fiat currency since it had no specific collateral except the full faith of the govt. In order to make it acceptable Congress explicitly declared the USNs to be both legal tender and lawful money; apparently there had originally been two bills proposed, each using one of those terms, and when the bills were consolidated into one final bill both terms ended up in the final version. To be fair, the law very strictly limited the dollar amount of USNs that could be issued, so there were never very many USNs floating around, and it was very difficult for the govt to calculate how many were in or out of circulation so replacement USNs were seldom issued.

I have those congressional records available to me at the federal respository. Please tell us the Page #s and I can show us the bills. This is especially interesting because your accounting begins in 1862 and as we already know, IN GOD WE TRUST began in 1863. The real history is much more interesting as it began in 1861 here in Colorado (below and posted separately).

That will give Gregg a much more entertaining shot at my sanity than to quote a chubby and easily overturned state sockpuppet.

Oddly enough, I couldn't find any other currency - not even gold coins - explicitly described as "lawful money" by an Act of Congress, although, as legal tender, they certainly qualified as lawful money in the economists' usage.

That's right. US Notes are the closest thing as found at Title 31 U.S.C. §5115. They are backed by gold, inelastic and cannot be used for reserves.



When the Federal Reserve System was set up, FRNs were declared to be exchangeable for lawful money, which seems to be a roundabout way of making them lawful money, but they were not originally declared legal tender. Then, in 1933, gold was taken out of circulation - with very good reason - and this was followed by a law that explicitly declared that ALL the currency issued by the govt - expressly including by name Federal Reserve Notes - was legal tender.

Your substitution that US Notes and Federal Reserve Notes are both legal tender fails in the Notes of Title 31 U.S.C. §5115. Technically Federal Reserve notes are only legal tender with United States currency notes, a broader category which Congress has included US notes.

In the section, the words “United States currency notes” are substituted for “United States notes” for clarity and consistency in the revised title.

This is really the crux of the reality check Fortinbras. This is where Congress pegged the gold-backed US Notes to the declining value of the US Dollar by pegging them to the Federal Reserve notes in face value; by simply adding one word and putting them "In this section" in a category with US Currency Notes. This fraudulent reconciliation was necessary to reenact Title 31 into positive law.



This had a very significant effect because, in the decades preceding this, "gold clauses" had become needlessly ubiquitous in contracts. These were clauses that specified that various payments had to be made in gold coin - not silver, not gold certificates, not FRNs, not USNs, but only gold metallic coin. As a direct result, gold coins, being needed for the ritual of making payments under all these contracts, acquired a premium value far higher than their face value or the corresponding value of gold certificates that were supposed to be exchangeable for them; it was calculated that there was not enough gold coin to go around if all those gold clauses became payable on the same day. By declaring gold clauses to be "against public policy", it was possible to make that part of the contracts unenforceable, and by making all the other currencies legal tender it then became possible to satisfy the contracts by using virtually any US currency.

That was terminated in 1976 by declaring the end of the emergency. Page 1. Page 2. Congress wrote a book about it!

It behooves us to note more strong evidence that FRNs are not lawful money. In 1933 the charters for the Fed Banks were drawing to their twenty-year close. FDR was saving the Fed from the immenent bank run when he declared the first Bankers' Holiday. The bankers were about to redeem their FRNs in gold and gold certificates. Look at Page 2 linked there. The stipulations still keep Title 12 U.S.C. §95 viable - so that either the President or Secretary may order a new Bankers' Holiday at the drop of a hat!

The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March 4, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by section 95a of this title, are approved and confirmed.

The fun part about that is deciding on who exactly will be creating the bank run? Answer: The people demanding redemption of lawful money with their paychecks!

But the 1913 provision about making FRNs redeemable in lawful money was not amended. However, as you can see, other legislation effectively changed the situation.

It was amended in 1934 as found at Title 12 U.S.C. §411.



There are some other references in federal laws to lawful money -- in various laws relating to transportation and shipping, to the effect that lost luggage will be compensated in lawful money, that shipyard workers will be paid in lawful money, etc. This meant that those persons would be paid in US dollars, not foreign money and not some sort of scrip or discount coupons - it is not necessary, however, that they be paid in cash directly, but suffices if they are paid with checks or money orders that are immediately cashable in US currency.

[jg]

...In fact, of course, many, many cases (both state and federal) explicitly hold that FRNs are "lawful money", and where that is the issue to be decided, not a peripheral one. I already cited Rickman. Take a look at Poe v. C.I.R., T.C. Memo. 1983-312; United States v. Farber, 679 F.2d 733 (8th Cir. 1982); United States v. Ware, 608 F.2d 400 (10th Cir. 1979); Love v. Baldwin United Mortgage Co., 168 Ga.App. 361 (1983); Herald v. State, 107 Idaho 640 (1984); Brand v. State, 828 S.W.2d 824 (TX App. 1992). And many, many others. And consider a statute, 31 USC 5103: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues." Can you force someone to accept a note (a promise to pay, essentially an IOU) as payment for a debt? It is simply indisputable that FRNs are in fact money...

... Given that what David wishes to claim is not only fanciful and wrong, but also unlawful - most recently that "redeeming lawful money" means that one need not pay income tax - I've disapproved both of his responses.

Once more, the rule: if you are going to claim success in flouting the law, you must provide verifiable proof. That really isn't so hard to understand, David.

David Merrill.

You have been shown that what you are claiming is opposite what the courts have decided, you are well aware of that; yet, you do not provide any proof that what you claim is anything more than fanciful imaginations and wrong interpretations.

[David Merrill]

...In fact, of course, many, many cases (both state and federal) explicitly hold that FRNs are "lawful money", and where that is the issue to be decided, not a peripheral one. I already cited Rickman. Take a look at Poe v. C.I.R., T.C. Memo. 1983-312; United States v. Farber, 679 F.2d 733 (8th Cir. 1982); United States v. Ware, 608 F.2d 400 (10th Cir. 1979); Love v. Baldwin United Mortgage Co., 168 Ga.App. 361 (1983); Herald v. State, 107 Idaho 640 (1984); Brand v. State, 828 S.W.2d 824 (TX App. 1992). And many, many others. And consider a statute, 31 USC 5103: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues." Can you force someone to accept a note (a promise to pay, essentially an IOU) as payment for a debt? It is simply indisputable that FRNs are in fact money...

... Given that what David wishes to claim is not only fanciful and wrong, but also unlawful - most recently that "redeeming lawful money" means that one need not pay income tax - I've disapproved both of his responses.

Once more, the rule: if you are going to claim success in flouting the law, you must provide verifiable proof. That really isn't so hard to understand, David.

David Merrill.

You have been shown that what you are claiming is opposite what the courts have decided, you are well aware of that; yet, you do not provide any proof that what you claim is anything more than fanciful imaginations and wrong interpretations.

No. I have shown through both Congress and the Courts that the Third Circuit is exactly correct. What Wserra is requiring of me is that I would provide a SSN for one of the people who get full refunds of withholdings (success stories) so that he can get online and verify that they got a full refund for himself. The request falters further in that Quatlosers say that these refunds will be reneged on in about three years anyway. So as a Quatloosian Mind you all admit that by submitting a Zero Income tax return you can easily get a full refund of withholdings therefore it will take about another year to verify the success stories that I claim, if Wserra is willing to make a three year deadline for the IRS to recall a refund.

To give Wserra a SSN of one of these folks I would have to inform them that I would like to give it to a NY tort attorney and show them what kind of a researcher Wserra is online here. Then wait for them to approve being investigated by a Quatloser attorney. So I will just bite my tongue so that we can stay on topic around here.

It is possible my post including the Congress and case citations/quotes has been deleted. I am not monitoring the moderator. So if my verification by conventional evidence is being kept from you that is not my worry. My explanations help me explain this about money, legal tender and lawful money to people elsewhere.

VAN PELT is obviously not my name. It is my family's name.

Doesn't this say it all?

You would think that the name to the right "David Merrill" would be enough, huh? Is your name "obadiah"? Does this mean that if you have a success story that you cannot tell us about it? No. Do you have to verify any success story that you tell?

Answers: No. No.

I suggest that the trolls quit being so concerned about my warping the perceptions of newbees and start abiding in the rules. So that we can discuss this interesting topic unobstructed.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[jg]

My explanations help me explain this about money, legal tender and lawful money to people elsewhere.

Unless and until you can show a holding by the court that supports your claim,
you are only explaining your own fanciful imaginations.
The Third Circuit did not hold that FRNs are not money. Mere statements by a court are not holdings. You have been provided with several of the many cases where courts have held that FRNs are "lawful money" as that term is interpreted by the courts (since it must be, as it is not statutorily defined).

Explaining what you imagine about money, legal tender and lawful money to people elsewhere without any reference to the law, as held by the courts, is deceptive or disingeneous, at best.
Encouraging or enabling action contrary to the law (while leaving those to whom you explain ignorant) is potentially dangerous.

[wserra]

However I hope that the readers here understand that my validating the points using Case Law and Congress might not be read here because they are being rejected for posting under the penumbra of being a claim that people break the law (Wserra's interpretation) with immunity. - Your loss!

Nope. You can make any legal claim you want, no matter how dumb. You've been proving that for years. What you can't do is make the factual claim that you (or some imaginary "suitor") succeeded in breaking the law without consequence - unless, of course, you post verifiable proof.

It is worth my while to write the explanation just the same. You may read it and it will be out of order because Wserra took a while to approve it.

Nope again. Approved posts are placed in threads as of the time the poster submits them, not as of the time they are approved.

This new verification about lawful money from the Third Circuit is quite helpful so integrating it into simple explanations is quite helpful indeed. Thanks again Wesley!

You're welcome, David. If a case appears to contradict something I've said, I won't try to hide it, or claim that the judge was corrupt, or say that "includes" actually means "excludes", or post some garbage redacted past the point of identification. I'll discuss it, explaining why I think the court was wrong, or (as here) was sloppy in writing dicta, or how I think it is being misinterpreted.

It's called "intellectual honesty".

[David Merrill]

Very well then. I believe that the Third Circuit is absolutely correct since it agrees with top descriptions of Congressional verbiage including Title 18's evidence of debt for the term obligation in the case. Here is USA v. Thomas.

Currency, however, differs substantially [**13] from such objects. 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.

[Pottapaug1938]

Very well then. I believe that the Third Circuit is absolutely correct since it agrees with top descriptions of Congressional verbiage including Title 18's evidence of debt for the term obligation in the case. Here is USA v. Thomas.

Currency, however, differs substantially [**13] from such objects. 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.

Here's another link:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-circuit/1202701.html

And, here is the full paragraph from which David gets his quote:

"This approach accords comfortably with the jurisprudence of civil forfeiture.   Historically, forfeiture proceeded from the legal fiction that property used in the commission of a crime itself offends the law.   See, e.g., The Palmyra, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 1, 14, 6 L.Ed. 531 (1827). The forfeited res, as a legal entity, is identical with the physical article when the property is, for example, a sea vessel, an automobile, or a firearm.   Currency, however, differs substantially from such objects.   Paper currency, in the form of the Federal Reserve Note, is defined as an “obligation[ ] of the United States” that may be “redeemed in 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.   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 result also follows from the fact that an individual who uses legal documents representing ownership of land to raise funds for a criminal purpose renders the land itself subject to forfeiture.   See United States v. RD 1, Box 1, Thompsontown, 952 F.2d 53 (3d Cir.1991).   It would be absurd, in that case, to suppose that forfeiture could attach only to the document and not to the legal interests represented by that document.   We therefore hold that the DEA did not abandon the res when it converted the currency to a cashier's check."

In other words, the holding of the court is that the "res", or the target of the forfeiture, was not destroyed by the DEA's converting the funds involved to a cashier's check. Read as a whole we can see that "money" takes many forms; and FRNs and cashiers' checks are but two. In fact, in my line of work, we refer to things like checks and money orders as "cash substitutes" because they can substitute for cash and thus be used as money with which to set up a mutual fund account.

Or, to put it differently: FRNs are lawful money; and so are certain other things.

[LPC]

I haven't paid a lot of attention to this thread, because discussions of "lawful money" and "legal tender" are of little interest to me. The concepts are largely archaic, the terms are poorly defined, and there are very few opinions or authorities on point, with the result that the distinctions seem irrelevant and the discussions seem to be a waste of time.

However, I did finally read the quoted passages from the Thomas case, and have some comments:

1. Ultimately, the court seems to be relying on a distinction between tangible property and intangible property. Tangible property has value by the nature of the thing itself, such as a car or a diamond ring. Intangible property may be represented by a tangible thing, such as a stock certificate or a note, but the value comes from the rights that exist and not from the thing itself. So, for example, stock certificates can be destroyed and replaced without any loss of value. In that respect, the court is correct that paper currency is intangible and not tangible. (The distinction between tangible and intangible property is often important in decedent's estates, because tangible property is governed by the law of the situs, while intangible property is governed by the law of the decedent's domicile. Real estate owned by a decedent is administered under the laws of the state in which the real estate is located and an estate or inheritance tax can be imposed on the value of the real estate, but if the real estate was transferred to a corporation owned by the decedent, then the stock of the corporation is administered under the laws of the domicile and a tax is imposed by the domicile on the value of the stock while no tax is imposed by the situs on the real estate itself.)

2. How the tangible/intangible distinction applies to federal forfeiture procedures is beyond my ken, but the rationale of the decision makes some sense to me. What the government was seizing was not so much the pieces of paper that the criminals used in the course of the crime but the "money" they were using, regardless of the form of the money (currency, bank accounts, or whatever). Whether that is what Congress really intended, and whether it's the "right" result among the various Circuit Courts of Appeals, is a different question for a different discussion.

3. In the tangible/intangible context, the statement by the court that federal reserve notes "are not 'money' per se" makes sense only if the court is using the word "money" as meaning gold coins or other forms of currency with intrinsic value. My dictionary does have a definition of "money" as "a commodity, such as gold or silver, that is legally established as an exchangeable equivalent of all other commodities and is used as a measure of their comparative values on the market." The statement by the court seems consistent with that definition of "money" and inconsistent with other definitions of "money."

4. The quotation marks around the word "money," as well as the addition of the phrase "per se," seem significant. The quotation marks suggest that the court was not using the word "money" according to the court's own sense of the meaning of the word, but according to someone else's sense of the meaning of the word (perhaps one of the parties in a brief?), and the "per se" confirms that the court was talking about "money" that has intrinsic value "as such" or "in itself," such as gold coins, and not "money" that is merely representative of value.

5. Even if the court's statement that FRNs are not "money" is correct, it is not necessarily relevant to the question of whether FRNs are "lawful money." After all, a "statutory employee" is not really an employee, and a "constructive trust" is not really a trust. The phrase "lawful money" could be expansive, making some kinds of things into "money" as a matter of law, rather than being restrictive, dividing different kinds of "money" into "lawful" and "not lawful."

[David Merrill]

The court had to describe the FRNs accurately in order to render an appropriate opinion. The dicta then is correct. Even though the FRNs only carried the obligations of the US they still represented value for the purposes of the cause before the court.

It is difficult to call the FRNs lawful money when the court recognizes that they are not "money" at all. Especially when the court cites a clause that makes a clear distinction between FRNs and lawful money. Perhaps if I showed you the early history of money and endorsement of "substitutes" you might better understand why I agree with the Third Circuit and Congress about FRNs are not money, nor are they in themselves lawful money.

Once fully bonded though, they function as lawful money.

[David Merrill]

I haven't paid a lot of attention to this thread, because discussions of "lawful money" and "legal tender" are of little interest to me. The concepts are largely archaic, the terms are poorly defined, and there are very few opinions or authorities on point, with the result that the distinctions seem irrelevant and the discussions seem to be a waste of time.

However, I did finally read the quoted passages from the Thomas case, and have some comments:

2. How the tangible/intangible distinction applies to federal forfeiture procedures is beyond my ken, but the rationale of the decision makes some sense to me. What the government was seizing was not so much the pieces of paper that the criminals used in the course of the crime but the "money" they were using, regardless of the form of the money (currency, bank accounts, or whatever). Whether that is what Congress really intended, and whether it's the "right" result among the various Circuit Courts of Appeals, is a different question for a different discussion.

This is the thread topic however. Wserra directs our attention to ponder exactly what you are hoping to dismiss LPC. The Third Circuit has described FRNs not to be money but rather, to be obligations (evidence of debt). This has been a long standing contention of Wserra and the Quatloosian Mindset that FRNs are money. Wserra presents the argument that the justices of the Third Circuit are a bunch of patriot nutjobs, no less. That of course has been toned down to them presenting erroneous dicta, along with the Congress as found in Titles 12 and 18 so far... Supported by Rickman and Ware too; and by Milam and Juliard too. Title 31 shows us some of the major distinctions between US notes and Federal Reserve notes, including Congress fraudulenting 'bundling' US notes into a broader category of United States currency notes in order to detach US notes from the gold standard without ever overturning Juliard - The Legal Tender cases.

I have been allowed to show you all this so I doubt I will be quibbling about my name with Poppycock or whoever. I know my name. Those who cannot believe that I spelled it correctly beside my posts are liars, affected by pseudonomania. Which in modern terms is called pathologic liar. Am I supposed to know that your name is LPC?

I will bottlefeed you the milk about fiat currency in America direct from the custodians of the history, the Masons and their monuments. This model of thought extends outward to include swearing (cursing) in the form of Nehemiah 10, oaths of office under the first written constitution - the Laws of Moses and municipal structure of the Levite priests. I Chronicles 6. Ergo, the Golden Spiral originates from Facilities Operations. From there, it progresses in the Fibonacci Sequence outward from the monuments; 1) NE Corner - Corpus Christi (Body of Christ), the NE spire being the largest 2) SE Corner - the federal repository under private Colorado College chancelory aka Masons 3) SW Corner - the 1861 Territorial Capital and 4) NW Corner - the Mason Lodge, Museum and Library.



Drawn more accurately:



I noticed the Golden Spiral on the Thomas MacLaren Charter School so I also noted the GPS coordinates and that it is the next logical extension of the Spiral. MacLAREN's resume is found in the Special Collections area of the federal repository on the SW Corner of the Golden Rectangle. Of course, oaths and swearing being the real topic of constitutional government here, the next winding out of the Spiral intersects with Mount Herman (sounds just like Hermon). You have to appreciate the view from my granite desk at the top of the cliff face!

It behooves you to remember GW's first stop when the Towers came down. Colorado Springs. I recall Air Force One coming in to Petersen AFB so low I could distinctly read the Presidential Seal.

I think my next stop on this journey is the SW Corner - the Territorial Capital. This tiny building is the real birthplace of fiat in America. One has to imagine that GILPIN's notes must be mentioned in the bills mentioned earlier in this thread. Can you get me those page numbers?

Meanwhile get a look at Canada during that timeframe, especially Footnote 4. This is coined in Silent Weapons as "shock testing". Canada with Crown Dominion notes going into reserve banking prepared the road for elastic currency in America in 1913.

That's all for now. I should get some sleep.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Duke2Earl]

There is only one real point here. Various courts over time have used the same words somewhat differently in different contexts. This is to be expected over many years and many subjects. In real life however, there is a difference between theory and practice. In actual practice, no court, no government agency, no merchant, no creditor, or anyone else besides perhaps wackos, is ever going to recognize any practical difference between FRNs and US Notes. Because in actual practice there is no difference and certainly no difference that would have any effect whatsoever on income taxation.

So you can sling as many words around it as you like. They will have absolutely no effect on the actual, real world.

[JamesVincent]

So you can sling as many words around it as you like. They will have absolutely no effect on the actual, real world.

Calling a bullet anything else does not stop it from blowing your head off when it hits you, yes? The one thing I always found interesting thing with some of these ... ummm ... people with their foolishness and red ink and stampers is: when they go around stamping US dollars they DO change what the currency is called. Since they stamped it, it is now defaced government property, destined to be destroyed and replaced. I dont think even Charlie Sheen could cry Winning! on that one.

[.]

remember GW's first stop when the Towers came down. Colorado Springs

Who would that be? GW Smith? GW Jones?

GW Bush was never in Colorado on 9-11. He flew from Andrews AFB in Maryland to Sarasota to Barksdale AFB in Louisiana to Offutt AFB in Nebraska and finally back to Andrews AFB.

Never mind the "lawful" money BS, this idiot can't even get basic, widely published facts right.

But, it is fun to just make stuff up, right?

I recall Air Force One coming in to Petersen AFB so low I could distinctly read the Presidential Seal.

[David Merrill]

There is only one real point here. Various courts over time have used the same words somewhat differently in different contexts. This is to be expected over many years and many subjects. In real life however, there is a difference between theory and practice. In actual practice, no court, no government agency, no merchant, no creditor, or anyone else besides perhaps wackos, is ever going to recognize any practical difference between FRNs and US Notes. Because in actual practice there is no difference and certainly no difference that would have any effect whatsoever on income taxation.

So you can sling as many words around it as you like. They will have absolutely no effect on the actual, real world.

For the court opinions like this one subject, to stand up to the test of time they have to accurately describe what Congress intended. There is one great big difference between US notes and FRNs but I am not allowed to tell you about it beyond what I have shown you. That is to say that US notes are based in gold, are inelastic and cannot be used for a reserve currency. FRNs are based in SDRs, are elastic and are of course a reserve currency too.


P.S. No. I am certain of it. GW came directly to Colorado Springs. Maybe I should go get the newspaper article down at the library though. I have to admit I am just going on memory here.

[The Observer]

GW Bush was never in Colorado on 9-11. He flew from Andrews AFB in Maryland to Sarasota to Barksdale AFB in Louisiana to Offutt AFB in Nebraska and finally back to Andrews AFB.

You know that and I know that, but I am sure that David will be telling us that Bush sneaked into Colorado that day to redeem lawful money due to the national emergency

[wserra]

Reply to Dan's analysis of Thomas: with all due respect, I think you put too fine a point on it. The only doctrine that matters is the old in rem principle that, once a seized item is abandoned, it cannot later be forfeited. The only factual/legal question is whether the government's conversion of cash (FRNs) into a cashier's check constitutes "abandonment". You really don't need to analyze the nature of FRNs to answer this question. As the Third Circuit itself said in Thomas, "no legal significance attaches to the bills themselves". To avoid a result that the Third Circuit called "absurd" in an analogous case, it held "that the DEA did not abandon the res when it converted the currency to a cashier's check".

The Third Circuit need have gone no further than that. However, despite having called the FRNs in question "money" no fewer than five times and "cash" or "currency" several more, the Third Circuit digresses with the passage quoted in this thread. Whether the presence of that passage is simply careless, or represents a judge or law clerk attempting to demonstrate historical erudition, is unimportant. Wherever the issue is squarely raised - and it rarely is, because "lawful money" is not a legal term - FRNs are held to be "lawful money". I cited only a sampling of those cases above. The facts of Thomas don't raise the issue.

There really isn't an explanation for sloppiness other than sloppiness. It happens to everyone.