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

[Imalawman]

My god, Pottapaug, those colors are killing my eyes! I think I need a new lens prescription now. Who do you think you are, Duke to Earl?

[Duke2Earl]

You may disagree with me on anything you like but I have never posted color coded posts.

[wserra]

I think it's the avatar.

[Pottapaug1938]

The colors have been toned down....

[Imalawman]

You may disagree with me on anything you like but I have never posted color coded posts.

Oop's! Sorry! Who's the one that always posts in that bright blue?

[webhick]

You may disagree with me on anything you like but I have never posted color coded posts.

Oop's! Sorry! Who's the one that always posts in that bright blue?

notorial dissent

[Imalawman]

The colors have been toned down....

Much obliged..

[Imalawman]

You may disagree with me on anything you like but I have never posted color coded posts.

Oop's! Sorry! Who's the one that always posts in that bright blue?

notorial dissent

Ah yes, that's right. I'm sure ND has a lot of great things to say, my eyes just can't handle the color.

[David Merrill]

I think you all should read Thomas in context of Rickman and Ware.

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

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.

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...

These three quotes all agree with each other and with Congress.


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

[The Observer]

None of which means that "lawful money" upon being realized isn't taxable.

[Pottapaug1938]

I think you all should read Thomas in context of Rickman and Ware.

Thanks to you, we already have read your same old tired dicta. You seem unable to understand that simply mining suitable quotes from court cases is meaningless, and that you need a court to HOLD that the law says something in order for you to be able to meaningfully use quotes like yours to buttress your arguments. You have already admitted that there are no court cases which support your fantasies about redemption of lawful money; so why you continue to give us more dicta word salad escapes me.

[Imalawman]

I think you all should read Thomas in context of Rickman and Ware.

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

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.

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...

These three quotes all agree with each other and with Congress.


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

But, there's no requirement that you receive lawful money in order to be taxed on it. Consider, a US citizen is taxed on the receipt of foreign income - in Euros for instance. The US Citizen wouldn't have received "lawful money" in the US, but nonetheless it would be taxed.

Consider further, that one can be taxed when one wins a car - no receipt of lawful money, but yet, it is a taxable event.

Also, you're wrong about FRNs being lawful money as well.

[wserra]

These threads just go 'round and 'round. There is no end in sight, because David, so long as his posts are approved, will insist on getting the last word. He will post nothing new. His posts will contain the same absence of law supporting his position, the same absence of verifiable facts supporting his claims of success. The previous five hundred iterations of unsupported bullshit will not deter him from posting the five hundred first. He has nothing else to do.

A suggestion to any mod who approves a post from him: if it contains nothing more than the same old BS, immediately move it to the "Collected Nonsense" thread in Flames. Otherwise, this will not end.

[The Observer]

A suggestion to any mod who approves a post from him: if it contains nothing more than the same old BS, immediately move it to the "Collected Nonsense" thread in Flames. Otherwise, this will not end.

Then I would suggest that we also lock this thread and save it somewhere for posterity's sake so that we don't have to revive the subject matter in a new thread. That way, when somone raises the topic again, we can refer them to this thread and tell them enjoy the inanity.

[wserra]

Good idea.