"Redeeming Lawful Money"

[David Merrill]

I believe you all have made a mistake. Especially with MILAM where the judge supports redemption of lawful money.

...although entitled to redeem the note...

But the bigger mistake is that you feel it is my duty to defend lawful money redemption at all, just because I promote it in cyberspace. People get to decide for themselves.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[wserra]

Milam v. United States, 524 F.2d 629 (9th Cir. 1974), is a short opinion. Here it is, in its entirety:

Appellant has filed a substantial brief and an adequate reply brief and has argued his full share of allotted time in support for a demand that his $50.00 Federal Reserve Bank Note be redeemed in "lawful money" of the United States, which he says, in effect, must be gold or silver. Appellant refused appellees' tender of an equivalent value in Federal Reserve Notes.

Appellant's contentions, in our view, were put at rest close to a century ago in Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, 448, 4 S.Ct. 122, 130, 28 L.Ed. 204 (1884), in which it was said:

" . . . Under the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States, and to issue circulating notes for the money borrowed, its power to define the quality and force of those notes as currency is as broad as the like power over a metallic currency under the power to coin money and to regulate the value thereof. Under the two powers, taken together, 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 national government or private individuals. . . . " (Emphasis supplied.)

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. Cf.31 U.S.C. § 392.

While we agree that golden eagles, double eagles and silver dollars were lovely to look at and delightful to hold, we must at the same time recognize that time marches on, and that even the time honored silver dollar is no longer available in its last bastion of defense, the brilliant casinos of the houses of chance in the state of Nevada. Appellant is entitled to redeem his note, but not in precious metal. Simply stated, we find his contentions frivolous.

See that part that says, "Appellant refused appellees' tender of an equivalent value in Federal Reserve Notes"? That's what Milam was entitled to, as the Court says. If you read this to support your nonsense, you're hallucinating.

But the bigger mistake is that you feel it is my duty to defend lawful money redemption at all, just because I promote it in cyberspace.

You're quite right, David. The First Amendment says that you may promote whatever crackpot ideas you wish. Just as it says we can call you on them.

[Randall]

How would this clown feel if he was given $50 in gold when the going rate was over $1800/oz and now it is $1600. Who would he cry to then?

[Gregg]

This one sentence demonstrates David's grasp of law and respect for the truth/

Appellant is entitled to redeem his note...

Turns out to actually say

Appellant is entitled to redeem his note, but not in precious metal.

Yeah, like lots of other nutcases, when they're not just making stuff up and flat out lying, there always seems to be a "but".

[Pottapaug1938]

It's been a while since I paid any attention to David's fantasies on this subject; but if I recall correctly he hasn't said anything about redeeming FRNs in precious metal. Rather, by "redeeming" FRNs, with his silly self-inking stamp or otherwise, "redemption" works a wondrous transformation and presto-changeo, your FRN now has magical powers which it never had before, which work towards your benefit .

[grixit]

For when a properly ordained economystic speaks the words, the FRN is changed, and under the accidents of ink and paper, it becomes the actual blood and body of Alexander Hamilton.

[wserra]

Pie David Domine, dona eis pecuniam. (Thwack)

[The Observer]

Not "...dona eis pecunia redemerunt"?

[Gregg]

Now that's funny. You have made my Monday.

[wserra]

This thread was picked up in a forum called "PCGS Currency".

That's exactly why I think threads like this one are important. BTW, this thread is now the #1 hit for a google of "redeeming lawful money".

[David Merrill]

Your interpretation of MILAM does not fit the points I have been making in this thread. I have not been saying with MILAM, RICKMAN and WARE etc. that you have to be receiving gold or silver coin to be making your demand for lawful money. I do not believe that is true and have not been saying so.

[wserra]

I didn't "interpret" Milam - I quoted it, and you ignored what I quoted. Here it is again: "Appellant refused appellees' tender of an equivalent value in Federal Reserve Notes". That is what Milam is entitled to. No magic, no fairy dust, no tax-free heaven, no gold or silver - FRNs.

David, you no longer get to ignore posts and restate what you have posted dozens of times before just to have the last word. Proof or silence.

[The Observer]

Here it is again: "Appellant refused appellees' tender of an equivalent value in Federal Reserve Notes". That is what Milam is entitled to. No magic, no fairy dust, no tax-free heaven, no gold or silver - FRNs.

If there is no other alternative, that means that FRNs are lawful money!

I think we all owe a debt of gratitude to David for bringing this case to our attention and resolving once and for all what lawful money is. I am so satisfied to learn that I have been receiving lawful money all these years every time I got a paycheck and endorsed it. At one point I was wondering if I really needed to go buy a red rubber stamp, but now that David has convinced me that I do not have to worry about converting my FRNs, I do not have to waste money on that or any other mumbo-jumbo that David has been putting forth. I also want to point out that it takes a very brave man like David to admit that he has been wrong and to cite an on-point case that shows why he was wrong. After all, only an idiot would come back and try to tell us that Milam is telling us the exact opposite - right?

[Pottapaug1938]

To put it another way, David: since the entire opinion in Milam is quoted here, it is evident that the only way to "redeem" FRNs is to tender them to a bank and receive other money -- be it in the form of FRNs or coins -- in exchange.

Milam's fantasy was that he was entitled to receive gold or silver in response to his demand for redemption. The court explicitly rejected that contention. In addition, it implicitly rejected your fantasies as well; for if your fantasies had any basis in reality the court would have said something like "had Milam instead made a demand for lawful money, upon redeeming his Federal Reserve Notes, he could have obtained the right to demand a refund of all money withheld from his paycheck for purposes of income or other taxation", or something of the sort.

The only way to "redeem" your FRNs, then, is to take them to the bank and demand other lawful money in return (and you have admitted that FRNs are lawful money, remember). The only thing that you have accomplished, by this exercise is 1) the receipt of other currency or coins and 2) the complete waste of however much time it took for the transaction to be completed.

[Number Six]

To put it another way, David: since the entire opinion in Milam is quoted here, it is evident that the only way to "redeem" FRNs is to tender them to a bank and receive other money -- be it in the form of FRNs or coins -- in exchange.

Milam's fantasy was that he was entitled to receive gold or silver in response to his demand for redemption. The court explicitly rejected that contention. In addition, it implicitly rejected your fantasies as well; for if your fantasies had any basis in reality the court would have said something like "had Milam instead made a demand for lawful money, upon redeeming his Federal Reserve Notes, he could have obtained the right to demand a refund of all money withheld from his paycheck for purposes of income or other taxation", or something of the sort.

The only way to "redeem" your FRNs, then, is to take them to the bank and demand other lawful money in return (and you have admitted that FRNs are lawful money, remember). The only thing that you have accomplished, by this exercise is 1) the receipt of other currency or coins and 2) the complete waste of however much time it took for the transaction to be completed.

What is fascinating is this topic as one of historical note. You can receive all types of numismatic publications and never see this topic addressed. "Ask your lawyer" is the usual response to legal issues, but most lawyers don't have a clue as to how and why the door was closed to paper transfers for precious metals.

And with Roosevelt's notorious executive order, Gold Reserve Act of January 30, 1934, ostensibly to disourage the hoarding of pms by the "economic royalists" was thinly enforced and obeyed.

"Whenever gold certificates/notes appeared at banks they were exchanged dollar-for-dollar until about 1962 (?) when ownership was permitted again.

"Most of the value of “gold hoards” consisted of paper notes, not coins. Whenever these were surrendered to Treasury Agents a list of serial numbers was made, then the owners were taken to a local bank for exchange. $5,000 and $10,000 notes were prevalent in hoards."

"Paper gold notes circulated. Little gold coin circulated except in the far west. When gold was nationalized, most of the coin was already in the Treasury or under Treasury control.

"A similar situation existed from 1917-1921, when Treasury simply refused to make or issue gold coins, and actively kept gold notes out of circulation. Restrictions were lifted in 1922, but few people went back to gold coins.

"Nearly all of the public reports of "gold in circulation" included coins and paper. Superficial reading of these has thoroughly confused collectors for decades." http://boards.collectors-society.com/ub ... ost5862980


"Laws are enacted by Congress and enforced by the Executive. The Executive also prepares regulations that allow enforcement of Congress' laws. The Supreme Court acts as arbitrator when there is a question about the constitutionality of a law or the enforcement actions. It isn't "perfect" but it works a lot better than in most places.

"The April 1933 Executive actions, in concert with acts of Congress in 1917 and the emergency powers, were aimed at the hoarding of gold metal and gold-denominated instruments. The problem was twofold: 1) preventing export of gold thereby removing it from circulation, and 2) hoarding of all types of currency which effectively removed it from domestic circulation and restricted trade. Previous attempts by the Hoover administration to restrict gold hoarding were unsuccessful because the actions were voluntary. Neither Hoover nor Roosevelt had the legal tools necessary to attack the basic problems of credit constriction and speculation. (Both of these came back to cause a Depression in 2007 after laws enacted to prevent these abuses were countermanded by Congress.)

"As to enforcement, Treasury Agents enforced the executive orders and 1934 Gold Act. (Many were former prohibition agents.)

"The Hoover administration in December 1932 had begun recording the names and addresses of all who withdrew gold from banks. In May 1933, agents investigated business and individuals whose names appeared on these lists. Out of thousands of names, many were fake, others had deposited gold as a normal part of business and in the end only a few hundred were actually investigated. Total prosecutions were less than 50 for the country, and most were of foreign nationals trying to hide gold for export.

"The safe deposit box “inspection” applied only to those with names on the list or who otherwise brought attention to themselves.

"Other enforcement investigations occurred only when there was a complaint or someone brought attention to themselves. Over half of all investigations through 1947 originated with a relative or someone who wanted to “get even” with another person.

"As this might help some understand, superficial examination of actions results in superficial and usually inaccurate assumptions. If one has “not seen specifics of how the law was enforced” and has not understood how “the original law was ostensibly geared to discourage hoarding” or read and understood executive orders, law and regulation, then accurate conclusions cannot be made.

"The whole episode is difficult to follow and at the time was just as confusing as at present. But it is important for modern numismatists to get beyond the superficial hyperbole, “gold bug” hand wringing, and doomsday people, if they are to understand the reality of actions and consequences." http://boards.collectors-society.com/ub ... ost5862980

[Number Six]

Or to go back in time to the Colonial era, here a few examples on contemporary paper money:

http://i.imgur.com/vh79A.jpg http://i.imgur.com/zfyFj.jpg

This note circulated heavily, was worth 20 shillings, about an English pound, and was never cancelled.

Here is a note that was cancelled, from Massachusetts:

http://i.imgur.com/5t2G1.jpg http://i.imgur.com/cOxgg.jpg

Here is a Continental Currency bill from the same era in good condition with flakes of mica embedded in the note:

http://i.imgur.com/BHfsw.jpg http://i.imgur.com/wRtSD.jpg

Spanish Milled dollars are a little less than an ounce. Like the modern inability to "redeem lawful money" the impossibility of doing so with these I'm pretty sure ended by the time of the adoption of the new money system in the 1790s.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Not been on here for a few days and I'm surprised no one has noticed David's own summary of the situation:

I believe you all have made a mistake.

David is right and the rest of the planet is wrong; it's so obvious, I'm amazed I hadn't come to this conclusion earlier.

[wserra]

While checking on something else, I ran across the following posts. David wrote them himself on his own board, in the same thread as more meaningless redacted docs that "prove" that redeeming lawful money supposedly does something:

A new suitor filed a LoR in California on Monday. It took three hours!

The case has yet to show up on PACER.

Shortly thereafter:

The new suitor's case showed up on PACER this morning.

Hmm, I says. California? Filed on Monday? Probably quite a few cases meet that description - 54, to be exact - but I'll bet I can pick this one out just from the title.

And I could. Denise Elizabeth v. Timothy Geithner, 12-cv-7719, CACD. The complaint is exactly what you would expect from a "suitor" of David's. It varies between laughable and incomprehensible.

So, ladies and gentlemen, here we have a real-life, unredacted test of whether "redeeming lawful money" works. I'll let you know - as if we don't already. I note from the documents attached to the complaint that the IRS has already threatened her with a frivpen. David to the rescue.

[Pottapaug1938]

The outcome of this case will not matter in the slightest. Anyone with half a brain already understands what the law is; and the self-anointed experts with crackpot legal theories about the effects of "redeeming lawful money" will try to push upon us excuses by the barrelful as to why the courts were wrong, etc. etc. etc.

[David Merrill]

That really gets us right to the point Poppycock!

What really matters when the rubber hits the road is what the courts, IRS and Congress think of the law. Not what Quatlosers with "half a brain" think of the law.

The outcome of this case will not matter in the slightest. Anyone with half a brain already understands what the law is; and the self-anointed experts with crackpot legal theories about the effects of "redeeming lawful money" will try to push upon us excuses by the barrelful as to why the courts were wrong, etc. etc. etc.

That is really amusing - even Wserra feels quite differently. I guess you have discovered that these cases are quite effective and successful, to be warning everybody that it really doesn't matter; we should just take your word on "half a brain" logic!