WFS has a new star - David Merrill!

[Burnaby49]

I'm sure it's a relief to readers to find that redeeming lawful money is still going strong;

http://worldfreemansociety.ca/forum/49- ... ong#144670

[AndyK]

It's nice to see that the word salad generator is still running at 100% efficiency.

[Pottapaug1938]

He's as boring as ever. I've even stopped visiting Planet Merrill, except on rare occasions, because he and his acolytes are still pushing the same mix of legal misinformation and turgid religious expositions.

[TheNewSaint]

Dot C-A? As in Canada? Why would David Merrill think that American banking law would... never mind, I answered my own question.

[Pottapaug1938]

Remember, this is a guy who thinks that, just because someone named Van Pelt was a "Patroon" in the days of New Netherlands, he now has some exalted status under US law.

[notorial dissent]

Actually, come to it, I think WFS deserves Merrill, with parsley on top, it is about time they paid the price, and he will certainly be it. Maybe he'll attempt another coup and try and turn them in to a religious order or something, that would be fun to watch.

[fortinbras]

David Merrill - real name: David Merrill van Pelt - knows what it's like to be locked down - both in jail and in a psych ward.

He has several very strange notions, including one that could put him in deep deep trouble - he thinks that Federal Reserve Notes are not "lawful money", and therefore not taxable. The last form of currency explicitly identified as "lawful money" was United States Notes - which were first issued in 1862 and last issued nearly a century later, around 1958. United States Notes generally resembled FRNs and had the remarkable distinction for paper currency issued in 1862 - unlike Silver Certificates and other paper currency of that time, United States Notes represented no collateral, no precious metal, no govt assets - only the good faith of the US govt; making them fiat currency - the bane of Rightwingers, which is why Congress went to the trouble of declaring United States Notes to be lawful money. As I said, United States Notes have not been issued since van Pelt (or as I refer to him "DiM") was in diapers, and now are prized collectors' items so they're not at all in circulation. But when van Pelt wants to pretend that he is getting "lawful money", he puts a rubber stamp on checks he cashes at the bank, "pay in lawful money" -- or when presenting FRNs for exchange at a bank he will murmur "lawful money please" -- and imagine that the FRNs he gets in return are somehow United States Notes, although to everyone else they're ordinary FRNs.

I might add that a very few court cases called upon in the last half century to decide what "lawful money" can be gotten in exchange for FRNs decided that Federal Reserve Notes are, themselves, lawful money (as are coins minted by the govt). Several sections in the federal transportation laws provide that lost cargo or luggage will be compensated in "lawful money" - sections enacted or amended since United States Notes ceased to be issued. No litigation was ever commenced challenging the adequacy of FRNs to satisfy these terms (but it was evidently intended that a shipper would pay for lost luggage with spendable money and not with discounted tickets). Generally, "lawful money" is a broader term than "legal tender"; "legal tender" is the official currency issued by the govt itself, "lawful money" is whatever the marketplace accepts as media of exchange, including traveler's checks, business/personal checks, credit cards, and, yes, legal tender.

[norrha]

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lawfulmoney.asp
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/legal-tender.asp

well define "lawful money" and "legal tender".

[notorial dissent]

Poorly worded definitions and the one on "lawful money" is just flat out wrong, and there are sufficient court cases to that effect. There is NO difference in the meaning, and the Treasury does not, and has not, issued currency for decades.

[Pottapaug1938]

Courts have consistently held that US Notes are no longer necessary since they performed no function which Federal Reserve Notes do not perform just as well. The requirement that a certain amount of US Notes be "kept in circulation" was "observed", since the early 70s, by "circulating" pallets of USNs around a secure warehouse, until the circulation requirement was repealed, at which point the remaining USNs were destroyed.

[wserra]

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lawfulmoney.asp

Not even close.

[notorial dissent]

I'm thinking I would not be interested in taking investment advice from a company that can't even get something that simple right.

[TheNewSaint]

For anyone interested in the details of "redeeming lawful money", there was a fantastic thread on it awhile back:

viewtopic.php?t=8415

[fortinbras]

I spent quite a bit of time ferreting out the legal significance of "lawful money" and the definition offered by Investopedia is simply wrong. While the precise definition seems to vary from economist to economist, from lawyer to lawyer, it is not something that excludes FRNs or legal tender. Back in 1913 the US Treasury offered the (debatable) legal opinion that lawful money was absolutely synonymous with legal tender.

The problem goes back to the 1862 issue of United States Notes. As they were fiat currency it was felt necessary to declare them, by law, usable currency; one Congressional bill called them legal tender and another Congressional bill called them lawful money. In Conference, both terms were used in tandem; United States Notes were declared to be both lawful money and legal tender, as if the two terms suggested something very distinct from each other. Then in 1913, the Federal Reserve Act said that the new Federal Reserve Notes were redeemable in lawful money -- for some people this meant that FRNs were interchangeable with the currency already in circulation, for people like DiM it seemed to mean that FRNs were somehow different. Without changing that section of the law, in 1933, another law was enacted, when gold and gold certificates were taken out of circulation, that all govt-issued currency, specificially mentioning FRNs, were all now legal tender.

[norrha]

So how about using the definition in Merriam-Webster (MW) instead: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona ... ul%20money

"lawful money" could mean "money issued in accordance with (positive) law" whereas "legal tender" simply means that which is recognized by law for the payment of debts. The fact that FRNs are now considered legal tender and lawful money [1], does not negate that the terms are fundamentally different.

[1] http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_15197.htm

[Pottapaug1938]

So how about using the definition in Merriam-Webster (MW) instead: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona ... ul%20money

"lawful money" could mean "money issued in accordance with (positive) law" whereas "legal tender" simply means that which is recognized by law for the payment of debts. The fact that FRNs are now considered legal tender and lawful money [1], does not negate that the terms are fundamentally different.

[1] http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_15197.htm

Why bother? This is a distinction which has long since ceased to have any real meaning in our lives. I have long since realized that trying to make Van Pelt understand that his fantasies hold no legal weight whatsoever is futile, and I decline to give his ideas any respect by making further attempts to refute them.

[NYGman]

So how about using the definition in Merriam-Webster (MW) instead: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona ... ul%20money

"lawful money" could mean "money issued in accordance with (positive) law" whereas "legal tender" simply means that which is recognized by law for the payment of debts. The fact that FRNs are now considered legal tender and lawful money [1], does not negate that the terms are fundamentally different.

[1] http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_15197.htm

Dictionary definitions are not binding law. This topic, and Lawful Money has already been fully defined in teh other thread. If you are interested in a definition, start there.

[wserra]

So how about using the definition in Merriam-Webster (MW) instead: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona ... ul%20money

You've found a word that is only available in the Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary. To view the full definition of lawful money, activate your free trial today.

No thanks.

"lawful money" could mean "money issued in accordance with (positive) law" whereas "legal tender" simply means that which is recognized by law for the payment of debts. The fact that FRNs are now considered legal tender and lawful money [1], does not negate that the terms are fundamentally different.

I agree that the terms are different in theory. I suppose that, in theory, something could be lawful money without being legal tender (although the inverse is pretty hard to picture). In 2017 U.S., however, they are identical in practice. FRNs, plus any left-over US Notes, or Silver or Gold Certificates, are both lawful money and legal tender.

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

Yes, that's accurate. As Gman says, it's all been discussed in considerable detail in the other thread. So what's the problem?

[noblepa]

So how about using the definition in Merriam-Webster (MW) instead: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona ... ul%20money

"lawful money" could mean "money issued in accordance with (positive) law" whereas "legal tender" simply means that which is recognized by law for the payment of debts. The fact that FRNs are now considered legal tender and lawful money [1], does not negate that the terms are fundamentally different.

[1] http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_15197.htm

Isn't "positive law" a nonsensical term made up by FMOTL and Tax Deniers? Does it have any real legal significance. I have heard Tax Deniers argue that Title 26 is not "positive law" because Congress never voted on the title as a whole. In their fantasies, they believe that this makes the tax laws invalid.

[The Observer]

Yes, that's accurate. As Gman says, it's all been discussed in considerable detail in the other thread. So what's the problem?

That he is still getting taxed despite stamping "lawful money" on his currency?