Redeem lawful money

[Disilloosianed]

Yet again, I note that David fails t respond why, even if he is right in his theory, it matters. I once remember reading about a little town in Alaska that was relatively cut off from everything. They often paid each other in third-party checks, perpetually endorsed and re-endorsed. Now, my guess is that not a one of those checks was worth much of anything, but they functioned as the money of the town. So let's say you are right.....what everyone besides the few of you in the "know" believe to be money is just a big lie. Who cares? What is the outcome of this? The wheels are spinning, David, but the scooter is going nowhere.

[David Merrill]

Are either of the notes "lawful money" as the words are used at 411?

Technically in my opinion; No.

Defendant argues that the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, s 8, United States Constitution. We have held to the contrary. United States v. Ware, 10 Cir., 608 F.2d 400, 402-403. We find no validity in the distinction which defendant draws between “lawful money” and “legal tender.”

United States v. Rickman, 638 F.2d 182 (10th Cir. 1980).

Thank you for that Wserra;


I already got that from AndyK. All to be found in the IRS arsenal, and all the court cases is the assumption the patriot nutjob is trying to redeem gold and silver coin. The context is exactly that and given in the opinion - albeit it looks like the 10th Circuit justices jumped on the opportunity to spout some misdirection on the subject. The first sentence supplies the context for the opinion:

...within the [context and] meaning of Art. 1, s 8, United States Constitution. We have held to the contrary. United States v. Ware, 10 Cir., 608 F.2d 400, 402-403. We find no validity in the distinction which defendant draws between “lawful money” and “legal tender.”

So please grab us the US v Ware quotation for a confirmation. It will be standing on the gold and silver coin clause too.



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S.

Yet again, I note that David fails t respond why, even if he is right in his theory, it matters.

If you have withholdings for refund, it matters.

[Disilloosianed]

Because....because....because.....I say so!!!

It's okay, David....if you don't know, you don't have to answer.

[David Merrill]

Because....because....because.....I say so!!!

It's okay, David....if you don't know, you don't have to answer.

I don't have to answer, period. Even when the answer is obvious.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[ErsatzAnatchist]

David,

Could you post that picture of "lawful money" that I can redeem my Federal Reserve Notes for? I still want to see what it looks like.

Mark

[webhick]

David,

Could you post that picture of "lawful money" that I can redeem my Federal Reserve Notes for? I still want to see what it looks like.

Mark

I don't think he will. Best not to waste your energy.

[David Merrill]

David,

Could you post that picture of "lawful money" that I can redeem my Federal Reserve Notes for? I still want to see what it looks like.

Mark

You are like Disilloosioned;

There is absolutely no point in redeeming your FRNs for lawful money because you have already got FRNs. What you would find useful is to redeem lawful money instead of FRNs. If you already have FRNs then you admit to endorsement.

For example when I purchased the incorrect thickness of tape at OfficeMax and returned it for a refund the lady wanted me to sign for the cash. I wrote N/A instead. When she appeared puzzled, I told her she had given me lawful money.

But you already knew what lawful money looks like.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. I like the scam where you just point out the scam.

[iplawyer]

David,
Are you here because suijuris is down and you just have nothing better to do? Go get a life. You just keep driveling the same stupid cr*p.

[David Merrill]

David,
Are you here because suijuris is down and you just have nothing better to do? Go get a life. You just keep driveling the same stupid cr*p.

You are the one talking it.

If you don't care for it, just jockey your mouse along... happy trails!



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Maybe Suijuris being down is why there are 600 Readers here per day?

[Nikki]

No, David. Sooey being down would bring a few more visitors, but no more readers.

The concepts discussed here are too complex for their small minds and the words are too big for them to read.

[The Observer]

P.S. I like the scam where you just point out the scam.

Well, I like the scam where you blurted out that "terminators" would still have to go to the lawyer in black robes to deal with those IRS levies. How often do you see the con artist slapping his victims in the face before he takes their money?

[LDE]

iamfreeru2 wrote:

Someone please tell me what an obligation is? Is it not a debt? If FRNs are debt, then how can they be used to "pay" another debt? So we can see here that FRNs are not money, but obligations (debt) and nothing more.

Hate to disappoint you, but an obligation (debt) is used to pay another obligation (debt) all the time. A simple example: I pay my monthly car payment (an installment on a note, i.e., an obligation or debt) with a USPS money order I have obtained for cash, thus creating an obligation (debt) for the USA in my behalf. Whether it's precisely the U.S. Treasury or the Postal Service as a quasi-public corporation, I'm not sure. Either way it's paying an obligation with an obligation.

For a more sophisticated example—and probably beyond your ken, but let's go there—try collateralized debt obligations or currency swaps. Just for starters.

Let alone just about every leveraged buyout.

[LDE]

Oh, another thing. The reason the law refers to "legal tender" rather than "lawful money," believe it or not, is that the former is better defined than the latter. "Legal tender" is a medium of exchange that a merchant or other vendor must accept by law. (I'm not a lawyer, so someone who is can correct that definition if need be.) As for "money," its definition is disputed among economists, and even the Fed distinguishes between M1, M2, and M3. Some purportedly fringe economists have excellent arguments regarding the so-called moneyness of money. I'm not, and I'll bet you're not, really in a position to have to care other than an academic exercise. I think I've got my next ham sandwich covered for the foreseeable future. But there's a good reason for "legal tender" rather than "lawful money" and them FRNs still say on their face that they're legal tender.

And they're accepted as such not only by hundreds of millions of Americans, but in virtually every country around the globe. Whether or not you or David Merrill thinks they are "lawful."

Awful sorry.

[notorial dissent]

Prof is quite sound in saying that Congress will legislate and the courts will make rulings, not Quatlosers and Suijuris-Heads:
And they have, 31 USC 5103 specifically makes FRN’s legal tender. The courts in Rockford and Sanders have said that FRN’s are not only legal tender, but lawful money as well. The Appellate and district courts in US v Rickman came and quite plainly said, “We find no validity in the distinction which defendant draws between “lawful money” and “legal tender.”" So both the congress and the courts have spoken on the matter and disagree with you 100%, which is no surprise.

...holder of $50 Federal Reserve Bank Note, although entitled to redeem his note...

Old tired quote, this was about redeeming a FRN for gold, and he was told that wasn’t allowed, but that he could redeem his $50 for any combination of currency or coin he so chose, so the FRN was redeemable, has nothing to do with what you are blathering about.

But we already knew that the courts say you are wrong about your post.
Quite the contrary, as the court cases cited say exactly the opposite, you are the one in error, as usual.

What I am amused about is your confirmation that all of you endorsing the fractional lending through endorsing the chattel bond of yourselves about Heidi's "thin air" increase/inflation are all acting in the capacity of private bankers through private credit with the Fed.
Your bemusement notwithstanding. BS and nonsense, no one has said any such thing, what we have said, and said repeatedly, is that you are full of hot air and haven’t a clue about what you are talking about.

Federal Reserve Notes are indeed stock certificates.
Merillian nonsense, they are legal tender, currency, money, they do not fit the legal definition of a stock certificate, and 5103 says otherwise. In point of fact there is no such thing as Federal Reserve stock certificate, there is no provision in the law for them.

Bottom line here is that the law written while FRNs were not in general circulation is still in full force and effect.
No one said it wasn’t, just that your interpretation, as usual, was wrong. The notes originally referred to were not circulating notes, and could not be redeemed by someone outside the banking community.

31 USC § 5103. Very plainly states that Federal Reserve Notes ARE legal tender, and therefore lawful currency(money), according to the law.

The quote is right, you are wrong. Lawful money means legal tender. FRN’s are legal tender and therefore by definition lawful money, French Francs are money, but are not legal tender, and therefore not lawful money within the united states. The courts, as quoted previously have also declared that FRN’s are lawful money, so that blows your argument once again.

At least until you are willing to accept that the FRNs in §411 are stock certificates and the fellow in the linked case is just the average private banker.
Not in this life dim bulb, the “notes” referred to in §411 were in fact true notes, they were not and could not be stock certificates. If that were the case, the act would have labeled them as such, it did not, it labeled them as notes.

The Treasury Act (31 USC 742) he keeps trying to apply to FRN’s does not refer to FRN’s but to gov’t securities which is proven both by the text of the law, and by case law.

Thank you again for confirming I was clear about that. United States Notes are obviously obligations of the US. Not FRNs. Note the definition we have been loosely adopting (and thank you again Webhick)
I confirmed nothing, I said quite plainly that you were wrong, as well as illiterate. §742 is referring to govt securities not FRN’s, or Treasury Notes, they are currency, as defined by law. The section in question is referring to interest bearing securities of the US, not currency. FRN’s are, and U S Notes were, while in circulation, obligations of the US, but they are not securities, they are currency.

The Treasury ceased production and issuance, withdrew from circulation, and in fact has since destroyed all outstanding Treasury Notes since January 21, 1971.

Only due to wear and tear - expiration as paper currency along with destroying gobs of FRNs for the same reason. I can still go buy $2 worth of merchandise with my $2 US Note - especially from a knowledgable dealer who realizes:

1) that he just earned an easy $10
2) that he could not refuse the $2 US note for face value
Other than realizing that you are an idiot you mean. Unless the $2 bills you have say US Note at the top of them, which they won’t because they in fact they say Federal Reserve Note. It is highly unlikely that the $2 is worth more than $2 since they are not all that uncommon, and to be collectible they have to be in mint condition and or a rare issue, the likelihood of you having anything other than current issue $2's is nil. If they are collectible items you are a bigger idiot than I think you are.

Additionally the laws requiring US Notes be kept in circulation are still in place and easily found in the Code.
Please post then.

The most effective testimony is that you wrote the post at all Notorial Dissent. That proves to me I am explaining myself well, fantasy world or not. I imagine if my model about lawful money were truly fantasy it would be nebulous and would only agree partially with the United States Code. Your obfuscation and attempt to steer Readers back to the traditional Death and Taxes Party Line is very revealing.
You are delusional, and other than continuing to prove that you cannot read a simple sentence and comprehend it, or even have a clue about what you are reading you have proven nothing.

[LPC]

Thread dead.