Impossible! The deficit is falling as well as unemployment Obama wrecking economy

[tokeprep]

What civil rights are gay people not getting at the moment?

Are we not prohibited from being married in most states? Are we protected from employment discrimination in most states? Are we accorded the same rights and benefits as other people who would be similarly situated but for that one thing?

 

[twostrokenut]

I just said his argument was that Federal Reserve Notes are not lawful money. You seem to agree.

• 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.
  
  
  ​
  
  

I have determined your IQ is 100 or less.

 

[tokeprep]

I have determined your IQ is 100 or less.

Do you not understand that he's arguing Federal Reserve Notes aren't lawful money by saying the statute must mean gold or silver when it says lawful money?

 

[twostrokenut]

[/COLOR]]

The court says nothing about Federal Reserve Notes "with the obligation removed." I don't understand why you're inserting that--there's no basis for it in the opinion. Quote me otherwise.

Court doesn't have to explain commercial banking law, not their job. Appellant was the one doing business in private bank notes, his job. You claimed that decision quoted "federal reserve notes are lawful money". It does not.


You've already seen it over and over again because it's literally inside the Milam opinion: Juilliard v. Greenman: "Congress is authorized to establish a national currency, either in coin or in paper, and to make that currency lawful money for all purposes..." No quotes.

Another fail, sorry. I am convinced you are pretending not to get it just to continue arguing. This does not say "federal reserve notes lawful money" only that the national currency is lawful money.

The Milam court says this is the answer. According to the supreme court in the 1800s, congress has the power to establish a national paper currency and to make that currency lawful money. That's exactly what congress did. Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money, which is why they found Milam's contention's otherwise to be frivolous.

Miliam cites Juilliard as reason the Fed could offer paper up as lawful money on behalf of the United States. The Fed does not have physical USNotes sitting around they are in the Treasury. You are right The Supreme Court decision in the 1800's is how Lincoln used Greenbacks, which are factually unites states notes as per 31usc5115. The notes Lincoln used in the war are the very same notes in 31usc5115 and is the Lawful Money in paper form Congress authorized, that's why its still in the code and can't be removed although it certainly has been updated a lot. What was found frivolous was Milam's insistence on redeeming for gold and silver... learn to read please this will go a lot smoother.

Here's your helpful legislative hint: when a court quotes directly from a source, they typically put the language in quotations. The phrase "lawful money" appears in 12 USC 411, which is the basis of Milam's suit. When you put statutory language in quotations, it merely means that you're conveying the literal text of the statute. It's in quotes because it's the phrase in the statute that's at dispute!

The quote "lawful money" in Milam was in reference to the Juiliard v Greenman decision they also quoted. Lawful money is not in quotes in Juiliard because it is referencing United States Notes and coins, not Federal Reserve Notes. 12usc411 was upheld in Milams note for note swap offer which he denied.

This case certainly is about redeeming gold and silver, sure, because the court makes clear the idea is ridiculous. But the basis of that case is Milam's challenge to the fact that Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money within the meaning of 12 USC 411. The court dismisses this by citing the supreme court precedent I quoted above, which says congress can establish a paper currency and make it lawful money. The case is necessarily about this issue at well.

The court made sure Legal Tender Laws were enforced not that anything is ridiculous. Their job is to uphold laws ya know? The basis of Milams challenge was to redeem in gold or silver and he denied that paper could substitute lawful money....like you said Congress already said it could....Congress never said FRN's could Congress says they can be redeemed in lawful money in 12usc411.......go read it again.

The FRN's offered for swap were lawful money under 12usc411 and per Juiliard. The swap is what you argued did not have to happen, indeed it did even in what you claim defends your argument. "The power so precisely described in Juiliard" that was "delegated to the Federal Reserve System under 12usc411" must still adhere to 12usc411 and Congress' law to redeem, which is why the Fed offers the swap, they are compelled to by law. They are not compelled to explain to you or I what this means or represents.

You're really reading way too much into the quotations. The statute doesn't distinguish between lawful money and "lawful money," and neither does the court. If you think the phrases below make the case otherwise, let's walk through why they don't.

I am not reading too much into quotes you are not approaching this as a lawyer. The feds page and Milam are quoting Juiliard it's not something to be dismissed and why it must appear in quotes. Lawful money is what is on deposit at the Fed which enables FRN's to circulate then be fractionally lent I have showed you that as well.

Yes, I agree so far. This sentence says that Milam demanded his Federal Reserve Notes be redeemed in "lawful money," by which he meant gold or silver.



It doesn't say he refused "lawful money," it says he refused an equivalent value in Federal Reserve Notes. In the first sentence you quoted, "lawful money" is used in reference to Milam's argument that it must be gold and silver. Accordingly, the court notes that Milam refused a tender of equivalent value in Federal Reserve Notes, because they weren't lawful money, which he interpreted to require gold or silver.



Regardless, what's your basis for saying the Fed is "required to make them non-negotiable upon demand...meaning they can't be fractionally lent"? Statute? Court case? Show me the money.

Fed issues Fed notes. You think Congress does but they don't. Congress authorizes US coins and US notes. Our zinc coins of today do not say "federal reserve" on them because they were not issued by the Fed. A very literal example of a US Note in coin form is a Sacajawea dollar coin issued directly from the US Treasury and not the Fed.

Lawful Money in paper form is already determined to be US notes as per the Civil War because they are issued by the United States directly. These are non-negotiable.

Congress says:
12usc411 FRN's are to be redeemed on demand in lawful money.
31usc5115 United States notes may not be held or used for a reserve.

The Fed and The Federal Reserve Act also helps:
The Act states that Federal Reserve notes "shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank." The Act did not, however, define the term "lawful money," but up until 1913, the only currency issued by the United States that was legally recognized as "lawful money" was various issues of "demand notes" (subsequently known as "old demand notes") and "United States notes" authorized by Congress during the Civil War.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_15197.htm

The Fed must disclose this definition of lawful money because it is buried deep in the Statutes At Large.

Commercial Law dictates what is negotiable and non negotiable. Commercial Law is way older than American Congress.

Congress is aware of Commercial Law. The ones that write our statutes and Acts are at least......the ones that just sign shit they don't understand are really guilty of fucking sucking and idk why We The People put up with it but it's getting better.

You are right we all use FRN's that's the system. If I choose to buy gold with FRN's I am really getting fucked over using inflated negotiable instruments to buy actual non-negotiable money that cost more and more as the notes are inflated....still better than other investments though just imho......

You and I are dealing in private bank notes which means you literally are assumed to know all the Commercial Law in advance.

According to Congress in The Federal Reserve Act FRN's are "to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are hereby authorized."

So what are we that are "holders in due course" of these notes? Are we not legally assumed to be agents and banks of the Federal Reserve System in the eye of Commercial Law???

According to the law we are.

And again, what's your statutory or court basis for saying the Fed would have to account for them very differently? This decision says absolutely nothing about that.

The decision doesn't have to. Accounting is Commercial Law you are supposed to know already.
The accounting is reflected in:
31usc5115
The fact US notes are non negotiable and can't serve as reserves, therefore cant be part of the "reserve" system therefore can't be fractionally lent. Non-negotiable according to commercial law and the definition of "money".


[/INDENT][/FONT][/COLOR]
[/LIST]
[/FONT][/COLOR]
I absolutely agree that Milam's argument was that only gold and silver were lawful money under the statute. What you don't seem to understand is that the question of whether Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money is necessarily answered in that decision. The court cites the supreme court case saying that congress can issue paper currency and make it lawful money; they refer to the Federal Reserve and say that it properly exercises this government power. Thus Federal Reserve Notes, our paper currency, are lawful money.

You are getting warmer. Remember Judges are Lawyers in black robes. The court upheld the note for note swap served as lawful paper money and that Milams insistence that only gold or silver could serve this was frivolous since Juiliard already upheld it wasn't. Court knows USnotes "serve no adequate purpose that can not already be served by FRN's" but knows Treasury holds US notes just in case.

When the statute says redemption must be in lawful money, tender of equivalent value in Federal Reserve Notes constitutes redemption in lawful money. This is exactly the conclusion that Milam disputed in arguing that only gold or silver could be lawful money--he necessarily argues that Federal Reserve Notes are not. The court calls this claim frivolous; the tender of Federal Reserve Notes for Federal Reserve Notes satisfied the statute.

He "necessarily" argued?? He did no such thing. Milam failed to understand the notes he was offered served the adequate purpose US notes served because he made his demand. Milam failed to acknowledge Legal Tender laws period. The court called Milam's claim that gold and silver were the only lawful money of the United States frivolous.....go read it again. The tender of notes satisfied the lawful paper money as per Juiliard which was based on Congress' distorted, yet upheld definition of lawful paper money dating back to the Civil War. Why do you think I brought up Greenbacks so early in this thread???????????????

Lawful money has no obligation it is non negotiable and issued directly from US not issued on behalf of the US by the Fed with obligations of elasticity and managing it.....that is important to understand. That is why

We agree on the facts up to where you say the redemption was Federal Reserve Notes with the obligation removed that are non-negotiable. The court case says nothing about any of that. All the court says is that Milam tried to redeem his $50 note and was given a $50 note back. Period. The court says the statute entitles him to do this and doesn't require gold or silver. Period.

The court does not have say anything about what is negotiable or not. That is on Milam to understand since he is the one dealing in private credit notes and Commercial Law.

There's nothing about removing obligations and making notes non-negotiable. Absolutely nothing.

Nope that is in the UCC article 3 or whatever you quoted earlier. Let's see how did you so eloquently put it again....

• UCC Article 3 explicitly excludes money from being a negotiable instrument. Period

  
  

FRN's are not money only a representation of money and therefore very negotiable as evidenced by fractional lending. US notes were argued successfully to be money way back in Lincoln's day and are lawfully non-negotiable paper money and cannot be held for reserves because of this status.....FRN's do not enjoy this status of non-negotiability.

FRN's only have Legal Tender status. US notes and coins have Legal Tender and Lawful Money Status.
The gold and silver ones suffer from face value Legal Tender status but retain Lawful Money status if they are issued by the US.....that is to say they cannot be used as elastic currency. US notes can't either but they still have no intrinsic value.......get it yet?

.................................

 

[twostrokenut]

What race card is it that you think I'm playing...?

So you're a hypocrite then. So you don't actually believe what you say. That's exactly my point. The fact that they promised men the blessings of liberty doesn't mean that they actually granted them those blessings; indeed, we know for a fact they didn't. The constitution did not end slavery, which means it must not have meant liberty for all as you're trying to suggest.

You are playing the race card because you brought up slavery in an attempt to detract from the economic points at hand rather than fail at defending your argument.

I can promise you the blessings of clean renewable energy but I can't make it happen right now. It will happen though. The blessings of liberty for all have happened sorry it wasn't timely enough for you but it was a lot fucking faster than the rest of the world was approaching ALL THOSE ISSUES.

A constitutional amendment did not provide for the end of slavery?? The Constitution did not facilitate this amendment?? Wow man this is a weed forum maybe lay off the hard stuff.

 

[twostrokenut]

You have a choice. You can convert your dollars into precious metals at your pleasure. We can turn it right back around--why should you force your choice on everyone else?

Under a gold standard you could exercise your choice to purchase private bank notes. Under the Federal Reserve System I must purchase gold with inflated fiat currency.....speak more of choice partner you have turned nothing around.



Most people farmed to survive. That's your answer. Work really hard all your life and still have little to show for it--that's been the reality for most people in human history. Hard money never knew the comfortable plenty that we know today.

Pure and complete speculation. Henry Ford farm? Wright Brothers farm? Ben Franklin farm? Oh wait you're a race baiter and those are white guys.

George Washington Carver a farmer?
Thomas L. Jennings?
Norbert Rillieux?
Benjamin Bradley?

Your fails have graduated to epic.

People are selfish and reckless. They probably always will be. Hard money didn't eliminate bubbles or economic cycles; indeed, they were worse and more severe, as we discussed. We have a lot of wealth and we waste a lot of wealth worshiping consumerism that didn't exist in the hard money days. The fact that we have more wealth now is what enables our rampant consumerism.

When misled by free credit they are. Why do we worship consumerism that didn't exist in hard money days maybe because the money is less valuable? More wealth now? Nope. The fact we have endless easy credit is what enables consumerism without capital.

According to the golden number 1.618 nature, and the nature of people is not selfish and reckless.......

You think math is a new thing not known to the Founders? .

......................

 

[NoDrama]

Are we not prohibited from being married in most states? Are we protected from employment discrimination in most states? Are we accorded the same rights and benefits as other people who would be similarly situated but for that one thing?

You are not prohibited from marrying, but , since you need a license from the state to get married in the first place, then marriage isn't really a "Right" now is it? Marriage is a privilege, that is why you need a license to do it. If it were a right you would need no permission from anyone to engage in such activity.

Employment discrimination? By the employer or the other employees? You have no right to be treated kindly by anyone. Do you see straight people with special "laws" that protect them from straight bashing by gay people? Any special laws protecting straight people from employment discrimination? Why do you feel that gays should be afforded rights the rest do not get? Are gays somehow better than the rest?

You have the exact same rights as the rest of them, you want special specific rights just for yourself is what you are asking for.

 

[NoDrama]

you can invest the rest of the money.

Invest in what exactly?

 

[cannabineer]

You are not prohibited from marrying, but , since you need a license from the state to get married in the first place, then marriage isn't really a "Right" now is it? Marriage is a privilege, that is why you need a license to do it. If it were a right you would need no permission from anyone to engage in such activity.

Employment discrimination? By the employer or the other employees? You have no right to be treated kindly by anyone. Do you see straight people with special "laws" that protect them from straight bashing by gay people? Any special laws protecting straight people from employment discrimination? Why do you feel that gays should be afforded rights the rest do not get? Are gays somehow better than the rest?

You have the exact same rights as the rest of them, you want special specific rights just for yourself is what you are asking for.

So how then does a nonofficially married gay couple secure the tax advantage accorded to the married? cn

 

[NoDrama]

So how then does a nonofficially married gay couple secure the tax advantage accorded to the married? cn

What tax advantages are you talking about? As far as income tax is concerned there is a marriage penalty.

 

[SlaveNoMore]

I would gladly give up my marriage "rights" so that gay people could have the right to marry. Entering into a contract with the state is fine and dandy.....as long as you stay together. It's the divorce that kills you. In the long haul I don't really see any advantage to allowing the state into my personal relationship for the sake of a tax advantage.

With common law a marriage certificate doesn't mean anything. I think any two people who share expenses to maintain a household should be given any advantages afforded to a married couple. This would apply to long term roommates, family members who live together as well as gay people. This whole marriage/state thing is a joke and is smacks of archaic religiousity.

 

[UncleBuck]

You are not prohibited from marrying, but , since you need a license from the state to get married in the first place, then marriage isn't really a "Right" now is it? Marriage is a privilege, that is why you need a license to do it. If it were a right you would need no permission from anyone to engage in such activity.

Employment discrimination? By the employer or the other employees? You have no right to be treated kindly by anyone. Do you see straight people with special "laws" that protect them from straight bashing by gay people? Any special laws protecting straight people from employment discrimination? Why do you feel that gays should be afforded rights the rest do not get? Are gays somehow better than the rest?

You have the exact same rights as the rest of them, you want special specific rights just for yourself is what you are asking for.

about the stupidest thing you have said, besides all the stuff you plagiarize.

 

[UncleBuck]

What tax advantages are you talking about?

seriously? are you fucking stupid?

how about we start somewhere that you should damn well know about, all the socialist benefits you and your spouse get to enjoy on behalf of the taxpayer for your useless service in the military? gays sure can serve now, but DOMA prevents their spouses from receiving the same benefits that your spouse would.

that's just the start.

 

[NoDrama]

seriously? are you fucking stupid?

how about we start somewhere that you should damn well know about, all the socialist benefits you and your spouse get to enjoy on behalf of the taxpayer for your useless service in the military? gays sure can serve now, but DOMA prevents their spouses from receiving the same benefits that your spouse would.

that's just the start.

What does this have to do with tax advantages?

I think someone is so so confused. Probably due to the fact that you have never paid taxes.

 

[UncleBuck]

What does this have to do with tax advantages?

I think someone is so so confused. Probably due to the fact that you have never paid taxes.

telling obvious lies about me is not gonna get you out of the gigantic hole of stupid you just dug yourself into.

 

[kpmarine]

You have the exact same rights as the rest of them, you want special specific rights just for yourself is what you are asking for.

So a woman has the right to not testify against her domestic partner in court? I thought you needed to be legally married for that? What about joint filing of taxes? The inability to receive survivor benefits from SS? The lack of an estate tax break afforded to spouses? Lack of means to pursue child support? The lack of a tax break on your significant other's health insurance? The inability to roll over the 401k of a dead spouse and avoid higher taxes on it? Deciding how your spouses body is to be buried/cremated? Hospital visitation? There are a lot of benefits to being married on a federal and legal level.

 

[NoDrama]

telling obvious lies about me is not gonna get you out of the gigantic hole of stupid you just dug yourself into.

What are you talking about? By your own admission you do not work, ever. You live off your wife's family, spend all day jacking off to porn and never pay any taxes of any kind to anyone. I didn't make any of this up, these are things you have bragged about and freely admitted to hundreds of people. Trying to push it all under the rug now isn't going to make you look any better than the lowlife unproductive leech you know you are.

Now please tell me about all the tax advantages Gays are missing out on.

 

[NoDrama]

So a woman has the right to not testify against her domestic partner in court? I thought you needed to be legally married for that? What about joint filing of taxes? The inability to receive survivor benefits from SS? The lack of an estate tax break afforded to spouses? Lack of means to pursue child support? The lack of a tax break on your significant other's health insurance? The inability to roll over the 401k of a dead spouse and avoid higher taxes on it? Deciding how your spouses body is to be buried/cremated? Hospital visitation? There are a lot of benefits to being married on a federal and legal level.

What does survivor benefits, being made a witness against someone etc etc have to do with all these supposed income tax advantages?

People are either so confused as to what is in contention here, or they can't come up with anything so they try to argue things that no one else is.

 

[UncleBuck]

What does survivor benefits, being made a witness against someone etc etc have to do with all these supposed income tax advantages?

People are either so confused as to what is in contention here, or they can't come up with anything so they try to argue things that no one else is.

you just ignored about half of what he wrote.

either that, or you're too stupid to read, which is probable since you are probably just plagiarizing stuff and copy/pasting it.

 

[twostrokenut]

seriously? are you fucking stupid?

how about we start somewhere that you should damn well know about, all the socialist benefits you and your spouse get to enjoy on behalf of the taxpayer for your useless service in the military? gays sure can serve now, but DOMA prevents their spouses from receiving the same benefits that your spouse would.

that's just the start.

He was talking about common law. Military are not civilians. Yes I agree with you that is not fair but under contract only, gays in the military are still equal National employees just as straight ones are.

Civilians do not have to contract for rights and it is in fact a crime to license or attach a fee to a right. They are free.