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.
What commercial banking law would that be?
And I never put that in quotes and attributed it to this decision. Nonetheless, yes, this case says that Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money.
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.
It says congress can establish a paper currency and make it lawful money. The court then says that the congress has properly delegated this authority to the Federal Reserve, which issues Federal Reserve Notes. If you think otherwise it means you're incapable of reading.
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.
The supreme court's decision doesn't rely on the currency being United States Notes. It says congress can issue a paper currency and make it lawful money. That's exactly what congress did with Federal Reserve Notes. The court affirms this, once again, when it mentions the delegation.
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.
There was no such thing as a Federal Reserve Note when the case was decided, so no one is disputing what they're referencing. But that's irrelevant, since the point is that congress can establish a paper currency and make it lawful money. It's a general statement that says nothing specific about United States Notes.
The Milam court is obviously not talking about United States Notes, they're talking about Federal Reserve Notes, which are what Milam refused to accept.
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.
Yes, "lawful money" is the phrase in 12 USC 411. This court, in this decision you're reading, says that Federal Reserve Notes are indeed lawful money, and that the tender of Federal Reserve Notes for Federal Reserve Notes was perfectly acceptable, and the contention otherwise is frivolous.
Indeed, you correctly state the court's decision in your second paragraph: Federal Reserve Notes offered in exchange for Federal Reserve Notes satisfies the redemption requirement in 12 USC 411 because Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money. I never said the swap didn't happen, I said the swap is precisely what's being disputed!
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.
I don't think that. I said congress has the power; the Milam court affirms that congress properly delegated its power to the Fed. That the Fed is properly exercising the government's power to issue currency is not in legal question.
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.
No disagreement that the code says these things; I've never disputed them. But they don't make your case.
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.
Your Fed page actually makes my case about the quotation marks. They put "lawful money" in quotes every time they use it, in reference to both Federal Reserve Notes and United States Notes. This suggests that they aren't endorsing the distinction that you claim exists between lawful money and "lawful money."
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.
Well, the UCC didn't exist when congress passed these statutes, so they weren't aware of that particular body of commercial law. Nonetheless, awareness of commercial law does not mean that it is applicable. If they meant to invoke some aspect of commercial law, they would have invoked it; it wouldn't be a guessing game.
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.
What law is that? I don't see how the part you quoted makes your case.
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".
What 31 USC 5115 says is not in dispute. That United States Notes have whatever attributes is not in dispute. The statute does not bear out your claims about the treasury performing some magic when you redeem a Federal Reserve Note.
The definition of money? What definition is that? Lawful money is Federal Reserve Notes according to the courts of the United States. Period.
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.
If they meant to say something about United States Notes they would have said it. Instead they're talking about Federal Reserve Notes. Obviously they meant Federal Reserve Notes. You cannot graft all this extra stuff onto the opinion with the explanation that the court must have obviously and certainly assumed it. The court said what it meant.
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
The facts of the case have nothing to do with Federal Reserve Notes. Milam was offered Federal Reserve Notes. Period. The tender of equivalent value of Federal Reserve Notes satisfied the supreme court precedent because congress has the power to make paper currency lawful money. The quotation the Milam court uses has no qualifications about United States Notes. It is the basis for the proposition that Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money.
Lawful money has no obligation and is non negotiable, blah blah blah, according to what exactly?
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.
Or they just didn't mean anything at all about it...
Nope that is in the UCC article 3 or whatever you quoted earlier. Let's see how did you so eloquently put it again....
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?
Federal Reserve Notes are not money? According to what? According to Julliard and Milam, Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money. By definition, they are not negotiable instruments under the UCC. Period. There is nothing else to say about it--Federal Reserve Notes are undoubtedly money, lawful money, "lawful money," and whatever else you want to call them.
