Not a defense that fed notes are lawful money. 12usc411 is merely a piece of the Federal Reserve Act which later establishes and defines them as Legal Tender and makes them redeemable in Lawful Money....this is your defense? Really?
The Milam court expressly says that the power described in Juilliard--which is to establish a national currency and make it
lawful money--has been delegated to the Fed under 12 USC 411. So yes, that would mean Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money!
Read it again for yourself: "
The power so precisely described in Juilliard has been delegated to the Federal Reserve System under the provisions of 12 U.S.C. § 411."
I know, I know, what is "the power"? Fortunately, we have the answer in the quotation from that case immediately preceding that line in Milam: "
. . . 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. . . ."
Now once again, just to make it exceedingly clear, the Milam court again: "
The power...described in Juilliard has been delegated to the Federal Reserve...under...12 U.S.C. § 411." What is that power? The power to make paper currency lawful money. Period.
Still trying to debate 12usc411 to explain how it defines something as lawful money which it doesn't. Something cannot be what it is redeemable for. A note in your pocket that entitles you to redeem for a sandwich will not be much use to you if you actually want to eat a sandwich, sorry not reality.
You insist the provision is merely a leftover loose end that has not been dealt with. The USCode exist to keep tabs on current statutory law....that's its function.....the statute is not remanant of a lost time but the foundation of the existence of Fed Notes that cannot be removed.....the beauty is you don't even have to embrace the legal fiction to understand this.
Who made this rule that something cannot be what it is redeemable for? You? Because you don't have anything that says that, you're just asserting that it must be the case. Since it's fiat currency we're talking about, it makes total logical sense that the note would only be redeemable for other fiat currency notes.
I really don't understand why you won't listen to me about the code. The code does NOT "keep tabs on
current statutory law" and that is NOT "its function." The code is merely the collection of all the laws enacted by congress; the statute as originally passed by congress remains the law until congress repeals it, expressly provides for its repeal, or amends it. The code is NOT updated to remove anachronistic provisions that make no sense given other legislation congress passed; the code is NOT updated to reflect court decisions; the code is NOT updated to correct confusing language and tie up loose ends.
When congress originally passed that statute, Federal Reserve Notes were actually backed by something and actually redeemable. This changed. Accordingly, the redemption provision no longer meant anything meaningful. The only body with the authority to remove the redemption provision from the code is congress, and they must explicitly do it in new legislation enacted by both houses of congress and signed by the president. Absent that action, the text remains in the code, even if it makes no substantive sense, and even though courts have ruled that Federal Reserve Notes can be redeemed in other Federal Reserve Notes.
The hell you say? Reading comprehension?
So sequentially..........
Congress issues US noted in the civil war claiming right to emit "bills of credit" and defines them as lawful money by establishing their non-negotiable status.....clearly evidenced by the fact they cannot be held in reserve and may not be used for the public debt as per 31usc5115 which is merely an updated reflection of all case laws associated with the current wording............
For the love of all that is good, please stop sounding so ignorant. 31 USC 5115 has NOT been updated to reflect "all case laws associated with the current wording." It has NEVER been updated to do that because that's not how the code works! The text of 31 USC 5115 is based
solely on the statutes that were passed by congress. Reading the statute in the code tells you absolutely nothing about how the courts have interpreted it.
Juiliard upholds this.
1.So if Miliam says "the power so precisely described in Juiliard"...
2.then establish that power to be "Congress is authorized to establish a national currency, either in coin or in paper, and to make that currency lawful money for all purposes"
3.You think The court is bypassing and redfining with zero Congressional imput:
a)The Federal Reserve Act
b)31usc5115
c)the fed's own admission of the definition of lawful money which is the very thing the Fed - holds in order the facilitation of issuing their notes, those things being non-negotiable.
4. Then you go on to acknowledge the "cerimonial" exchange the court actually specifically ---- upheld and dismiss it in the same sentence?
You accept certain parts of decisions as the gospel and merely ignore the parts you don't like.
Then you go on to attempt using the UCC to redefine Fed Notes as "money":
I don't think the court is bypassing or redefining anything. The court merely says that the authorization for Federal Reserve Notes that congress gave to the Fed in 12 USC 411 was properly delegated: the Fed, through that provision of the code, exercises the power described in Juilliard, which is to print paper currency that is lawful money. The court didn't dismiss the exchange of notes for notes, and I didn't ignore any part of the case.
What is this about the Fed's admission about the definition of lawful money? As I already said, on that page you linked to earlier the Fed uses "lawful money" to refer to both Federal Reserve Notes and United States Notes. They make no distinction and no admission! The fact that United States Notes had different characteristics is totally irrelevant. Indeed, let's look at the text of the Milam opinion again in order to try and make this clear. You argument here seems to be that Juilliard only endorses paper currency with the characteristics of United States Notes as lawful money; basically, Federal Reserve Notes cannot possibly be lawful money under that case because they're so different from Federal Reserve Notes.
Now here's what the Milam court said, once again: "
The power so precisely described in Juilliard has been delegated to the Federal Reserve System under the provisions of 12 U.S.C. § 411." If "the power" in Juilliard is merely the power to issue paper currency with the characteristics of United States Notes, then the Milam court in that sentence is saying that the power has been delegated to the Fed under 12 USC 411. 12 USC 411 isn't the authorizing statute for United States Notes but for Federal Reserve Notes. If the Milam court was reading Juilliard as you read it and have repeatedly claimed they must be reading it, why are they saying the Fed has the power to issue United States Notes under 12 USC 411?
This says a government may decide what money is as they choose as a Universal Statute to circulate world wide....duh we all know we use FRN's Japan uses Yen ect..........and that an intergovernmental organization .....which I assume you mean the Fed is........may call their negotiable instrument "money" according to the UCC on a world wide scale.....not according to American Law.....money, currency and what is legal tender and lawful money here are already defined and adhere to the "instruments" part of the UCC only.
Alright, your first claim makes zero sense because this is just a definition of a word used in the code. Anything fitting this definition is "money" where that word appears in the code. If Federal Reserve Notes and the Japanese yen fit the definition, then they are "money" under the code. Article 3 expressly states that "money" is not a negotiable instrument.
You seem to be agreeing that Federal Reserve Notes are "money" under this definition, and that would make them "money" in Article 3, which means by definition Federal Reserve Notes are NOT negotiable instruments in commercial law.
I was hoping to stay in the context of our laws since our laws dictate what our People use and back our economy buy hey whatever make it more complicated:
From the UCC
§ 3-104. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT.
(a) Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d), "negotiable instrument" means an unconditional promise or order to pay a fixed amount of money, with or without interest or other charges described in the promise or order, if it:
and
(3) does not state any other undertaking or instruction by the person promising or ordering payment to do any act in addition to the payment of money, but the promise or order may contain (i) an undertaking or power to give, maintain, or protect collateral to secure payment, (ii) an authorization or power to the holder to confess judgment or realize on or dispose of collateral, or (iii) a waiver of the benefit of any law intended for the advantage or protection of an obligor.
FRN's fit negotiable UCC definition based on the highlighted green sections because the Federal Reserve Act is the power to protect collateral and the Tax Code authorized by the 16th amendment is the power to secure payment.............period.
The blue highlighted part....the or part does not exist in our law and you are screaming and kicking that it does.......we are protected from that......the Constitution and 12usc411 prevent the waiver and is why you are failing to cite the court cases correctly. Its a big huge "OR" not an "AND". Constitution trumps UCC all day long.
wait now who the hell is an obligor???? Let's ask UCC....
(11) "Principal obligor," with respect to an instrument, means the accommodated party or any other party to the instrument against whom a secondary obligor has recourse under this article.
We are the obligor, we that bond and thus back the substance of the obligations written out on our behalf. We The People are the backing behind "backed by the full faith and credit of the United States". We do not have any laws that waive 12usc411.
We have
(i) an undertaking or power to give, maintain, or protect collateral to secure payment,
(ii) an authorization or power to the holder to confess judgment or realize on or dispose of collateral
to make our notes negotiable in the form of
the Federal Reserve given Charter in The Federal Reserve Act and
Constitutional Amendment 16.
We have decided as People to give one of our currencies negotiable power in the hopes it would facilitate wealth creation because we were promised it would to justify the legislation. Some, like you argue it has because of all the stuff we have and the fact it is the world reserve currency............It has not because almost half of We The People no longer pay taxes. Not tax protesters I absolutely mean Net tax consumers.
subsections c and d:
(c) An order that meets all of the requirements of subsection (a), except paragraph (1), and otherwise falls within the definition of "check" in subsection (f) is a negotiable instrument and a check.
(d) A promise or order other than a check is not an instrument if, at the time it is issued or first comes into possession of a holder, it contains a conspicuous statement, however expressed, to the effect that the promise or order is not negotiable or is not an instrument governed by this Article.
US notes fall into these exceptions and Fed notes do not.
US notes contain conspicuous statements, however expressed to the effect that the promise is non-negotiable....................these are contained in our laws. Our Legal Tender Act our Emergency Banking Acts.
Fed notes do not. Only thing our laws have established is their Legal Tender status. They have never been argued successfully by you or anyone else to be lawful money or enjoy non-negotiable status.
You know why I don't even need to read anything that you wrote here? Because of the section I already quoted, UCC 3-102:
"
(a) This Article applies to negotiable instruments. It does not apply to money, to payment orders governed by Article 4A, or to securities governed by Article 8."
One more time, folks, the definition of the word "
money" in the UCC: "(24) "
Money"
means a medium of exchange authorized or adopted by a domestic or foreign government and includes a monetary unit of account established by an intergovernmental organization or by agreement between two or more nations." Notice this definition has absolutely nothing to do with "lawful money."
And yet again folks, 12 USC 411 to wrap this end up: "
Federal reserve notes, 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 authorized."
Because Federal Reserve Notes are money--a medium of exchange authorized by the United States government--nothing you just discussed from Article 3 is applicable. Nothing.
fiscal year begins on October 1 and ends on September 30. 
