The UCC doesn't say anything about lawful money. The UCC definition of money has nothing to do with the lawful money question we're discussing.
Impossible! The deficit is falling as well as unemployment Obama wrecking economy
- Thread starter ChesusRice
- Start date
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
I tried to just shrug this one off but:
Really that's not how it works? Are you pretending I don't know what the Statutes at Large are and where to find them at the Repository? We know the Code is an ongoing process to make current and easily referencable, the stautes from the Statutes at Large that would be necessary for current applications. Yet your claim is simply that the ones I reference have been allowed to let slide or are a result of poor housekeeping.
The Code would have to be updated to support your theory court cases....as in the ones you are inaccurately citing.... could change or otherwise render it useless now would'n it? You have not claimed Milam and Julliard basically render parts of the code effectively irrelevant?
Sure you have. You have told me 12usc411 and 31usc5115 are useless because of the wording of Milam. You say 31usc5115 means nothing to this issue since Milam doesn't mention it.
You have claimed the US code is not up to date in this thread.
We have both talked about the version of the Code we wish we could afford that does cite the court cases involved does the one we look at on house.gov or Cornell have different text besides the court citations?
tokeprep said:
Really that's not how it works? Are you pretending I don't know what the Statutes at Large are and where to find them at the Repository? We know the Code is an ongoing process to make current and easily referencable, the stautes from the Statutes at Large that would be necessary for current applications. Yet your claim is simply that the ones I reference have been allowed to let slide or are a result of poor housekeeping.
The Code would have to be updated to support your theory court cases....as in the ones you are inaccurately citing.... could change or otherwise render it useless now would'n it? You have not claimed Milam and Julliard basically render parts of the code effectively irrelevant?
Sure you have. You have told me 12usc411 and 31usc5115 are useless because of the wording of Milam. You say 31usc5115 means nothing to this issue since Milam doesn't mention it.
You have claimed the US code is not up to date in this thread.
We have both talked about the version of the Code we wish we could afford that does cite the court cases involved does the one we look at on house.gov or Cornell have different text besides the court citations?
I never brought that up. You said the UCC wasn't actually the law not realizing that every state had enacted it, and when I told you that was the case, you said I forgot Utah. Utah's having enacted the UCC has nothing to do with gold/silver currency.
Since the UCC is expressly inapplicable to money, no one is going to "use the provisions of the UCC" to pay their taxes in Federal Reserve Notes.
You put the words in quotes even though they weren't the text of the statute.
This is merely the authorization to make the notes. The issue of mechanically circulating them is threshed out in other statutes.
The court NEVER said ANYTHING about paper notes issued by the United States directly and it NEVER said ANYTHING about non-negotiable notes. You think otherwise based on the quotation marks around "lawful money" and the fact that Juilliard involved United States Notes.
As I have already previously demonstrated, if we follow your understanding of Juilliard--which is that it applies solely to paper currency with the attributes of United States Note--and believe that's what the court meant with the words it said, the opinion immediately breaks down and stops making sense.
You argue that the court says the power described in Juilliard--which you claim is the power to issue non-negotiable notes, etc., etc.--has been delegated to the Fed under 12 USC 411. This makes absolutely no sense. Obviously you are distorting and misunderstanding what the court said.
All I'm doing is following the argument you made. You said "the power" is to "put [notes] into circulation by borrowing actual lawful money." If you're right, then the court says in the sentence I keep quoting that the power to put notes in circulation by borrowing actual lawful money has been delegated to the Fed under 12 USC 411. Since 12 USC 411 says nothing about borrowing lawful money, your interpretation makes no sense and the court could not possibly have meant what you keep suggesting.then I said
Originally Posted by twostrokenut
The power" is the power to borrow "money" and issue circulating notes for the money borrowed....."the other power" is the power to regulate the value of the notes only!!!! Which were put into circulation by borrowing actual lawful money!!!
Fuckin period dude this was directly from you, you just literally failed to understand what you just quoted!!!
Then you insist it is I that is misunderstanding "The power so precisely described in Juilliard has been delegated to the Federal Reserve System under the provisions of 12 U.S.C. § 411."
then you insist "under the provisions of 12usc411" are functionally irrelevant when in fact it defines the whole discussion and any power you seem to be misunderstanding.
Just one problem, again. Of that $300 million authorized to be issued, most of it is already issued and outstanding--in the hands of collectors who sell the old notes for far, far above face value. You told everyone people do it all the time on eBay.
That $300 million is just $300 million. A dollar is a dollar; the time that's passed is irrelevant. You want to know why the statute says $300 million? Because the treasury hasn't issued United States Notes for more than 40 years, so it's totally irrelevant to them.
The sentiments of everyone who debated and voted on the text made it into the text. Alas, that "everyone" is a far larger group than the handful of noble individuals you would prefer to finger in favor of dumping the wretched rest.
Really? Where did you read your idealized version then? Because in mine, there are 8 slaves states and only 5 non-slave states, and 25 of 55 delegates from these states actually owned slaves. The "original intent" of this group seems exceedingly obvious to me. But no, you would rather ignore it to highlight something you prefer instead. So be it.
The truth is ugly, and history is an incomparably wretched thing to behold.
Yes, it would have to be, and indeed it is. Court cases "change" the code constantly, and the code is never updated. I already told you this a long time ago in this thread: when a lawyer looks a statute up, they don't look in the government-published code you're looking at. They look at an expensive annotated code that contains summaries of court decisions in addition to the text of the code; they can then look at the decisions for additional information and context. Private companies make billions of dollars every single year doing this, and you're telling us that it's totally unnecessary?
The text of the code is never changed. There could be 20 court cases dealing with a particular section of the code and the text of it wouldn't change one iota. If you want to know what the statute means, you cannot just read the statute, you must also read the 20 court cases and figure out how they impact the statute's meaning.
Milam firmly declares that the redemption provision of 12 USC 411 is substantively meaningless and merely gives it formal effect. So yes. You can formally redeem your currency under the statute, but the act is meaningless.
No, no, that's not my claim at all. You just read my post, so why would you say that? My claim is that the government never conducts such housekeeping in the first place. The code is "made current" only in the sense that it is updated to reflect amendments and repeals, and edited to align relevant things together. The code is NOT "current" in the sense that it reflects court cases.
You have to remember what the code is supposed to be, which is a collection of the statutes congress has passed. That's it. The code is not supposed to be a thorough representation of the law and no one represents it as such.
I never said 12 USC 411 was useless, only that the redemption provision was substantively irrelevant. As for 31 USC 5115, I never said it was useless, and I never said it didn't mean anything either. The court didn't mention that statute, so there's no reason to believe Milam has any effect on it.
You're misunderstanding what "up to date" means in this context. "Up to date" just means that all the newly enacted laws are reflected in the code; previously published text that doesn't contain the most recent changes by congress is not "up to date."
Annotated codes don't edit or alter the text of the code--they reproduce it exactly. The only difference between the Cornell site and any other non-commercial version of the code and an annotated version is that the latter has summaries of court cases that impact how the code should be interpreted.
I dug up a few other cases on this issue:
US v. Wangrud:
US v. Wangrud:
The defendant argued he didn't receive "money" because he got checks that were paid in Federal Reserve Notes. The court says his argument has "absolutely no merit." I think you might latch onto the specie thing again in this case, but wait, I've got a better case for you, US v. Gardiner:
Here, the defendant argued Federal Reserve Notes weren't lawful money, no quotations marks at issue. The court says the argument has been found to be without merit and agrees that it is without merit. Indeed, this court actually cites Milam for the proposition that Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money and that arguments to the contrary have been found to be without merit!
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
............................Congress can't delegate its powers? Courts can't interpret what the words in legislation mean? You can't possibly mean those things. Delegation is a well settled constitutional question; and the reason the court wrote a decision about "lawful money" is because congress didn't define it.
Not to make lawful money it can't. How can you delegate that any how? Lawful money means directly issued by our government and the Fed is not our government. Treasury is though.
The fact that the Fed is authorized to issue a form of lawful money does not mean that they are authorized to issue any form of lawful money. They can't issue coins just as they can't issue United States Notes--the authority to do so is vested in other places.
WTF??
Of course the authority to issue US Notes and Coins lies in The Treasury....please keep smoking your budsbut do try and remember we already covered this.
Again in order for the Fed to issue obligations of the US, the US must put up collateral.....this collateral is lawful money.
The Fed doesn't hold 10% that can be fractionally lent ten times. It's just sitting on their balance sheet.
OK wow. What is sitting on their balance sheet ended up in circulation as Fed Notes.....which get deposited and fractionally lent on, expanded (and diluted). This is what elastic currency means and what is heralded as our savior by you and many others.
So lets be clear. I say that even though the Fed only holds 10% debt it has issued notes way beyond the debt. Wait doesn't that mean the other 90% that can't issue notes with their debt will get fucked over?
From the issuing Authority of Federal Reserve Notes, The Federal Reserve Act:
Redemption removes the obligation what don't you get?
http://thelawdictionary.org/redemption/ said:
Do you still not understand what I mean when I say the FRN only represents a dollar?
Hell I got a little time lol you like court cases so we can stick to court for a bit if you want to. Here is why "quotes" are so important and lawyers and judges use them. You know if you were a judge you were prolly a lawyer first so some things are just basic monotony of going to work......like lawyers or once practicing lawyers knowing why lawful documents have quotes.
The definition of lawful money is used in cases when the lawyer(judge) is citing Congress' definition. Just like Milam had quotes referencing Juiliard. Milam was referencing the actual definition that Juiliard was referencing from Congress.
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/638/182/211365/ said:
This has been revised to just simply "cannot be held in reserves" absolutely meaning Fractional Reserves.https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/608/608.F2d.400.78-1834.html said:
What you are still not getting is that the two definitions, lawful money and legal tender are not interchangeable. Legal tender may be accepted for duties on imports and for interest on the public debt. Lawful money may not. Lawful money is what is used to accrue the public debt.
Congress has had 100 years to amend the Federal Reserve Act to say what you claim it must say to support your theory and you still insist that:
"12 USC 411: Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption
Text contains those laws in effect on June 3, 2013"
is simply not so by your decree.........in fact the last time it was edited was 80 years ago to strike the provision to redeem in gold and silver which I reckon you simply fail to connect to the Emercency that existed in 1933..........and yet the provision to redeem still remains as the Emercency still remains...........
Redemption is Lawfully required Because We The People have a Natural Right to use interest free non-negotiable money as per the Constitution represented by gold and silver, if it is paper it must retain these properties that are undeniably held by gold and silver which Greenbacks (US Notes) were argued to also have because they supposedly retained these properties.
This is simply because We The People are Congress. Our Representatives using Our Money. The redemption provides Congress absolute right to have back what it puts on deposit with The Fed.
When Congress deposits lawful money with the Fed to get Fed notes flowing, We The People are free to redeem them in case they suck............and more and more of us think they do!!!!
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
No no no. You cited UCC definition of "money" as absolute because UCC was adopted as state law.
Then I cite Utah as an example of why this is not true.....nice that you agree now this is progress.
Again I mean using the provisions of what is "negotiable" pertaining to notes that are or are not "money". To pay taxes instead of using lawful gold or silver since Utah specifically did this to beat inflation.
If you think that you just misunderstood. You kept talking about negotiable instruments and calling Federal Reserve Notes negotiable instruments; I referred to the UCC definition only because the UCC says that money is not a negotiable instrument. Because Federal Reserve Notes are money, they are not negotiable instruments and the provisions of Article 3 are totally irrelevant to Federal Reserve Notes.
I never claimed and am not now claiming that the UCC definition of money is the definition of money everywhere.
I never argued and do not argue now that gold and silver cannot be money, lawful money, legal tender, etc. That is totally irrelevant and distinct from what we're discussing--it has nothing to do with the UCC.
If Federal Reserve Notes are money, then by definition they are not negotiable instruments under Utah law. The gold and silver stuff has nothing to do with the issue.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
FRA 12usc411 said:
tsn said:
tp said:
tsn said:
Wow dude that was nit-pickey......I take it we have established how to use quotes now. That says exactly what I said it does.tp said:
And what's your authority for saying congress cannot delegate that authority? What statute or court case says that "lawful money" must be "directly issued by our government"?
What statute or court case says that the United States must put up "lawful money" as collateral in order for the Fed to issue Federal Reserve Notes?Of course the authority to issue US Notes and Coins lies in The Treasury....please keep smoking your budsbut do try and remember we already covered this.
Again in order for the Fed to issue obligations of the US, the US must put up collateral.....this collateral is lawful money.
There's your problem. What's on their balance sheet didn't necessarily end up in circulation as Federal Reserve Notes. The amount of reserves on deposit at the Fed has climbed from a few billion pre-crisis into hundreds of billions of dollars, concurrent with QE. This money hasn't even been lent out once, let alone ten times. Beyond those reserves, when the Fed pays cash for securities, that cash can be consumed in many activities that have nothing to do with lending. The big banks, for example, have lately been focused on building up their capital reserves, buying back stock, and paying dividends to their shareholders, not lending.
I understand what redemption means. The statute merely requires that Federal Reserve Notes be redeemable with lawful money. If they are lawful money, they're redeemable with other Federal Reserve Notes. We're talking about a fiat currency, so this should make total sense--there is nothing to do redeem it with because the currency exists by decree, not because there's anything valuable underlying it. Paper for paper.Originally Posted by http://thelawdictionary.org/redemption/
What is REDEMPTION?
A repurchase; a buying back.
The liberation of a chattel from pledge or pawn, by paying the debt for which it stood as security. Repurchase of notes, bills, or other evidences of debt (particularly bank-notes and paper-money,) by paying their value In coin to their holders.
Do you still not understand what I mean when I say the FRN only represents a dollar?
This wasn't always the case, because when that statute was passed we didn't have a fiat currency. But now we do, which renders that part of the statute meaningless.
Congress never defined "lawful money." The court could not possibly be referencing some definition that does not exist.
That is absolutely true, which is why it's exactly what the code says.Originally Posted by http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/638/182/211365/
The aggregate of the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution includes broad and comprehensive authority over revenue, finance, and currency. Norman v. B. & O. R. Co., 294 U.S. 240, 55 S.Ct. 407, 79 L.Ed. 885. In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money.
The court doesn't need to declare what's legal tender because congress has exercised its power. 31 USC 5103: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."Originally Posted by https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/608/608.F2d.400.78-1834.html
The court does not have the power to declare what is legal tender. That power is in the Congress. Article I, § 8 of the Constitution, empowers the Congress "(t)o coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures."
We're not talking about treasury notes.
Yes, I agree with you, congress has absolute power over money. That's what enables the authorization of Federal Reserve Notes and the delegation of money powers to the Federal Reserve.
Your basis for saying lawful money may not be accepted for duties on imports or used for interest on the public debt? I take it it's this text in Juilliard, quoting the statute authorizing United States Notes:
"The notes of the United States, tendered in payment of the defendant's debt to the plaintiff, were originally issued under the acts of congress of February 25, 1862, c. 33; July 11, 1862, c. 142; and March 3, 1863, c. 73, passed during the war of the rebellion, and enacting that these notes should 'be lawful money and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States,' except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt."
This is clearly not a definition of lawful money. The statute merely says that the notes are lawful money and a legal tender, except in the specified cases. It does NOT say "'Lawful money' means money that may not be accepted for duties on imports or for interest on the public debt."
Once again, you keep accusing me of saying this law isn't effect. I never said that; indeed, I said exactly the opposite: the fact that the statute is in effect is the reason that it's still in the code, even though it's substantively meaningless. Congress is the only body that can remove the text from the code.
Why would congress need to do that? Well, they don't, which is really the reason why they haven't. The courts have answered the questions.
Redemption is lawfully required because that's how congress chose to write the statute originally. We the people, who enacted the constitution, delegated money power to the federal government. Despite your whimpers to the contrary, there is no meaningful debate otherwise. The government has the right to issue coins and fix their values and it has the right to borrow money on government credit, backed by its taxing powers. How can you possibly argue that the money power somehow continued to reside in the people?
You presently have the statutory right to redeem your Federal Reserve Notes for an equivalent value of Federal Reserve Notes. The constitution requires nothing more; the people have no power to override except by electing representatives, amending the constitution, etc., since that power was delegated to the federal government.
I find it disturbing that you would put something in quotation marks that was not actually a quote. Since you've been making arguments centered around quotation marks, I would think this an entirely understandable objection. But like I said, it didn't matter to your point anyway.
Except not: "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." You may not have appreciated it, but "as hereinafter set forth" requires you to look at this statute in connection with all the other statutes in the subchapter, which further define the mechanical process.
I'm not dancing around anything. The Milam court didn't reference notes issued directly by the United States or non-negotiable notes. What you just said is coming out of your own ass, not out of their opinion, because the latter says neither of the things you just claimed it did.
I didn't say Juilliard upheld congress' delegating the ability to issue lawful money to the Fed. Juilliard was decided in the 1800s, so that wouldn't make any sense.
Because if we follow what you claim the words mean, the Milam court literally says that congress has delegated authority to issued United States Notes to the Fed under 12 USC 411: "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'm not twisting what you said at all. According to you, Juilliard says absolutely nothing that is relevant to Federal Reserve Notes and speaks solely to the United States Notes issued in the 1800s. "The power" under that case is for congress "to issue lawful money which is non-negotiable," according to you. But for the 10th time, this is what the Milam court said: "The power so precisely described in Juilliard has been delegated to the Federal Reserve System under the provisions of 12 U.S.C. § 411." According to you, "the power" is that to issue United States Notes. Thus in that line of text the Milam court says that this power has been delegated to the Federal Reserve System under 12 USC 411. This cannot possibly make sense.
You now say that what has been delegated to the Fed is "issuing negotiable instruments based on non-negotiable reserves." What court said that? What statute says that? None. You're just making it up out of nothing.
What definition of legal tender and lawful money is being violated...?
I said "the power" was the power to issue a national currency in paper form that is lawful money. You said "the power" was something far narrower and started talking about United States Notes.
"The power" described in Juilliard has been delegated under 12 USC 411. What power is that? If I misconstrued what you said it was, tell me what it was.
Where in the code does congress say that the Fed can issue Federal Reserve Notes only if it has lawful reserves?
I don't care what you wanted it to be an example of. The fact is that most of the authorized United States Notes are and were already outstanding, so they couldn't possibly figure into this redemption scheme you keep describing. The treasury can only issue up to $300 million in United States Notes--that's it. So long as they're out, they're out.
Why would it matter what $300 million is today adjusting for inflation? $300 million in 1865 held as cash until 2013 would be worth only $300 million.
I'm sorry, what?
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
You should be sorry...you should.
Would hold it last value greater than a fiat one? If you mean United States Notes, they haven't held value at at all.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Time will reveal your foolishness, I shall remember this moment when it does.
Pineapple!
Chicken kebabs!
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Well now according to you earlier they did not even exist except for old ones that merely need to be destroyed haha