You realize you're relying on data to make that claim, don't you? So you're telling me that price and wage data is unreliable and inaccurate--an insufficient basis to assess the buying power of average people in the past--but money supply data is reliable and accurate enough to explain economic contractions?
Impossible! The deficit is falling as well as unemployment Obama wrecking economy
- Thread starter ChesusRice
- Start date
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Cool gimme the CPI and average wages from 1040's for 1873.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Also who the fuck is "we" are you a borg or forest or other society? if so please identify.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
LMFAO Your office is free to codify it if it ever changes, that's ok with me, but it hasn't....there it sits as law.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
You said "lawful money" and expressed authority on the issue let's be real clear on that. That means you absolutely did insist FRN's could be collateral for themselves as I have shown.....
Why do you assume the know it all position are you incapable of new information from something you have obviously glossed? Emergencies have already been covered. Does the Fed deal with foreign investments as well as US currency all done in US dollar denominations? There's your admiralty jurisdiction. International trade, cant deny a Fed Note is world reserve currency now can you confused person? Vessels ringing any bells from the First Judiciary Act?
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
You realize statement of fact is evidence and data? Your view denies traditions handed down as factual account......such as a truthful statement under oath stands as fact until dis proven.......like Indian hand me down oral traditions lol you hate Native Americans?? Indian hater?? Lol see how I use left tactics?
The fact that we don't have that data doesn't undermine that we do have data. You don't have data constituting a counter argument, you just want to pretend that we aren't really sure and don't really know when it's absolutely ludicrous.
In 1873, no electricity, no indoor plumbing, small houses, no cars, no meaningful medical services, few consumer goods, not much technology of any kind. How can you possibly claim this person earning $1 made more than a nurse today based on any data? It's not even plausible.
We is you and I, using the facts and data available.
Now see, you've got that part absolutely right--the code will be updated if congress should ever change it. But congress hasn't.
Congress actually didn't eliminate the distinction between law and equity in federal courts by legislation. Instead, the supreme court, through the authority congress delegated to make rules for the federal courts, promulgated the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that's what eliminated the distinction between law and equity. Because the supreme court's rules weren't enacted into law by both houses of congress and the signature of the president, they have nothing to do with the code.
How do you know it's just an anachronism, beyond any doubt? Any federal district court can grant you both money and equitable remedies. So "court of law or equity" is irrelevant anyway, since there's only one court and one system.
Edit: We already went through why court decisions don't alter the code. The code is what congress said; the court decisions are gloss and interpretation of what congress said in the code. You must read them together. This situation is similar, because the supreme court's rules are not legislation, just judicial decree. The rules cannot alter the code in any way because they are not law, even though they control the functioning the of the federal courts.
Also, if the Federal Rules of Evidence come up, I note in advance that they actually are law, unlike the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, because congress rejected the rules of evidence the supreme court tried to enact and ended up doing it legislatively.
Yes, I certainly assert that Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money. Absolutely. How does this mean I insist they're collateral for themselves, though? Because the statutes you quoted don't say that, as I already described.
Obviously I didn't gloss. I looked up the whole statutes to show what you took out of context and described how you did in detail; I showed how you twisted the specific phrases in your post--including the title of a statute that had nothing to do with the effect of the statute--to mean something the words didn't mean at all. What does emergency lending to banks with credit problems by the reserve banks have to do with collateralizing Federal Reserve Notes? According to your statute, nothing, except that those emergency loans can't collateralize Federal Reserve Notes.
The fact that the Fed deals with foreign currency wouldn't trigger admiralty jurisdiction. Neither does international trade, and the fact that the dollar is a world reserve currency is irrelevant to triggering admiralty jurisdiction. Do you really want to see all the federal cases dealing with admiralty jurisdiction that make this position look laughable? I'll be more than happy to provide them.
You haven't asserted any traditions or factual accounts counter to the one I provided. All you did was tell me my data was bunk, even though you've got nothing else.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Who the hell made a dollar an hour in 1873 so much for your data being any good.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
lol wtf ever the distinction has not been eliminated in any court just blended..certainly not eliminated in 1938 I assume you mean Erie RR v Tompkins........which enforces Federal Rules of Civil Procedures Act,....to be in equity and maritime there still must be a from law (common law) contract.......... between the first judiciary act and Remedy provided in 12usc411 upheld in Milam there's plenty of case right there you can't dispute......what about UCC distinguishment between law and equity?
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
What does it have to do with it? Because all FRN's that serve as Reserves must be collateralized with lawful reserves or US promise to pay as we have already established.
Sure I want to see them but ONLY where defendant reserved right to protest on record under UCC 1-207 which would negate the jurisdiction that 1-103 establishes. The ones the defendant sought Remedy not Recourse.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
My bad "under protest" and "without prejudice" now at 1-308 http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/article1.htm#s1-308
Been a while since I looked trying from memory.
Been a while since I looked trying from memory.
You made up the $1 number, I've just carried it. I never said it represented a specific year, time period, or that it came from a particular source. If you actually want to evaluate what the average hourly wage was in 1873, we can certainly attempt to do that.
How is it not the same thing? "Eliminated" and "blended" mean exactly the same thing--it's one court now. That's why there's no distinction.
A federal district court is a court of law and equity; by the statute, it is the court with original jurisdiction over maritime claims, saving to suitors the right to seek common law remedies in state courts. If you have a maritime claim, you can bring it in either federal or state court. This has absolutely nothing to do with remedy in 12 USC 411.
There are still a few states that distinguish between law and equity in state law/state courts. The rest have eliminated the distinction, just as the federal courts have.
I understand your assertion. 12 USC 412, which describes the collateral requirement, doesn't actually use "money" or "lawful money" though. So why are you saying Federal Reserve Notes "must be collateralzied with lawful reserves"?
Regardless, as I have already noted, if you posted Federal Reserve Notes as collateral for Federal Reserve Notes, you would get exactly what you posted back, because the statute says that the notes must be fully collateralized. Thus the notes cannot actually collateralize themselves.
Here we go again with crazy mixing of laws. The UCC is state law enacted at the state level--it is not federal law. The UCC has nothing to do with federal jurisdiction; federal jurisdiction exists if the constitution or a federal statute says that the federal courts have jurisdiction. The Judiciary Act grants the federal courts original jurisdiction over maritime/admiralty claims.
Since the UCC wasn't enacted until the middle of the 20th century, I find it peculiar that you think a defendant would have to reserve their "right to protest on record under UCC 1-207" negating "the jurisdiction that 1-103 establishes" in a federal admiralty case. The UCC would be completely irrelevant because it isn't federal admiralty/maritime law.
Alas, the Uniform Commercial Code only governs sales, leases, negotiable instruments, bank deposits, funds transfers, letters of credit, bulk transfers, warehouse receipts, investment securities, and secured transactions. Which one of those is admiralty supposedly within the scope of?
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
gonna have to decline it would be pretty redundant