Federal Reserve Defines Lawful Money

Printable View

06-04-12, 12:04 PM
EZrhythm

Federal Reserve Defines Lawful Money

...More like they let case law define lawful money that happens to reference Title 12, Section 411.

"Lawful money" is a term used in the Federal Reserve Act, the act that authorizes the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to issue Federal Reserve notes. 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.
At the time, some currency was not considered legal tender, although it could be used by national banking associations as "lawful money reserves." Thus, the term "lawful money" had a broader meaning than the term "legal tender."
In 1933, Congress changed the law so that all U.S. coins and currency (including Federal Reserve notes), regardless of when issued, constitutes "legal tender" for all purposes. Federal and state courts since then have repeatedly held that Federal Reserve notes are also "lawful money." Milam v. U.S., 524 F.2d 629 (9th Cir. 1974), [ http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/...24/629/430631/ ] is typical of the federal and state court cases holding that Federal Reserve notes are "lawful money." In Milam, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed a judgment denying relief to an individual who sought to redeem a $50 Federal Reserve Bank Note in "lawful money." The United States tendered Milam $50 in Federal Reserve notes, but Milam refused the notes, asserting that "lawful money" must be gold or silver. The Ninth Circuit, noting that this matter had been put to rest by the U.S. Supreme Court nearly a century before in the Legal Tender Cases (Juilliard v. Greenman), 110 U.S. 421 (1884), [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...=110&invol=421 ] rejected this assertion as frivolous and affirmed the judgment.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_15197.htm
06-09-12, 01:55 AM
Freed Gerdes

Actually the Treasury had issued $300 million in 'lawful money' after FDR called in the gold in 1933; the banksters sold half in Europe and kept the profits, Congress spent half of their half, and $300 million in gold (valued at $42/ounce) was retained to back the lawful money. It is inelastic and may not be used for reserves for fractional reserve banking, which is what the Federal Reserve notes are for. So 'lawful money', US Treasury notes, represent value, wealth, while Federal Reserve notes are debt obligations. While the two types of notes circulate concurrently, and trade at par, Treasury notes are 'backed' by gold (not redeemable in gold), while FRN's are backed by a lien on the future labor and income taxes of the US government's 14th Amendment 'citizens.' 12USC Sections 415 and 417 make it clear that FRN's are not 'lawful money'. Since 1938 the courts have tended to interpret history to conveniently suit the Federal government's desire to become a totalitarian state, and to provide confusion so the uninformed citizenry will not figure out the remedy offered by Section 411. Both notes are legal tender, but there is a world of difference between wealth as money and debt as money (debt is the money of slaves). The demand to use lawful money per 12 USC 411 is asking for the $300 million of inelastic currency issued by the US Treasury, not the debt instruments issued by the Federal Reserve.
06-09-12, 03:30 AM
David Merrill

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freed Gerdes

Actually the Treasury had issued $300 million in 'lawful money' after FDR called in the gold in 1933; the banksters sold half in Europe and kept the profits, Congress spent half of their half, and $300 million in gold (valued at $42/ounce) was retained to back the lawful money. It is inelastic and may not be used for reserves for fractional reserve banking, which is what the Federal Reserve notes are for. So 'lawful money', US Treasury notes, represent value, wealth, while Federal Reserve notes are debt obligations. While the two types of notes circulate concurrently, and trade at par, Treasury notes are 'backed' by gold (not redeemable in gold), while FRN's are backed by a lien on the future labor and income taxes of the US government's 14th Amendment 'citizens.' 12USC Sections 415 and 417 make it clear that FRN's are not 'lawful money'. Since 1938 the courts have tended to interpret history to conveniently suit the Federal government's desire to become a totalitarian state, and to provide confusion so the uninformed citizenry will not figure out the remedy offered by Section 411. Both notes are legal tender, but there is a world of difference between wealth as money and debt as money (debt is the money of slaves). The demand to use lawful money per 12 USC 411 is asking for the $300 million of inelastic currency issued by the US Treasury, not the debt instruments issued by the Federal Reserve.

You sound like me. It would be refreshing if you picked that all up from source documentation.
09-09-12, 03:42 AM
David Merrill

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ney_case_1.jpg

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ney_case_2.jpg
09-09-12, 06:42 PM
martin earl

I will point out the Federal Reserve has no authority to define 'lawful money' for anyone or anything but itself and the District of Columbia, same for the SCOTUS.

I will counter that historically, the law of the land, common practice and the founding documents make clear what lawful money is and was in the Republic. Anyone who says it was not known or defined in law and in the hearts and minds of the people is an outright liar or ignorant to the point their opinion is irrelevant on the subject.
09-09-12, 07:12 PM
martin earl

"In 1784 in the debate over t h e money issue, Thomas Jefferson said:
"1f we determine that a dollar shall b e our u n i t , we must then say with
p r e c i s i o n what a d o l l a r is." Our founding f a t h e r s followed t h a t advice
4
and i n 1792 t h e d o l l a r was defined as 371 /16 g r a i n s of s i l v e r . From 1792
u n t i l August 15, 1971 t h e d o l l a r was defined as a p r e c i s e weight of e i t h e r
s i l v e r o r gold. Since 1971, t h e d o l l a r has had no d e f i n i t i o n ( o f f i c i a l l y
t h e d e f i n i t i o n w a s not l e g a l l y r e j e c t e d u n t i l 1976); t h e advice of Thomas
J e f f e r s o n has been r e j e c t e d e n t i r e l y . For more than t e n years t h e d o l l a r
has been nothing more than a p i e c e of paper with government ink on it."

from: http://www.goldensextant.com/Resourc...0Annex%20A.pdf
09-09-12, 07:18 PM
shikamaru

Quote:

Originally Posted by martin earl

I will point out the Federal Reserve has no authority to define 'lawful money' for anyone or anything but itself and the District of Columbia, same for the SCOTUS.

I will counter that historically, the law of the land, common practice and the founding documents make clear what lawful money is and was in the Republic. Anyone who says it was not known or defined in law and in the hearts and minds of the people is an outright liar or ignorant to the point their opinion is irrelevant on the subject.

The founding documents don't mention anything concerning "lawful money". In fact, it doesn't even use the term.

Coinage Act of 1792 uses the term "lawful tender".

"Lawful money" is an older term coming from England.
09-09-12, 07:47 PM
martin earl

Quote:

Originally Posted by shikamaru

The founding documents don't mention anything concerning "lawful money". In fact, it doesn't even use the term.

Coinage Act of 1792 uses the term "lawful tender".

"Lawful money" is an older term coming from England.

I agree that term was not used or defined in legal diction, but it was understood. My point is there was not the sheer ignorance (or outright lies) back then of what the term meant or would have meant and that meaning would have been recognized for generations if not thousands of years before the founding of the Republic.

Good grief, the reason Congress was forced into the District of Columbia was because it could not pay the Continental army (or rather would not redeem its private issued debt notes) in Gold or silver coin!

Do some research on the "Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783". Ever hear the term "not worth a continental"?

Back then, nobody had any question what "lawful money" was nor what paper money was to be redeemed for. Today, that may not be the case. BUT to

conceive that in 1913 or 1933 the authors of 12-USC 411 did not know, without question, what "lawful money" is and was is an untenable position and ignores not only history and common practice and understanding but common sense as well.
08-06-15, 04:42 PM
Chex

Quote:

Originally Posted by shikamaru

"Lawful money" is an older term coming from England.

Well this book doesn't say that.

BANKING LAW OF NEW YORK CHAPTER 2 OF THE CONSOLIDATED LAWS Google Books

BANKS. ARTICLE 3. Lawful money reserve. page 84 of 497 at §67
08-07-15, 07:46 PM
shikamaru

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chex

Well this book doesn't say that.

BANKING LAW OF NEW YORK CHAPTER 2 OF THE CONSOLIDATED LAWS Google Books

BANKS. ARTICLE 3. Lawful money reserve. page 84 of 497 at §67

Note the date of the link you provided: 1913.

Here are statutes from 1822 from Britain: link