The word game - Legal Tender v Lawful Money

I read an interesting PM recently:

Quote:

---

and I am not meaning to say legal tender I am say the courts are calling FRN lawful money like the Milam v. U.S. so if lawful money can be elastic currency whats the difference anymore between stating a demand??? theres no notable difference now because even if you made the demand they can still say well, you demanded lawful money and FRN are lawful money according to court rulings, so we gave you FRN and because you used those you still owe taxes..... I am not understanding how your approach can be different any more? initially I understood it to be a difference between lawful money "inelastic" and FRN "elastic" .

---

This is just the opening Post so I will keep it very simple and we can elaborate in the thread. This recently came up on the brain trust so I am fresh with it. Look at Milam:

Attachment 2045

Attachment 2046


The Milan court only implies that Congress has made Federal Reserve notes lawful money, by saying that Congress has the power to. So we should look at what Congress actually says:

They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...

Congress has never actually made Fed notes equivalent to lawful money. This Gospel of Pragmatism might actually clear up some confusion about redeeming lawful money if you can just set aside some time. This final draft culminated with me adding the chapter about Amway this morning. I equate that kind of contraction (pyramid scam) with the moneychangers in the Courtyard, that played a big factor in wanting Jesus killed. Culling money off your Brother under the guise of licentiousness is pretty egregious.

I apologize for putting that much reading to you but I have tried explaining this in so many ways and people still will overlook the obvious. Milam does not say that Congress has equated Federal Reserve notes with lawful money. - Only that Congress has the power to; but since FRN's are elastic and US notes are not, they cannot be equated.

It is obvious (to me) that Milam misconstrued the statute (Title 12 Section 411) thinking he could redeem FRN's in physical precious metals. To redeem in lawful money via U.S. Notes (being paid directly from the U.S. Treasury - NOT from the private banking system i.e. Fed) equates to being 'virtually' paid in precious metals; Conversely, opposed to being paid on credit from the private Fed banks where if I'm not mistaken, this is where the Treasury must pay the Fed back with interest, i.e the interest being our "income" tax.

That develops into the conundrum I feel is criminal by Congress - that we now have a non-reserve currency (US notes) attached to a reserve currency (Federal Reserve notes) in value!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

That develops into the conundrum I feel is criminal by Congress - that we now have a non-reserve currency (US notes) attached to a reserve currency (Federal Reserve notes) in value!

---

The Utopian Country advocates the return of the value of money to the people, as its true owners. This is the "Credit of the Nation" that Congressman Patman refers to in the Congressional Record, and which has been held in trust since June 5, 1933, and is always awaiting our indorsement so it can be applied to obligations of the US to its people.

Quote:

---

"Who creates the value of currency is not who prints it but the people who accepts as a medium of payment".

---

This position is what is behind the "Indorsed Bill Remedy" --- namely, "Accessing Your Own Value!".

Here is a success story about this approach in Italy! --- a currency owned by the people!

The experiment in Italy is described here.

Wall Street Journal article about this experiment.

SIMEC - Interest Free Community Currency

What is SIMEC? - YouTube

The Web of Debt book mentions this experiment. Notice this excerpt on page 343, and how it coincides with the "wealthy benefactor" idea mentioned in Carey's "Letter 12" chapter, pages 129-130, in “The Way to outdo England without fighting her”:

"The Web of Debt", page 343:
Attachment 2073


“The Way to outdo England without fighting her”, pages 129-130:
Attachment 2074


So...

Why do we even have to use USNs, since they are tied detrimentally to FRNs?

Why not avoid that detriment altogether and just use INDORSED BILLS as the people's currency, who determine its VALUE by its ACCEPTANCE?

You may want to take a look at WHO Milam was. It is interesting that he could rise to the position he has and suffer the rebuke from the Judge.... or perhaps he meant to throw a hanging curve ball

Great Question CS, Who was Mobley M. Milam?

Appellant's contentions, in our view, were put at rest close to a century ago in Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, 448, 4 S.Ct. 122, 130, 28 L.Ed. 204 (1884), in which it was said:http://federal-circuits.vlex.com/vid...llees-36811796

But is it efficacious to ask whether FRNs or USNs have value? My understanding is that neither currency actually carries value. Rather, both represent promises of future value. They serve the function of being accounting devices only.

The paradox of non elastic USNs being tied to elastic FRNs in value is really irrelevant, since there is no value associated with either currency (other than that which is imparted by currency traders).

Any value associated with a transaction resides in the goods or services traded. The currency merely serves as a medium of exchange wherein titles are transferred, and as a convenient measure of value. There is no store of value, since the value is undefined by either instrument.

It seems to me the main distinction between FRN and USN is found in the forum wherein goods and services are passed. Redeeming legal tender for lawful money simply removes the transaction from one forum and places it in another. Therefore the question of value becomes moot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith Alan

But is it efficacious to ask whether FRNs or USNs have value? My understanding is that neither currency actually carries value. Rather, both represent promises of future value. They serve the function of being accounting devices only.

The paradox of non elastic USNs being tied to elastic FRNs in value is really irrelevant, since there is no value associated with either currency (other than that which is imparted by currency traders).

Any value associated with a transaction resides in the goods or services traded. The currency merely serves as a medium of exchange wherein titles are transferred, and as a convenient measure of value. There is no store of value, since the value is undefined by either instrument.

It seems to me the main distinction between FRN and USN is found in the forum wherein goods and services are passed. Redeeming legal tender for lawful money simply removes the transaction from one forum and places it in another. Therefore the question of value becomes moot.

---

I agree.

The medium of exchange is moot. Its VALUE is determined by its ACCEPTANCE at the time of the transaction, in terms of (denominated by) the product or service accepted/received.

This is why "indorsed bills" make sense, as a convenient and expedient medium of exchange... facilitating the flow (currency) of goods and services intrinsically identified therein.

USNs have a detriment of being tied to FRNs in "value".

FRNs have the detriment of incurring an "income tax" USAGE FEE, and also are incapable of passing TITLE, being liability (IOU) instruments.

And guess what? BILLS will never stop coming, even in a crash or depression, so they will always be in "circulation" and available as "currency" by simple indorsement!

Good reading Doug: Thanks

That develops into the conundrum I feel is criminal by Congress - that we now have a non-reserve currency (US notes) attached to a reserve currency (Federal Reserve notes) in value!

The thought of usury: "With usury no man has a house of solid stone" / each block cut smooth and well fitting / that design might cover their face" (Against usurer, Canto XLV).

"Who creates the value of currency is not who prints it but the people who accepts as a medium of payment".

Are the bankers, the big money-lenders who appropriate themselves of the monetary value, using it as a medium of domination and imposing to humanity the seigniorage of debt?

The culture of mass, plagiarized by the mystifying acceptance of the masters of usury, the money suppliers.

"Non bene pro toto libertas venditur auro"

When commercial banks create the 97% of the money out of nothing The induced value and the Popular ownership of money led in the past some honest senators to present for three times a proposal bill for giving the ownership of money to the citizenship.

"The treasure of a nation is its honesty”

“In the century of usury all nations have become poor because they were indebted for a value equal to all their money since 1694, year that the Bank of England was established”.

You suffer the great problems that afflict the generation: the philosophical and scientific knowledge to solve them is missing. It is the vision of process of usury.

"What has been lacking in Italy, especially among practical people, industrialists, large or small, among the merchants and not only among the small traders, it is the vision of process of usury.

The knowledge of the relationship, and the relationships among business, the management of manufacturing or commercial company, and the world monetary system, operating not with a short deadline, not in periods of three months or three years, but in the long run over centuries and half- centuries, always with the same purpose: to gain profit.

And always with the same mechanisms, that is creating debts to take advantage of the interests, and monopolies to vary the price of everything, including price the various units of the different currencies of different nations"

"The enemy is ignorance (ours). At the beginning of the nineteenth century John Adams (pater patriae) saw the defects and errors of the U.S. government derived not so much from the corruption of staff, but because of ignorance of money, credit, and their circulation.”

"What is the money, credit, interest, usury, (...) and circulation”.

Paper money created at pure printing cost.

Since the value of the bill of exchange is given by the promise of the debtor, masquerading the banknotes under the appearance of a bill of exchange, the Governor claimed the right to the issuance of money that he had appropriated, because at the moment of its issuance he was lending it. And this is the prerogative of the owner. Thus, the governor is the false debtor, but the true owner.

Thus, the governor is the false debtor, but the true owner of money. In this way money born as the ownership of the banks that issues it, just lending it to citizens. Instead money should be the ownership of the citizens and be credited to them as an Income of citizenship.

Once we have realized that money is a false bill of exchange, it is explained why the Central Bank accounts for the money issued as deficit], falsifying the financial statements.

Most of the central banks account as deficit the notes in circulation, hiding in this way most of the profit for seigniorage to transfer to the Treasury.

Same reason why you can’t own your own home. Only the state and federal building Do Not pay property taxes on the building or the land. Stop paying the property tax and see who come a knocking. Interest is the price paid for using money. By analogy we can say it is like a tenant who's paying the rent to the owner for the use of the apartment. The difference is that while in the rented house property remains in the hands of the landlord, in the rented money, that is a loan, the property passes into the hands of the tenant (the debtor) because essentially the enjoyment of having money is that it is spendable, being able to transfer the property at the time of purchase.

A update for the brain trust here
MOBLEY M. MILAM

Assistant U.S. Attorney

325 West "F" Street

San Diego, California 92101

Things that make you go Hmmmmmm. Why in '74 would he ask for gold coin as lawful money ....Hmmmm

@doug555

I'd like to discuss the simec, but this thread is probably an inappropriate venue. Before I begin a different thread about it, do you know more about the simec than what is contained in the links you provided above?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith Alan

@doug555

I'd like to discuss the simec, but this thread is probably an inappropriate venue. Before I begin a different thread about it, do you know more about the simec than what is contained in the links you provided above?

---

Hi Keith... No, the links are all I have so far... wish I knew Italian!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canadian solution

A update for the brain trust here
MOBLEY M. MILAM

Assistant U.S. Attorney

325 West "F" Street

San Diego, California 92101

Things that make you go Hmmmmmm. Why in '74 would he ask for gold coin as lawful money ....Hmmmm

---

Here's a possible answer: Considering the Petitioner (a Assistant U.S. Attorney, if true), a bogus 'precedent' is attempted by this 'lawsuit' regarding a Lawful Money claim, although this pleading does not come into purview of the actual meaning and execution behind 12 USC 411. However, it places 'doubt' into impressionable minds (juries, perhaps?) regarding the overall topic and validity of Redeeming in Lawful Money. Milam v. U.S. appears to be a phony and deliberate attempt by GovCo to introduce a 'precedent-setting' case against Lawful Money.

If GovCo REALLY wanted a precedent-setting case then they would have made Milam state that he is redeeming FRN's in Lawful Money per the statutory means (12 USC 411) of obligating the U.S. Treasury to decrement its non-reserve funds otherwise known as U.S. Notes, and thus NOT 'redeem' his FRN's as an extension of credit from the private Federal Reserve banks...

So, if this was his argument and the USSC ruled against him, now THAT would be a truly unlawful and evil 'precedent-setting' decision. Thankfully we have not seen this occur, yet. I pray that GovCo and Auntie Iris does not one day come after all who have 'filed' per RILF (like the CTC folks, myself included), but I would not put it past them to do anything to steal from American Citizens. After all, that's what they're good at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug555

Hi Keith... No, the links are all I have so far... wish I knew Italian!

---

Ah, too bad. I think then I'll not begin a new thread. While discussing alternative currency might be interesting, it really isn't topical to the STSC website.

For anybody thinking my research and opinions are "topical" for the website, I believe that if redacted to the simplest "alternative" the monetary system might, as designed revert to the $42.22/troy ounce value described in the Bretton Woods Agreements (Amendments of 1976). Alternate currencies that wander even further from any factual basis, especially alternative currencies based in cyberspace transactions seem more absurd than fiat and expansion of fiat through hypothecation.