I read an interesting PM recently:
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: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" .
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.
Reply With Quote