Very interesting development regarding online payment from lawful money account

[David Merrill]

The dollar has changed definition many times since then. From wiki, but you can find it on many other resources...



It says the us dollar was free to float, but, David noted this a while back...

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releas...1208assets.htm

Look at footnote number 1.

I don't know how, but, for some reason I can't kick the idea it is still stuck there. The value of US notes are still defined this way I believe, somehow though, we accept them to float right along with the FRNs. This is definitely what has been plaguing my mind for some time. The US Treasury has "sold" gold certificates to the Federal Reserve at the 42.22 dollars per ounce. Basically issued around 11 billion in these certificates, the amount of gold which they possessed, which then the Federal Reserve could lend upon. It was a way to sell the gold, yet keep it in the gov't vaults. That number is locked until the certificates are reclaimed. It's crazy to think about, but the value of the United States notes should be as good as gold.

Another thing, redeeming the FRN for lawful money was also a way for the Treasury to back out of the Federal Reserve system. The gov't took on all the liabilities of debt, but, they could also receive all the assets from the system. Since the US note has been diluted, I can't see why it hasn't kept it's value. Either way...

I went off on a mathematical tangent... (hey! That's a pun!)

I might have been better to wait for a certain email that informed me:

...that goes back to the Wheeler case of 1914, - 1914.SCT.244 , 233 U.S. 434, 58 L. Ed. 1030, 34 S. Ct. 607


...where in federal reserve notes is what is taxed for the privilege of their use in fact one administrative corporate supreme court, not the original one on 333 constitution ave. judge made the decisional statement and I paraphrase to shorten

The federal reserve has the right to tax their notes that are the debt obligations of the United States. They had transferred them to you via the company you worked or if you worked as yourself they were transferred to you by a man that you did work and you in turn transfer them to others and no matter where the notes, their situs, as stated by the court, lies in the federal reserve system.


and get this;


Again it is noted that situs is the legality to tax the notes be they in California, Maine, France or China. Remember we are applying the PRINCIPLE here to the federal reserve note since the court stated that technically there is no difference between the notes they are talking about in this case and federal reserve notes which are also defined as bills of exchange as they are blank notes, which you have not endorsed but merely passed on called a transfer.

On my first reading I find a very satisfying verification about redeeming lawful money!

...But it is plain that bills and notes, whatever they may be called, come very near to identification with the contract that they embody. An indorsement of the paper carries the contract to the indorser. An indorsement in blank passes the debt from hand to hand so that whoever has the paper has the debt.

[mikecz]

David,

I do lack the terminology here, but am definitely in line with the gov't complete avoidance of case law. They don't want to clear and in a formal opinion of the courts a decision on lawful money (seriously, is it not clear enough in the constitution, which I believe could be the largest elephant in the room in human history.) This is why it is so difficult to get anyone to write anything about money, the dollar, lawful money, or gold on paper.

So, I have the constitution of the United States Section 10. I have the Indiana constitution Article 11 Section 7. I have Indiana state code defining what employers can only be paid in...lawful money. IC 22-2-5-1. So since I'm paid in lawful money, I can then only "pay" others in lawful money. What I'm looking for is case law as you speak. I need a few cases where lawful money is clearly defined. I have found a few older cases that were of some interest. Basically a contract had been written between two parties for payment in confederate dollars.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/115/566

So in this case, someone bought land in confederate currency. The war was fought, confederate currency lost all the value, and needed to be paid in lawful money. The confederate currency was valued in lawful money, a clear distinction in rate. I wish we could get a case noting a difference in FRNs and Lawful money. Either way.
I'm going to solicit the law department of my credit union. We'll see where that goes...






Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

Section 7. All bills or notes issued as money shall be, at all times, redeemable in gold or silver; and no law shall be passed, sanctioning, directly or indirectly, the suspension, by any bank or banking company, of specie payments.

(a) Every person, firm, corporation, limited liability company, or association, their trustees, lessees, or receivers appointed by any court, doing business in Indiana, shall pay each employee at least semimonthly or biweekly, if requested, the amount due the employee. The payment shall be made in lawful money of the United States, by negotiable check, draft, or money order, or by electronic transfer to the financial institution designated by the employee. Any contract in violation of this subsection is void.