Very interesting development regarding online payment from lawful money account

[mikecz]

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/incode/22/2/5/22-2-5-1

Seems every payment to any employee In Indiana needs to be in lawful money in the account of the United States.

(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.

Do you receive lawful money from your employer?

Also...look at B, again, what if you dont endorse?
Lending deposited money
Sec. 4. (a) A savings bank may do the following:
(1) Lend the money deposited in the savings bank upon:
(A) individual credit;
(B) the security of comakers or personal endorsement;
(C) the mortgage or pledge of personal property, either tangible or intangible; or
(D) the pledge of choses in action.
(2) Discount, purchase, or otherwise acquire retail installment sales contracts, notes, bills of exchange, or acceptance or other choses in action.
(b) The savings bank may contract for and receive on loans and discounts described in this subsection the highest rate of interest allowed by Indiana law to be contracted for and received by individuals.

[David Merrill]

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/const/art11.html

Found number 7 and number 9 most interesting.

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.

Section 9. No bank shall receive, directly or indirectly, a greater rate of interest than shall be allowed, by law, to individuals loaning money.

What I found interesting about 9 is the phrase "to individuals". This implies the individual as the one loaning the money, and the bank collecting interest on said money. Obviously, the goal here with non-endorsement is to NOT allow them to fractionally lend on your money. I'm still digging, in the appendix of Miracle on Main street, I have found a few other interesting things.

1. Lawful money used to be defined in 12 U.S.C. 152, but was repealed in 1994 (The terms 'lawful money' and "lawful money of the United States' shall be construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States). As well

2. The attorney general from the state as defined in statute cannot render legal opinions to private parties. The question is, what party can they offer opinions too? What is lawful money as defined by this state? I actually know 2 judges...

If you are good with legislative history please see what you can find about Title 31 USC §371:



Apply for an (Order for an) opinion with a $46 Miscellaneous Case file.

[mikecz]

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tips_a.../message/17135

" To stop the use of the POMC Congress voided 31 USC 371 and had the states prosecute those that used the POMC improperly. I never did discontinue using the POMC because we have a statute in Louisiana that is identical to 31 USC 371. I have found that most states have a similar statute. To avoid any retaliation the Louisiana Public Office Money Certificate was modified to say: “void where prohibited by law.” Of course there is no law prohibiting the use of the POMC. Using the POMC is the most fun of all patriot issues. All it is saying is:”I’m willing to pay what you allege I owe if you will tell me how to do such without breaking the law.” Really it is not allowing them to break the law and demand private money when by law they can only demand public money. "

So thats the thing, 31 USC 371 had to do with keeping money in the account of the US. That was banned, I think because of Saussy's efforts. But as this suitor explains, most states have identical sections in their constitutions. In Louisiana, theirs read...

"R.S. 1§53. Money accounts in dollars and cents

The money accounts of this state shall be expressed in dollars or units, cents or hundredths, and mills or thousandths; and all accounts in banks and public offices, and all proceedings in the courts of this state, shall be kept in conformity herewith. "

In Indiana, ours states I believe more clearly dealing with actual payments made...

"(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."

It's almost a presumption of lawful money. Much the opposite of what we assume. I think that is why an endorsement is required. Anyway, as I read this code, I believe the POMC would also be applicable here in Indiana as with Louisiana. We have a very similar if not more specific code. I have to admit, I was a little blown away when I read this, I'm thinking every freaking paycheck given out MUST BE BY LAW in the form of LAWFUL MONEY. Obviously lazy politicians haven't updated the code (maybe they aren't as tactful as the Feds).

Ok, so this is what I need help with. If I give a POMC to someone and they accept iut, I assuming it basically states 1. They have accepted that the debt is discharged and the burden of proof is now on their shoulders. 2. They then need to define lawful money, and present the POMC back to the payor (me) with the definition for redemption of said lawful money. 3. We all know we can't pay in gold and silver, therefore the service is discharged without actual payment. Crazy right?

[David Merrill]

To your question: The only thing I discharged with POMC's was government fines. Then I apparently got greedy and tried to set up an account so that every parking ticket etc. they could just discharge it from that. That is what the author on Yahoo is speaking to. You cannot do that and the DA called it theft.

”I’m willing to pay what you allege I owe if you will tell me how to do such without breaking the law.”

This is why HJR-192 can be considered a supersedeas bond and an interlocutory appeal. One can ride the coattails of criminal syndicalism like most Americans do.

Thank you for your post. Since I once used POMC's regularly I thought myself an expert. I am glad to find there are real experts sharing their knowledge.

[AllanNR]

I think the real problem lies in the treasury, they are the ones buying the feds credit and floating it out to us poor saps.
IRS mailings don't mention the Fed on their letterhead they mention the treasury. And therein lies the real problem, I believe we have as much right to the use the treasury of our nation in our daily lives as is lawful for conduct of business which is what drives David's whole point home. When we redeem lawful money we are applying remedy per the savings to suitors clause and its guarantee of common law. It has taken me while to get used to these concepts but once they take your eyes are truly opened.

[David Merrill]

I think the real problem lies in the treasury, they are the ones buying the feds credit and floating it out to us poor saps.
IRS mailings don't mention the Fed on their letterhead they mention the treasury. And therein lies the real problem, I believe we have as much right to the use the treasury of our nation in our daily lives as is lawful for conduct of business which is what drives David's whole point home. When we redeem lawful money we are applying remedy per the savings to suitors clause and its guarantee of common law. It has taken me while to get used to these concepts but once they take your eyes are truly opened.

"All common law is is case law - stare decisis."

That was the utterance of a second-year law student, my cousin's wife, to me at a family reunion. That is a stark reality check too. This is the safety net protecting all formal suitors. None of the suitors face criminal prosecution (under regular circumstance of redeeming lawful money) because the DoJ understands that if they lose the appeal then authority is established (case law) by way of the justices' opinion to release all Americans from the mental imprisonment that they must endorse private credit from the Fed.

This was revealed more clearly by the withdrawal of an appeal by 'government' upon mandatory notice to the USCA (United States Codes Annotated) publication service. The annotations become the common law - the opinions of the appellate justices become citations to pursuade subsequent appeals opinions. Of course that should have been obvious to me already - but it only came into my consciousness when I read it on a court docket report. The USCA is a sacrosanct medium of the common law. Even if it is government appealing, they have to live with the outcome. So the government withdrew the appeal. [I am having trouble remembering the case right now but will show you when I can find it.]

[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.

[David Merrill]

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...

That 1914 case I just read is fairly close. I like how it distinguishes bills from notes. That is very helpful in my mental models.


Also, along the way I have collected:

In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money.

United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.

Paper currency, in the form of the Federal Reserve Note, is defined as an “obligation[ ] of the United States” that may be “redeemed in lawful money on demand.” 12 U.S.C. § 411 (2002). These bills are not “money” per se...

[mikecz]

Thank you!!! Wonderful.

I had this crazy idea on the way home. Imagine we get two amicable parties to sue each other to formally have a case law example? This could be set up in a number of ways, a contract of sorts, but most importantly, the language of the suit could be designed to force a clear definition of lawful money from the court.

This isn't perfect and can be refined, but just an example here.

Say I contract with another party for a good, lets just say something cheap like a table, and require payment only in the form of lawful money of the united states. The person buying the table offers FRNs and I refuse the payment, as I claim it is not lawful money. I'm trying to think how to frame this so there is no wiggle room for the courts. I suppose FRNs are legal tender and must be accepted for payment, but, as stated in some other cases, like at restaurants, legal tender must be accepted, but for things like convenience stores, or vending machines, certain types can be excluded, as it is a private contract. We, the two parties, could disagree on what the definition of lawful money of the united states in the contract (which would be in writing). It could start at the small claims level (its only $81), though we might not get a completely lawful result, I think it might be a stepping stone for an appeal, etc.

Just thinking out loud here.