The word game - Legal Tender v Lawful Money

[David Merrill]

I read an interesting PM recently:

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:






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.

[itsmymoney]

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.

[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!

[doug555]

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.

"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 DebtThe Way to outdo England without fighting her"The Web of Debt", page 343:







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?

[Canadian solution]

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

[Chex]

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

[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.

[doug555]

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!

[Chex]

[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

[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?

[doug555]

@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!

[itsmymoney]

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.

[Keith Alan]

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.

[David Merrill]

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.