Creditors In Commerce Sentenced To Prison

[Chex]

And 48 Stat. 112:Pertains to gold rather than silver. Lawful money was originally in silver coin.

If the United States can declare Federal Reserve Notes to be a legal tender in payment of money debts, but the United States cannot change the standard of value nor make anything lawful money, but the value of gold and silver.

Then why isn’t the [31 U.S. Code § 5112 - Denominations, specifications, and design of coins] The Secretary of the Treasury doing its job?

June 6, 1960, second session of the 86th Congress, at the hearings before the Subcommittee #3 on H.R. 8516 and H.R. 8627, the Committee on Banking and Currency, lead by the Honorable Wright Patman, posed several questions to Mr. Allen, the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago;

Mr. Patman: Now Mr. Allen, when the Federal Open Market Committee buys a million dollar bond you create that money on the credit of the nation to pay for that bond don't you?

Mr. Allen: That is correct.

Mr. Patman: And the credit of the nation is represented by Federal Reserve Notes in that case, isn't it? If the banks want the actual money, you give them Federal Reserve Notes in payments don't you?

Mr. Allen: That could be done, but nobody wants the Federal Reserve Notes.

Mr. Patman: Nobody wants them, because the banks would rather have the credit as reserves but that is the modus operandi if currency is desired.

Mr. Allen: That is right.

Mr. Patman: In other words, when the open market committee buys a million dollar bond, it doesn't take a million dollars out of anybody's account; there is no money taken from any bank or any individual; they create that money on the books of the banks, the 12 Federal Reserve Banks, to by that bond, don't they?

Mr. Allen: That is correct.

Subcommittee Hearings, June 6, 1960 @ pgs. 39 and 43

August 19, 2015 Pennsylvania court says payroll cards are not 'lawful money' Court's analysis

The WPCL states that wages "shall be paid in lawful money of the United States or check." The employer argued that because the funds loaded onto the payroll cards could be "readily converted to cash at a bank or an ATM," they should be deemed "money" under the statute. The court rejected that argument, explaining that the statute specifically requires employers to pay wages in "lawful money of the United States."

While the term "lawful money" isn't defined by the statute, the court ruled that it includes only money that is legal tender for the payment of debts. The court found that payroll cards do not fall within that definition.

The court recognized that this was a case of first impression in Pennsylvania (meaning it was the first time the issue has been litigated here) and that the WPCL vests the Pennsylvania Department of Labor & Industry (L&I) with the power to issue regulations governing the statute's administration. The court noted that "an appellate court, as well as Pennsylvania employers and wage-earners, could benefit from [L&I] expressing a formal position on the matter."