Lawful Money

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

http://www.investorwords.com/2733/lawful_money.html


"lawful money"

Definition

Any money (coin or paper) that is issued directly by the United States Treasury and not the Federal Reserve System!!! - this includes gold and silver coin, Notes, Bonds, etc.

Holy Macaroni- you weren't Kidding!!!

FRN's and checks and money orders and bank drafts and wire transfers are NOT lawful money!!!

The horizon expands a bit more every week here on SuiJuris. Amazing.

When cash is received upon redemption, this is 'as-though' coin tokens of lawful money were tendered, then exchanged for bills.

Looks to me like FRN's are never lawful money- it's not quite so esoteric- but the transaction was for lawful money, later accounted w/ FRN of higher denominations.

As recorded by the bank, a regulated instrumentality

The "lawful money" indication is from the redemption on the back of the check or the withdrawal slip.

Although I fail to understand how receiving lawful money vs mere legal tender matters anyway- the taxable "source derived" is the activity (employment, trade, business, etc).

To my mind the more important issue is whether the money was :

"income from",

or just a

"secured even-exchange pre-paid credit account settlement",

to cover the value of the "loan process".

(the lending and redemption of mutual pledges).

So the money I got was only to cover the ounces of gold that were exchanged, at par value.

What a complicated procedure!

1. I make/do something

2. This is deposited with another party

3. An account is made of the value in troy oz fine gold.

4. and denominated at $50 par.

5. Then we swap pledges

6. redeeming the due gold consideration

7. for currency

8. result: even-exchange outcome w/o "income"

9. and original transaction at $50/oz due.


Ay Gevault! Cartwheels, anyone?

[Lawdog]

168 Ga. App. 361

Court of Appeals of Georgia

LOVE v. BALDWIN UNITED MORTGAGE COMPANY et al.

66534

CARLEY, Judge

On June 20, 1982, a "Notice of Sale of Personal Property at Public Auction" was run in a daily newspaper. This notice provided, in relevant part, that appellee-defendant, the Colwell Company, would "publicly offer for sale, and sell for cash in lawful money of the United States of America" a certain described mobile home. According to appellant-plaintiff's complaint, he attended the advertised auction and "made a bid in lawful money of the United States of America in the form and substance of Silver Dollars, in the amount of $5.00." However, the mobile home was sold to appellee-defendant Folds for the sum of $5.01. According to appellant's complaint, Folds' bid was "null and void" because it was based upon "irredeemable Federal Reserve notes. . . and was not paid in lawful money of the United States of America as advertised at time of auction and sale." Asserting that "he made the high bid in lawful money of the United States of America," appellant instituted the instant action seeking to recover damages from appellees.

Appellees subsequently made separate motions seeking to terminate the case as to them. Appellee Folds moved to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings and he also made an alternative motion for summary judgment. Appellee Colwell Company moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Appellee Baldwin United [Page 362] Mortgage Company moved for summary judgment. After conducting a hearing, the trial court entered orders granting appellees' respective motions. Appellant appeals.

The entire premise of appellant's claim is that only his bid of $5.00 in silver coins satisfied the stipulation in the advertisement stipulation that the mobile home would be sold "for cash in lawful money of the United States of America." This contention is premised upon the further assertion that appellee Folds' bid of $5.01 "in irredeemable Federal Reserve notes" did not satisfy this stipulation in the advertisement. The argument that the only "lawful money" of the United States consists of gold or silver coins and not Federal Reserve notes has been rejected by the federal courts. See generally Mathes v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 576 F2d 70 (5th Cir. 1978); United States v. Rickman, 638 F2d 182 (10th Cir. 1980). The trial court did not err in granting appellees' respective motions.

Judgments affirmed. Deen, P. J., and Banke, J., concur.

Decided October 7, 1983

Action for damages. Fulton Superior Court. Before Judge Alverson.

James B. Love, pro se.

Douglas N. Campbell, Elise M. Bloom, for appellees.

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

On June 20, 1982, a "Notice of Sale of Personal Property at Public Auction" was run in a daily newspaper. This notice provided, in relevant part, that appellee-defendant, the Colwell Company, would "publicly offer for sale, and sell for cash in lawful money of the United States of America" a certain described mobile home. According to appellant-plaintiff's complaint, he attended the advertised auction and "made a bid in lawful money of the United States of America in the form and substance of Silver Dollars, in the amount of $5.00." However, the mobile home was sold to appellee-defendant Folds for the sum of $5.01. According to appellant's complaint, Folds' bid was "null and void" because it was based upon "irredeemable Federal Reserve notes. . . and was not paid in lawful money of the United States of America as advertised at time of auction and sale." Asserting that "he made the high bid in lawful money of the United States of America," appellant instituted the instant action seeking to recover damages from appellees.

I've noticed that many real estate contracts use such "lawful money" language.

The entire premise of appellant's claim is that only his bid of $5.00 in silver coins satisfied the stipulation in the advertisement stipulation that the mobile home would be sold "for cash in lawful money of the United States of America." This contention is premised upon the further assertion that appellee Folds' bid of $5.01 "in irredeemable Federal Reserve notes" did not satisfy this stipulation in the advertisement. The argument that the only "lawful money" of the United States consists of gold or silver coins and not Federal Reserve notes has been rejected by the federal courts. See generally Mathes v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 576 F2d 70 (5th Cir. 1978); United States v. Rickman, 638 F2d 182 (10th Cir. 1980). The trial court did not err in granting appellees' respective motions.

But has the argument been rejected by the Supreme Court?

Also, how then do you explain Title 12, Sec 411, which seems to draw a pretty sharp distinction between "Federal Reserve Notes" and "lawful money":

Originally Posted by Title 12

Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized.

The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.

http://vlex.com/vid/19225859

[Lawdog]

See footnote.

14 F.3d 44
Devore v. Federal Sav. Bank of Dover, New Hampshire

January 3, 1994
93-1872

Page 44

14 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 1994)

John W. DEVORE, and Vinnie E. Devore, Plaintiffs, Appellants,

v.

FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK OF DOVER, NEW HAMPSHIRE, Defendant, Appellee.

No. 93-1872.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit

January 3, 1994

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA1 Rule 36 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maine

John W. Devore and Vinnie E. Devore on brief pro se.

Edward S. MacColl and Thompson, McNaboe, Ashley & Bull on brief for appellee.

D.Me.

AFFIRMED.

Before Breyer, Chief Judge, Selya and Cyr, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam.

Having reviewed the record and the parties' submissions, we find that the district court acted properly in dismissing appellants' complaint for failure to state a claim and in granting appellee's motion for summary judgment on its counterclaim. The appellants' central claim-that Federal Reserve Notes are not lawful currency and so cannot be used as legal tender for private debts-is frivolous. [1] We likewise find their subsidiary allegations to be without merit, substantially for the reasons cited by the district court.

The judgment is affirmed. Appellants' motion for stay and appellee's renewed motion for summary disposition are each denied as moot.

---------

Notes:

[1] See, e.g., Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, 448 (1884) ( "Congress is authorized to establish a national currency, either in coin or in paper, and to make that currency lawful money for all purposes, as regards the national government or private individuals"); Edgar v. Inland Steel Co., 744 F.2d 1276, 1278 n. 4 (7th Cir. 1984) (per curiam) (rejecting argument that "federal reserve notes are not money"); Foret v. Wilson, 725 F.2d 254, 254-55 (5th Cir. 1984) (per curiam) (rejecting argument that "only gold and silver coin may be constituted legal tender"); United States v. Ware, 608 F.2d 400, 402-04 (10th Cir. 1979); United States v. Anderson, 584 F.2d 369, 374 (10th Cir. 1978); United States v. Schmitz, 542 F.2d 782, 785 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1105 (1977); Milam v. United States, 524 F.2d 629, 630 (9th Cir. 1974); see also Howe v. United States, 632 F. Supp. 700, 701 (D. Mass.), aff'd, 802 F.2d 440 (1st Cir. 1986) (table), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1066 (1987).

[Lawdog]

Here's a fuller version of the quote cited above in the footnote regarding Justice Gray's decision for the Supreme Court:

Under the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States and to issue circulating notes for the money borrowed, its power to define the quality and force of those notes as currency is as broad as the like power over a metallic currency under the power to coin money and to regulate the value thereof. Under the two powers, taken together, Congress is authorized to establish a national currency, either in coin or in paper, and to make that currency lawful money for all purposes, as regards the nation government or private individuals.

110 U.S. 421 at 448

You want to redeem your FRN's for other lawful money? Trade them for quarters, nickels, dimes, etc. Let the good times roll!

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Here's a fuller version of the quote cited above in the footnote regarding Justice Gray's decision for the Supreme Court:

Thanks.

I'll be looking into these Legal Tender Cases more myself as well.

If I'm not mistaken, this decision was rendered in 1884, was it not?

I wonder whether the case mentions Title 12, Sec 411? :-)

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

The argument that the only "lawful money" of the United States consists of gold or silver coins and not Federal Reserve notes has been rejected by the federal courts. See generally Mathes v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 576 F2d 70 (5th Cir. 1978); United States v. Rickman, 638 F2d 182 (10th Cir. 1980).

Ouch!! Psholtz;

Don't fall for Lawdog's smoke and mirrors here. Rickman is right there in his highlight!

Originally Posted by US v Rickman; 638 F.2d 182

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

and

Originally Posted by US v Ware; 608 F.2d 400

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.

It is important to understand that the opinion attorner Lawdog aka Quatloser UGAlawdog highlighted was written by another attorner like Lawdog.

Examine the English very carefully,

The argument that the only "lawful money" of the United States consists of gold or silver coins and not Federal Reserve notes has been rejected by the federal courts.

This does not say what it appears to at a glance. It does not say that Federal Reserve notes are lawful money. It says that, The argument that the only "lawful money" of the United States consists of gold or silver coins and not Federal Reserve notes has been rejected by the federal courts. Be very careful here, I despise Lawdog for obfuscating and juxtapositioning around here with such cheapo ambulance-chasing style that it scares me he can possibly be confusing the good members here who are after the truth.

The quotation integrates the fallacy of gold and silver coin as a dependent clause.


Farmer's opening post is right on. And a casual glance at this 1928 FRN confirms it to be so.

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...ot_dollars.jpg
http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...rs_reverse.jpg



Regards,

David Merrill.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

The fact that anyone (ahem) even bothers to 'worrit hisself' about this thread is a hint that something is of interest here.

The twistering obfustication speaks volumes. All the cited court case shows is that FRN's are legal tender. The argument that any kind of money is more valid than another was held to be frivolous.

Why is it so important that we think bank reserve deposits are lawful money? Somebody is protecting their corner here, be wise folks!

Originally Posted by Lawdog

You want to redeem your FRN's for other lawful money? Trade them for quarters, nickels, dimes, etc. Let the good times roll!

What's striking here is that if all monies were actually redeemed tomorrow, all fed. resv. assets, including all debts of any sort in the system, would have to be transferred to the U.S. Dept of Treasury. And at least as far as the govt is concerned, all debts would disappear altogether, and the u.s. guarantee on any other bond would also have to disappear.

Because in order to get lawful hard money, the Federal Reserve system must pay the Treasury dollar-for-dollar- with bills, bonds notes and other contrivances of the system. The BANK must redeem the debts it holds as creditor for lawful hard money.

Which would have to depreciate greatly overnight the value of the currency, barring any other measure.

And at least halfway amortize by inflation all mortgages, loans etc. BABYLON falls in one day...

Never gonna happen. Fire from the sky is required, we are too stupid and rebellious to do it the easy way.

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

This does not say what it appears to at a glance. It does not say that Federal Reserve notes are lawful money. It says that, The argument that the only "lawful money" of the United States consists of gold or silver coins and not Federal Reserve notes has been rejected by the federal courts. Be very careful here, I despise Lawdog for obfuscating and juxtapositioning around here with such cheapo ambulance-chasing style that it scares me he can possibly be confusing the good members here who are after the truth.

Son of a gun! LOL...

Yes, I see what you're saying.. :-)

It actually inspires me to go back to my math nerd days and try to explain this contortion a little more clearly using predicate logic.

If I understand what he's saying correctly, it seems to be something like:

P = lawful money is gold coin
Q = lawful money is silver coin
R = lawful money is FRN

So what he's saying is that the argument that:

(P | Q) & (~R)

has been rejected by the federal courts?

Lawdog, any comments??

[indago]

Lawdog has noted:

[1] See, e.g., Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, 448 (1884) ( "Congress is authorized to establish a national currency, either in coin or in paper, and to make that currency lawful money for all purposes, as regards the national government or private individuals")

And Justice Stephen J. Field had something to say about this in his dissenting opinion:

"If there be anything in the history of the Constitution which can be established with moral certainty, it is that the framers of that instrument intended to prohibit the issue of legal tender notes both by the general government and by the States; and thus prevent interference with the contracts of private parties. ...legislative declaration cannot make the promise of a thing the equivalent of the thing itself. ...For nearly three-quarters of a century after the adoption of the Constitution, and until the legislation during the recent civil war, no jurist and no statesman of any position in the country ever pretended that a power to impart the quality of legal tender to its notes was vested in the general government. There is no recorded word of even one in favor of its possessing the power. All conceded, as an axiom of constitutional law, that the power did not exist."

The Constitution of the United States was never amended to allow for the use of paper money as a lawful money.