Is a promissory note cash?

[fulltitle]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I would have supposed the vast majority of promissory notes of interest to people on this forum are those entirely inside the US.

Without Prejudice.
Interestingly enough, I've never been to the United States even though I've stood less than 50 feet from the Washington Monument. Quite an interesting supposition. Are you in the United States, Shoonra? And what say ye about the relationship between Justinian Code concerning pledges and promissory notes or bills of exchange? Why be ye so quiescient about the topic all so suddenly?

[palani]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

When I suggested you check a lawbook I didn't mean one from the 19th century or that was based on British law.

You certainly are hard to please at times. Here is what Vattel has to say about debased currency in general

Originally Posted by Vattel

In Boizard's Treatise on Coin, we find the following observations: "It is worthy of remark, that, when our kings debased the coin, they kept the circumstance a secret from the people: — witness the ordinance of Philip de Valois in 1350, by which he ordered Tournois Doubles to be coined 2d 5 1/3 gr. fine, which was, in fact, a debasement of the coin. In that ordinance, addressing the officers of the mint, he says — Upon the oath by which you are bound to the king, keep this affair as secret as you possibly can, that neither the bankers nor others may, by your means, acquire any knowledge of it; for if, through you, it comes to be known, you shall be punished for the offence in such manner as shall serve as an example to others."

Then it seems the English might like to play fast and loose with their promissory notes, a fact that should not be news to our resident esquires.

Originally Posted by Vattel

But in England a narrow and immoral policy prevails of not noticing frauds upon the revenue of a foreign state. Roach v. Edie, 6 Term Rep. 425; Boucher v. Lawrence, R.T. Hardw. 198; Holman v. Johnson, Cowp. 343; James v, Catherwood, 3 Dowl. & Ryl. 190, {Cambiooso's Ex. v. Maffet's Assignees, 2 Wash, C.C. Rep. 99.} And so far has this narrow doctrine been carried, in disgrace of this country, that, in Smith v. Marconnay, 2 Peake's Rep. 81, it was held, that the maker of paper in England, knowingly made by him for the purpose of forging assignats upon the same, to be exported to France in order to commit frauds there on other persons, might recover damages for not accepting such paper pursuant to contract. So a master of an English ship was even allowed to recover salvage for bringing home his captured vessel, by deceptively inducing the enemy to release the vessel on his giving a ransom bill, payment of which he look care to countermand in London. 2 Dodson's R. 74.

A ransom bill sort of sounds like a promissory note, doesn't it?

[palani]

Does the U.S. Constitution meet the requirements of a promissory note? No money is to change hands therein but constitutors create constitutions to transfer debt.

[Dillon Hunt]

Originally Posted by indio007

Anyone know positively if a promissory note is considered "cash"???

Yes, only when registered on a ucc 3. registered as your property on the public side. (see pg. 11 of 23 in the securitization word document)

See the Securitization word document - it is (113kb) located near the bottom of this:

http://www.commonlawvenue.net/main/MSL.htm website.


I hope it is helpful

Dillon

[Shoonra]

For lack of a better place, here is a recent news item on a very flamboyant attempt to pass a bogus check ....
http://www.loweringthebar.net/2008/0...hings-big.html
This guy got extra points for having marijuana - and an illegal gun - on him when arrested. He claimed his girlfriend's mom gave him the 360 billion dollar check but (1) she denied giving him any check, and (2) her checking account had somewhat less than 360 billion dollars.


I response to the question raised in the previous message: No, positively a promissory note is not cash. It is not payment. If anything it is a delay of payment. As such, the creditor cannot be forced to accept a promissory note when the underlying debt becomes due, since the promissory note essentially renegotiates the debt by extending its due date. See, for example, Fleet Real Estate Funding v. Frampton (Okl.App 1991) 812 P.2d 416, 15 UCC Rptg Serv.2d 987. http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/...p?citeid=15214

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

For lack of a better place, here is a recent news item on a very flamboyant attempt to pass a bogus check ....
http://www.loweringthebar.net/2008/0...hings-big.html
This guy got extra points for having marijuana - and an illegal gun - on him when arrested. He claimed his girlfriend's mom gave him the 360 billion dollar check but (1) she denied giving him any check, and (2) her checking account had somewhat less than 360 billion dollars.


I response to the question raised in the previous message: No, positively a promissory note is not cash. It is not payment. If anything it is a delay of payment. As such, the creditor cannot be forced to accept a promissory note when the underlying debt becomes due, since the promissory note essentially renegotiates the debt by extending its due date. See, for example, Fleet Real Estate Funding v. Frampton (Okl.App 1991) 812 P.2d 416, 15 UCC Rptg Serv.2d 987. http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/...p?citeid=15214

Glad you brought up the thought about the 'bogus checks'.

If the Treasury issues a check to john q citizen, and john q citizen does not have a checking or savings account wherein he would redeem the paper, john q citizen would then be required to redeem the paper through a recognized MSB, and upon doing so, john q citizen would be required to pay the MSB a certain dollar amount in order to facilitate the transaction.

Now here is the thought to ponder. Because the feds issued a check and the feds also wrote statutes governing the manner in which the banking system can handle such items of paper, then the feds have also created a tort against john q citizen, by forcing him to either do business with someone that he (john q citizen) does not desire to do business (the banks), else he is required to forfeit property that rightfully belongs to him (the administrative fee charged by the MSB would be a forced loss of property).

Aside from that, is the fact that FRNs are also Notes, Obligations of the United States, they are construed as debt instruments, and a debt cannot be paid with another debt.

Jerry Carlos

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Dillon Hunt

Yes, only when registered on a ucc 3. registered as your property on the public side. (see pg. 11 of 23 in the securitization word document)

See the Securitization word document - it is (113kb) located near the bottom of this:

http://www.commonlawvenue.net/main/MSL.htm website.


I hope it is helpful

Dillon

Adding emphasis to your statements above:
http://www.msb.gov/pdf/31CFR10311.pdf the following is found on page 4 of the pdf.

"(u) Monetary instruments. (1) Monetary
instruments include:
(i) Currency;
(ii) Traveler’s checks in any form;
(iii) All negotiable instruments (including
personal checks, business
checks, official bank checks, cashier’s
checks, third-party checks, promissory
notes (as that term is defined in the
Uniform Commercial Code), and money
orders) that are either in bearer form,
endorsed without restriction, made out
to a fictitious payee (for the purposes
of § 103.23), or otherwise in such form
that title thereto passes upon delivery;
(iv) Incomplete instruments (including
personal checks, business checks,
official bank checks, cashier’s checks,
third-party checks, promissory notes
(as that term is defined in the Uniform
Commercial Code), and money orders)
signed but with the payee’s name omitted;
and
(v) Securities or stock in bearer form
or otherwise in such form that title
thereto passes upon delivery.
(2) Monetary instruments do not include
warehouse receipts or bills of lading.


Jerry Carlos

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

Aside from that, is the fact that FRNs are ... construed as debt instruments, and a debt cannot be paid with another debt.

First, I don't know of any legal authority, especially since the end of the silver standard in the early 1970s, that says that FRN are "debt instruments."

Second, I don't know where you got the idea, but, yet, a debt might be paid with another debt in the right situation. For example, a US Treasury bond is undeniably a debt instrument, and I (and most anyone else) would accept it in payment of a debt and certainly do so in preference to any of the homebrew documents churned out by DiM.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

First, I don't know of any legal authority, especially since the end of the silver standard in the early 1970s, that says that FRN are "debt instruments."

Do you have cognizance of the definition of the term "obligation"? If you do, then are you suggesting that the United States Code is NOT a legal authority? Please explain your position thoroughly.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Second, I don't know where you got the idea, but, yet, a debt might be paid with another debt in the right situation. For example, a US Treasury bond is undeniably a debt instrument, and I (and most anyone else) would accept it in payment of a debt and certainly do so in preference to any of the homebrew documents churned out by DiM.

Where do you get your ideas? Please be specific, as this is going to be a really interesting comment on your part.

Jerry Carlos

[Shoonra]

FRNs are described in the US Code as "obligations" of the federal govt, but this appears to be applicable only the relationship between the Treasury, which issued T-bills purchased by the Federal Reserve with FRNs, and to the counterfeiting laws -- which also treat cancelled postage stamps as "obligations" (18 USC 8).

I would have no porblem accepting a Treasury bond in payment for a debt. Ask just about any real businessman. Then see if the same businessman will give you anything for one of DiM's homebrew documents. The law makes FRNs legal tender for all debts,, public and private, which means that, even if they might be debt instruments in theory, they can pay off debts in real life.