name mispelled on indictment?

[Notorial dissent]

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

Speaking about "cannot read plain English", it was Shoonra who stipulated that

, that comment was not made by me.

I was merely going along with the opinion of someone who holds a JD, which gives him higher qualification (at least according to secular standards) than I, to make such declaratory statements. Oh, indeed, and who might that be and in what context? So if you have a problem with that declaration, then take it up with Shoonra. NOT ME.
And Shoonra is exactly correct, there is presently NO currency or form of money designated as “lawful currency”.

PS.. I do not own any definition, therefore, any definition that I quote from another source, cannot be construed as my own or as you said "your own".

PSS.. Statutes are not law, they are merely prima facie evidence of a law that might exist somewhere but are not necessarily displayed in that codification of a law that might exist somewhere. Show me the law.
PSSS... Statutes are the law as passed by the legislative body initiating them. A codification is prima facie evidence, a statute is the actual evidence of the law.
Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

Gee, then you mean you didn’t say this?

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

Geee... that would mean that the FRN (Federal Reserve Note) is NOT in conformity with the principles of the law.

The terms “lawful money” and “legal tender" have exactly and only whatever force and value they are given by statute. While Black’s, at least the current edition, may have a reasonably accurate general definition of a word or phrase, it has NO legal standing, the definitions within the statute prevail, and determine the legal meaning of the word or phrase.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

Gee, then you mean you didn’t say this?


The terms “lawful money” and “legal tender" have exactly and only whatever force and value they are given by statute. While Black’s, at least the current edition, may have a reasonably accurate general definition of a word or phrase, it has NO legal standing, the definitions within the statute prevail, and determine the legal meaning of the word or phrase.

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/140721-post31.html

Take your complaints to the complaint department under the heading of Sussman, Bernard., JD.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[Shoonra]

I had written up an enormous message with quotations from many learned journals and textbooks ... and then I accidently hit the ESC key and lost it all. I have no desire to retype it all. Lucky you!

But I cited the articles: The Concept of Lawful Money by Edward C. Simmons, 46 Journal of Political Economy (Feb. 1938) 108; The Law of the Dollar by Arthur Nussbaum, 37 Columbia Law Rev. (Nov. 1937) 1057; A Note on Lawful Money by Ira B. Cross, 46 Journal of Political Economy (June 1938) 409; A review of the book, The Legal Qualities of Money by Arthur Kemp, reviewed by Frederick A. Bradford, 11 Journal of Finance (Dec. 1956) 520.

In short: The only form of currency which Congress described with the expression "lawful money" was the United States Note in 1862 when it was described as both "lawful money and a legal tender" ( - the sole exception, the Treasury Demand Note of 1861, was declared "lawful money" in 1862 - a month after the United States Notes were so designated - but the Demand Notes were retired immediately after the Civil War). At that time, 1862, no paper money had been declared legal tender or lawful money, and it wasn't until several years later that the Supreme Court made clear that the Congress could make paper money legal tender, which may explain why both terms were used then for the USNs. In the 1862 legislation for USNs and the Demand Notes, "lawful money" may have been a recognition that the paper was made money only by an act of law, and not by natural market pressure. Gold and silver were never declared to be lawful money, although they had been designated legal tender. The USNs' designation as "lawful money" did not entitle them to be exchanged for gold coin, as shown in the Trebil**** decision.

There were, by 1862, a very great number of currencies - some federally issued, and many non-federal - in use, but only the forms designated by Congress as legal tender could positively be assured of acceptance; creditors could, at their discretion, reject payments offered in currencies that were not designated legal tender. Prior to 1862 only gold and silver coins (metallic) were designated legal tender. The only precious metal coinage which were not legal tender were the trade dollar (issued as legal tender in 1872 and later, IIRC 1893, explicitly declared not to be legal tender - primarily because of a substantial change in the measurement of silver in a dollar) and minor coins (less than $1) for a period during the first half of the 20th century declared not to be acceptable in paying debts over a certain amount, primarily to prevent people from paying their taxes and fines with sacks of pennies.

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 specified that Federal Reserve Banks would maintain at all times in their vaults a specified amount of "gold or lawful money" as a reserve against their deposits. The expression suggests that gold coinage was not, itself, lawful money (the mention of gold was removed in 1933). But the Federal Reserve Board of Governors made clear that "lawful money" meant legal tender. It was not until 1934 that FRNs themselves were official designated as legal tender, and thereafter the Federal Reserve Banks could maintain their reserves in FRNs. There have been several court decisions in the 20th century to the effect that "lawful money" means nothing other than legal tender (although, before the 20th century, there may have been a distinction between the two). Presently the term "lawful money" still occurs in the statutes dealing with shipping and transportation in specifying the liabiity and insurance imposed on carriers; all the litigation over these provisions show that the courts consider the specified amounts paid in FRNs satisfied the statutory requirement.

[David Merrill]

We got the true colors of both Notorial Dissent and Shoonra in these two posts.

The terms “lawful money” and “legal tender" have exactly and only whatever force and value they are given by statute. While Black’s, at least the current edition, may have a reasonably accurate general definition of a word or phrase, it has NO legal standing, the definitions within the statute prevail, and determine the legal meaning of the word or phrase.

In a nutshell, this is why Congress has repealed the statutory definition of Lawful Money in 1994!

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/f...20%20%20%20%20

But you can still find the same definition in a layman fashion:

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

And particularly revealing is Shoonra commenting:

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 specified that Federal Reserve Banks would maintain at all times in their vaults a specified amount of "gold or lawful money" as a reserve against their deposits. The expression suggests that gold coinage was not, itself, lawful money (the mention of gold was removed in 1933). But the Federal Reserve Board of Governors made clear that "lawful money" meant legal tender.

In particular:

The expression suggests that gold coinage was not, itself, lawful money (the mention of gold was removed in 1933).

- actually 1934.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...000-notes.html

The intimation is actually that lawful money is directly redeemable in gold. But since it was illegal to own gold for several decades what this means is inelastic currency - US notes = US dollars of a set weight in gold.

But the Federal Reserve Board of Governors made clear that "lawful money" meant legal tender.

This is the main smoke and mirrors folks! Pay attention to what Shoonra is saying - The Fed has no power to define lawful money. Only Congress has that power. The courts have no power to define lawful money either. Only the Congress. The courts recognize that only the Congress has the power to define lawful money.

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.

Regards,

David Merrill.

[indago]

Jerry Pitts wrote:

In other words, and again, according to the US Treasury, the FRN has no intrinsic value

It isn't the FRN, nor the paper: it's the numbers. This whole thing is a NUMBERS GAME.

And who said playing the numbers was illegal???

[Jerry Pitts]

In your quoted text below, I counted 12 specific mentions of dates by enumerated year that were prior to 1938.

Someone on this forum once raised cane in regard to this forums use of old dictionaries whose meanings have changed and have since become of no effect. I also remember someone on this forum giving reference to the Erie doctrine as having an ill affect upon those pre 1938 writings. So Bernie, how exactly would that Erie doctrine affect the things that you reference by those specific year dates that you have used?

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I had written up an enormous message with quotations from many learned journals and textbooks ... and then I accidently hit the ESC key and lost it all. I have no desire to retype it all. Lucky you!

But I cited the articles: The Concept of Lawful Money by Edward C. Simmons, 46 Journal of Political Economy (Feb. 1938) 108; The Law of the Dollar by Arthur Nussbaum, 37 Columbia Law Rev. (Nov. 1937) 1057; A Note on Lawful Money by Ira B. Cross, 46 Journal of Political Economy (June 1938) 409; A review of the book, The Legal Qualities of Money by Arthur Kemp, reviewed by Frederick A. Bradford, 11 Journal of Finance (Dec. 1956) 520.

In short: The only form of currency which Congress described with the expression "lawful money" was the United States Note in 1862 when it was described as both "lawful money and a legal tender" ( - the sole exception, the Treasury Demand Note of 1861, was declared "lawful money" in 1862 - a month after the United States Notes were so designated - but the Demand Notes were retired immediately after the Civil War). At that time, 1862, no paper money had been declared legal tender or lawful money, and it wasn't until several years later that the Supreme Court made clear that the Congress could make paper money legal tender, which may explain why both terms were used then for the USNs. In the 1862 legislation for USNs and the Demand Notes, "lawful money" may have been a recognition that the paper was made money only by an act of law, and not by natural market pressure. Gold and silver were never declared to be lawful money, although they had been designated legal tender. The USNs' designation as "lawful money" did not entitle them to be exchanged for gold coin, as shown in the Trebil**** decision.

There were, by 1862, a very great number of currencies - some federally issued, and many non-federal - in use, but only the forms designated by Congress as legal tender could positively be assured of acceptance; creditors could, at their discretion, reject payments offered in currencies that were not designated legal tender. Prior to 1862 only gold and silver coins (metallic) were designated legal tender. The only precious metal coinage which were not legal tender were the trade dollar (issued as legal tender in 1872 and later, IIRC 1893, explicitly declared not to be legal tender - primarily because of a substantial change in the measurement of silver in a dollar) and minor coins (less than $1) for a period during the first half of the 20th century declared not to be acceptable in paying debts over a certain amount, primarily to prevent people from paying their taxes and fines with sacks of pennies.

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 specified that Federal Reserve Banks would maintain at all times in their vaults a specified amount of "gold or lawful money" as a reserve against their deposits. The expression suggests that gold coinage was not, itself, lawful money (the mention of gold was removed in 1933). But the Federal Reserve Board of Governors made clear that "lawful money" meant legal tender. It was not until 1934 that FRNs themselves were official designated as legal tender, and thereafter the Federal Reserve Banks could maintain their reserves in FRNs. There have been several court decisions in the 20th century to the effect that "lawful money" means nothing other than legal tender (although, before the 20th century, there may have been a distinction between the two). Presently the term "lawful money" still occurs in the statutes dealing with shipping and transportation in specifying the liabiity and insurance imposed on carriers; all the litigation over these provisions show that the courts consider the specified amounts paid in FRNs satisfied the statutory requirement.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

The courts recognize that only the Congress has the power to define lawful money.

Yes but - Congress ceased to describe ANY money as "lawful money" in 1982 when it repealed the 1862 provision about United States Notes and replaced it with an authorization for United States Currency Notes that would be legal tender (but not using the term "lawful money").

And even when USNs were called "lawful money", they could not insist on being exchanged for gold coin -- or, evidently, for any other form of legal tender.

Now, if Congress had intended that "lawful moeny" be a category distinct from legal tender, it's remarkable that intention had not been detected by the experts at the Federal Reserve Board or the Dept of Treasury, or the judges in the Rickman and other court cases.

Additionally, the fact that Congress was aware of the Federal Reserve Board's interpretation and the US Dept of Treasury's interpretation and the interpretation by several court (including the Rickman decision) that "lawful money" was interchangeable with "legal tender", and Congress did nothing to dispute that intepretation - except, eventually, to repeal the one designation of a form of currency as "lawful money", is very telling.

What did the 1913 Federal Reserve Act mean when it said that FRNs were "redeemable in lawful money" ? It clearly was not limiting that redemption to United States Notes, since the amount of circulation of FRNs quickly exceeded the circulating amount of USNs; so it must have meant that FRN's were exchangeable for other forms of legal tender including breaking large denomination FRNs in return for change in smaller denomination FRNs.

In view of the fact that Congress ceased to authorize the issue of USNs, ceased to designate any form of currency as "lawful money", etc., it would seem that the term had no special significance. It may well have had some special significance in the 18th and 19th century, when there was a multitude of different forms of currency being circulated, but it doesn't have any special significance today, when all the federally -issued currency is "legal tender".