Yesterday, 06:56 PM
Ah so it's up to a court to decide? Don't courts work for bankers and aren't most politicians lawyers? I recall reading somewhere that the Rothschilds are the originators of the Bar Association, all lawyers work for the bankers (per their private Bar oath) and even the terms used are significant in origin. Something about "bench", like what the judge sits on, being latin for "bank", as in the bank of a river where the "current"(cy) flows. One could deduce that a judge's job is to control the flow of money on behalf of the bankers and whatever the bankers wish a term to mean a judge will make it so.
It would make sense since 12 USC 411 of the Fed Act originally denoted that the "lawful money" it refers to, that FRNs could be redeemed for, was gold. A court later decided, after Congress removed that little inconvenience, that paper was now lawful money and legal tender even though apparently it was not before. Why then, if gold is still lawful money, would it be removed from the Fed Act statute that essentially defined what "lawful money" is? If you change the name of something it ceases to be that forevermore?