How The Fed Prevents a 'Dollar Collapse'

[devil21]

First question now answered twice. Not going to repeat it a third time.

Second- is there a difference between legal tender and lawful money? If so, what is that difference?

https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_15197.htm

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?

[Zippyjuan]

According to the US Constitution, Congress gets to decide what is and isn't money.

Do you have a definition which can explain the differences between "legal tender" and "lawful money"?

Let's see what the law you refer to 12 USC 411 of the Fed Act says:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/411

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.

[Zippyjuan]

December 9, 1947
Honorable John W. Snyder
Sec. of the Treasury
Washington, D.C.

Dear Sir:

I am sending you herewith via registered mail one ten-dollar Federal Reserve note. On this note is inscribed the following:

"This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private, and is redeemable in lawful money at the United States Treasury or at any Federal Reserve bank."
In accordance with this statement, will you send me $10.00 in lawful money?
Very truly yours,
A.F. Davis

*****
December 11, 1947
Mr. A.F. Davis
12818 Colt Road
Cleveland 1, Ohio

Dear Mr. Davis,

Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of December 9th with enclosure of one ten dollar Federal Reserve note.

In compliance with your request, two five-dollar United States notes are transmitted herewith.

Very truly yours,
M.E. Slindee,
Acting Treasurer

*****
December 23, 1947
Mr. M.E. Slindee
Acting Treasurer
Treasury Department
Fiscal Service
Washington 25, D.C.

Dear Sir:

Receipt is hereby acknowledged of two $5.00 United States notes, which we interpret from your letter to be considered lawful money. Are we to infer from this that Federal Reserve notes are not lawful money?

I am enclosing one of the $5.00 notes which you sent me. I note that it states on the face,
"The United States of America will pay to the bearer on demand five dollars."

I am hereby demanding five dollars.

Very truly yours,
A.F. Davis

*****

December 29, 1947

Mr. A.F. Davis
12818 Colt Road
Cleveland 1, Ohio

Dear Mr. Davis:

Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of December 23rd, transmitting one $5 United States note with a demand for payment of five dollars.

Your are advised that the term "lawful money" has not been defined in federal legislation. It first came to use prior to 1933 when some United States currency was not legal tender but could be held by national banking institutions as lawful money reserves. Since the act of May 12, 1933, as amended by the Joint Resolution of June 5, 1933, makes all coins and currency of the United States legal tender and the Joint Resolution of August 27, 1935, provides for the exchange of United States coin or currency for other types of such coin or currency, the term "lawful money" no longer has such special significance.

The $5 United States note received with your letter of December 23rd is returned herewith.

Very truly yours,
M.E. Slindee,
Acting Treasurer

http://famguardian.org/subjects/Mone...ire/lawful.htm

[devil21]

According to the US Constitution, Congress gets to decide what is and isn't money.

The first one or the second one?

Do you have a definition which can explain the differences between "legal tender" and "lawful money"?

I do not. That's why I was asking you. Thanks for letting me know that gold is indeed still lawful money even if the lawyers in Congress that work for the bankers tried to claim otherwise.

Let's see what the law you refer to 12 USC 411 of the Fed Act says:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/411

Did that statute previously state that gold was lawful money?

[Zippyjuan]

It used to- but it was changed by Congress in 1934.

Amendments
1934—Act Jan. 30, 1934, struck out from last sentence provision permitting redemption in gold.

I do not. That's why I was asking you. Thanks for letting me know that gold is indeed still lawful money even if the lawyers in Congress that work for the bankers tried to claim otherwise.

Gold is still lawful money if you want to spend your gold coins at their face value. But nobody does that. So technically it is but in reality, it isn't.

[devil21]

It used to- but it was changed by Congress in 1934.





Gold is still lawful money if you want to spend your gold coins at their face value. But nobody does that. So technically it is but in reality, it isn't.

So why can't I take a $50 bill to the Fed and get a 1oz gold eagle of the same denomination? That is the face value of each lawful money and legal tender instrument, yes?

[Danke]

http://www.constitution.org/mon/what_is_a_dollar.htm

[Pauls' Revere]

Just curious, has The FED ever been tried under anti trust laws?

[Zippyjuan]

So why can't I take a $50 bill to the Fed and get a 1oz gold eagle of the same denomination? That is the face value of each lawful money and legal tender instrument, yes?

Because Congress said you can't. They have the power to regulate money. I'll give you $50 for a gold coin since you say it is legal tender.

Congress shall have the power to:

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

[devil21]

Because Congress said you can't. They have the power to regulate money. I'll give you $50 for a gold coin since you say it is legal tender.

Where did Congress say I can't? You said both instruments are legal tender and lawful money so point me to where is it prohibited? If something isn't written into statute as prohibited then it is considered otherwise legal, yes?

[Zippyjuan]

I actually posted it earlier but I guess you missed it. Remember that 12 USC 411 of the Fed Act thing? Go to the link to text and check "Amendments". I posted the relevant part but here it is one more time:

Amendments
1934—Act Jan. 30, 1934, struck out from last sentence provision permitting redemption in gold.

You have not been able to exchange for gold since 1934. At least not though them or the banks. You can take your paper to a coin dealer and purchase gold coins (or the US Mint but they will only sell you proof coins) if you want to trade paper for metal.

[devil21]

I actually posted it earlier but I guess you missed it. Remember that 12 USC 411 of the Fed Act thing? Go to the link to text and check "Amendments". I posted the relevant part but here it is one more time:



You have not been able to exchange for gold since 1934. At least not though them or the banks. You can take your paper to a coin dealer and purchase gold coins (or the US Mint but they will only sell you proof coins) if you want to trade paper for metal.

Wait, so only things written into statute are permitted? If it is not written into statute expressly as permitted then it is prohibited? Is that your claim?

[Zippyjuan]

Statute gave the right to get gold from the banks- statute took that right away again.

[devil21]

Statute gave the right to get gold from the banks- statute took that right away again.

So one statute, say the Controlled Substances Act, only expressly prohibits certain actions as being illegal while anything else is deemed legal but another statute, say the Fed Act, only expressly approves certain actions as being legal while anything else is deemed illegal? How does one know which standard applies at any particular time to any particular statute?

That does not sound like any sort of rule of law. It sounds like a rule of man.

[Zippyjuan]

All laws are rules of man. They are created by men for men.

[devil21]

All laws are rules of man. They are created by men for men.

So much for all that unalienable rights from the Creator hogwash, eh? Man ruling man is where it's at according to the Zippyjuan.

Or maybe there's a big part of the equation that you're omitting. Something about how statutes aren't laws, just regulations, subject to the whims of the creator of the statutes and those that are contractually bound by them. I wonder how 12 USC 411 would look if one weren't party to the contract. Hmm....

[Zippyjuan]

What rights come from the Creator? Are they listed in the Bible? All rights are man-made.

(really wandering off topic now)

[devil21]

What rights come from the Creator? Are they listed in the Bible? All rights are man-made.

There was a document called the Declaration of Independence that covered them. We will get to that shortly.

Your position is that there are no inherent rights that a human being retains merely by existing, just rights granted by another man. Is that correct?

(really wandering off topic now)

I know this thread is heading in a lot of directions that aren't easily covered in your binder of approved replies and MSM links. I'm sure you can manage.

[Zippyjuan]

There was a document called the Declaration of Independence that covered them.

Written by man or by God? What rights are listed in the Bible?

[devil21]

Written by man or by God? What rights are listed in the Bible?

What does the Bible have to do with anything?

[Zippyjuan]

It is the only source I could think of which might indicate which rights came from God. Men wrote everything else. (I take it you haven't found anything showing what rights came from God).

[devil21]

It is the only source I could think of which might indicate which rights came from God. Men wrote everything else. (I take it you haven't found anything showing what rights came from God).

I don't recall anybody mentioning the Bible or God, only "Creator". The beauty of freedom of religion is that one person's Creator doesn't have to be the next guy's Creator.