Where is the lawful money?

[midnight rambler]

Congress acknowledges that it exists.

All Federal Reserve notes and all gold certificates, Special Drawing Right certificates, and lawful money issued to or deposited with any Federal Reserve agent under the provisions of the Federal Reserve Act shall hereafter be held for such agent, under such rules and regulations as the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System may prescribe, in the joint custody of himself and the Federal Reserve bank to which he is accredited. Such agent and such Federal Reserve bank shall be jointly liable for the safe-keeping of such Federal Reserve notes, gold certificates, Special Drawing Right certificates, and lawful money. Nothing herein contained, however, shall be construed to prohibit a Federal Reserve agent from depositing gold certificates and Special Drawing Right certificates with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, to be held by such Board subject to his order, or with the Treasurer of the United States for the purposes authorized by law.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00000417----000-.html

[Ponce]

The "lawful" money is in the pocket of the people because that's all that is really needed...........

First post of the day...........good morning to one and all

[sirgonzo420]

Congress acknowledges that it exists.

All Federal Reserve notes and all gold certificates, Special Drawing Right certificates, and lawful money issued to or deposited with any Federal Reserve agent under the provisions of the Federal Reserve Act shall hereafter be held for such agent, under such rules and regulations as the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System may prescribe, in the joint custody of himself and the Federal Reserve bank to which he is accredited. Such agent and such Federal Reserve bank shall be jointly liable for the safe-keeping of such Federal Reserve notes, gold certificates, Special Drawing Right certificates, and lawful money. Nothing herein contained, however, shall be construed to prohibit a Federal Reserve agent from depositing gold certificates and Special Drawing Right certificates with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, to be held by such Board subject to his order, or with the Treasurer of the United States for the purposes authorized by law.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00000417----000-.html



Lawful money can mean a variety of things... in this context it likely means some form of "US Notes".

[midnight rambler]

Congress acknowledges that it exists.

All Federal Reserve notes and all gold certificates, Special Drawing Right certificates, and lawful money issued to or deposited with any Federal Reserve agent under the provisions of the Federal Reserve Act shall hereafter be held for such agent, under such rules and regulations as the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System may prescribe, in the joint custody of himself and the Federal Reserve bank to which he is accredited. Such agent and such Federal Reserve bank shall be jointly liable for the safe-keeping of such Federal Reserve notes, gold certificates, Special Drawing Right certificates, and lawful money. Nothing herein contained, however, shall be construed to prohibit a Federal Reserve agent from depositing gold certificates and Special Drawing Right certificates with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, to be held by such Board subject to his order, or with the Treasurer of the United States for the purposes authorized by law.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00000417----000-.html



Lawful money can mean a variety of things... in this context it likely means some form of "US Notes".






Kindly show me in the law where any thing but gold and silver coin is lawful money.

[sirgonzo420]

Kindly show me in the law where any thing but gold and silver coin is lawful money.


Here is what the Supreme Court had to say:


Mobley M. Milam, Appellant, v. United States of America et al., Appellees
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. - 524 F.2d 629
Jan. 29, 1974
1

W. Jefferson Davis, La Jolla, Cal., for appellant.
2

Robert H. Filsinger, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Diego, Cal., for appellees.
3

MEMORANDUM
4

Before KILKENNY and TRASK, Circuit Judges, and CRAIG,* District Judge.
5

Appellant has filed a substantial brief and an adequate reply brief and has argued his full share of allotted time in support for a demand that his $50.00 Federal Reserve Bank Note be redeemed in "lawful money" of the United States, which he says, in effect, must be gold or silver. Appellant refused appellees' tender of an equivalent value in Federal Reserve Notes.
6

Appellant's contentions, in our view, were put at rest close to a century ago in Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, 448, 4 S.Ct. 122, 130, 28 L.Ed. 204 (1884), in which it was said:
7

" . . . 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 national government or private individuals. . . . " (Emphasis supplied.)
8

The power so precisely described in Juilliard has been delegated to the Federal Reserve System under the provisions of 12 U.S.C. § 411. Appellant's challenge to the validity of this legislation is meritless. Cf.31 U.S.C. § 392.
9

While we agree that golden eagles, double eagles and silver dollars were lovely to look at and delightful to hold, we must at the same time recognize that time marches on, and that even the time honored silver dollar is no longer available in its last bastion of defense, the brilliant casinos of the houses of chance in the state of Nevada. Appellant is entitled to redeem his note, but not in precious metal. Simply stated, we find his contentions frivolous.
10

Judgment affirmed.

[sirgonzo420]

More from Supreme Court:


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


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.

[Ponce]

Rambler? to me "lawfull" money (under present circuntances) means what I wrote and nothing more...... once they produced money to simple put away or not to be use for comercial needs it then becomes unlawfull........

[palani]

Lacking a definition for "lawful money" I generally supply my own:

Money whether of exchange or of account which is accompanied by no attached liability.

Maybe it is as important to ask whether money is private or public.

[mick silver]

it in my coffee can bury in my woods ................ by mick silver

[Horn]

it in my coffee can....


You should think about deleting that post, mick.

Someone may quote it.

[JDRock]

..all the real money has been shipped to "fort lox" years ago...

[madfranks]

Congress acknowledges that it exists.

All Federal Reserve notes and all gold certificates, Special Drawing Right certificates, and lawful money issued to or deposited with any Federal Reserve agent under the provisions of the Federal Reserve Act shall hereafter be held for such agent, under such rules and regulations as the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System may prescribe, in the joint custody of himself and the Federal Reserve bank to which he is accredited. Such agent and such Federal Reserve bank shall be jointly liable for the safe-keeping of such Federal Reserve notes, gold certificates, Special Drawing Right certificates, and lawful money. Nothing herein contained, however, shall be construed to prohibit a Federal Reserve agent from depositing gold certificates and Special Drawing Right certificates with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, to be held by such Board subject to his order, or with the Treasurer of the United States for the purposes authorized by law.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00000417----000-.html



Maybe they're talking about coins? Coins are not FRNs, nor Special Drawing Rights, but are a type of "money" issued by the government. Although the Constitution calls for gold and silver, we all know they just ignore it.

[midnight rambler]

Kindly show me in the law where any thing but gold and silver coin is lawful money.


Here is what the Supreme Court had to say:


Mobley M. Milam, Appellant, v. United States of America et al., Appellees
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. - 524 F.2d 629
Jan. 29, 1974
1

W. Jefferson Davis, La Jolla, Cal., for appellant.
2

Robert H. Filsinger, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Diego, Cal., for appellees.
3

MEMORANDUM
4

Before KILKENNY and TRASK, Circuit Judges, and CRAIG,* District Judge.
5

Appellant has filed a substantial brief and an adequate reply brief and has argued his full share of allotted time in support for a demand that his $50.00 Federal Reserve Bank Note be redeemed in "lawful money" of the United States, which he says, in effect, must be gold or silver. Appellant refused appellees' tender of an equivalent value in Federal Reserve Notes.
6

Appellant's contentions, in our view, were put at rest close to a century ago in Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, 448, 4 S.Ct. 122, 130, 28 L.Ed. 204 (1884), in which it was said:
7

" . . . 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 national government or private individuals. . . . " (Emphasis supplied.)
8

The power so precisely described in Juilliard has been delegated to the Federal Reserve System under the provisions of 12 U.S.C. § 411. Appellant's challenge to the validity of this legislation is meritless. Cf.31 U.S.C. § 392.
9

While we agree that golden eagles, double eagles and silver dollars were lovely to look at and delightful to hold, we must at the same time recognize that time marches on, and that even the time honored silver dollar is no longer available in its last bastion of defense, the brilliant casinos of the houses of chance in the state of Nevada. Appellant is entitled to redeem his note, but not in precious metal. Simply stated, we find his contentions frivolous.
10

Judgment affirmed.



That's referred to as legislating from the bench and is NOT law.

[palani]

That's referred to as legislating from the bench and is NOT law.
No. It is called equity and is used where Law is incompetent to provide a remedy.

[Luis337]

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.

So the interest is being paid in some other form of money??

[Horn]

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.

So the interest is being paid in some other form of money??


They'll take blood as money for their interest. :CS

[Luis337]

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.

So the interest is being paid in some other form of money??


They'll take blood as money for their interest. :CS


Sure...but still. In what is the interest paid if US notes aren't accepted?

[Joe King]

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.

So the interest is being paid in some other form of money??


They'll take blood as money for their interest. :CS


Sure...but still. In what is the interest paid if US notes aren't accepted?

It's "paid" with FRN's and you get those via your sweat.

If you'll notice, the part quoted refers to United States Notes, not Federal Reserve Notes.
i.e. the fed doesn't want notes that have been issued interest free by the gov, to be used to pay them interest on the debt.

[midnight rambler]

That's referred to as legislating from the bench and is NOT law.
No. It is called equity and is used where Law is incompetent to provide a remedy.


FRNs state on their face that each is a NOTE and by law notes are redeemable (for lawful money).

[midnight rambler]

It's "paid" with FRN's

I hope you're not serious about any "payment of debt" via any debt instruments such as FRNs. It is not possible to "pay" a debt with a debt.

[sirgonzo420]

here's what "investopedia" says:


Lawful Money
What Does It Mean?
What Does Lawful Money Mean?
Any form of currency issued by the United States Treasury and not the Federal Reserve System, including gold and silver coins, Treasury notes, and Treasury bonds. Lawful money stands in contrast to fiat money, to which the government assigns value although it has no intrinsic value of its own and is not backed by reserves. Fiat money includes legal tender such as paper money, checks, drafts and bank notes.

Also known as "specie", which means "in actual form."
Click here for Investopedia FXtrader
Investopedia Says
Investopedia explains Lawful Money
Oddly enough, the dollar bills that we carry around in our wallets are not considered lawful money. The notation on the bottom of a U.S. dollar bill reads "Legal Tender for All Debts, Public and Private", and is issued by the U.S. Federal Reserve, not the U.S. Treasury. Legal tender can be exchanged for an equivalent amount of lawful money, but effects such as inflation can change the value of fiat money. Lawful money is said to be the most direct form of ownership, but for purposes of practicality it has little use in direct transactions between parties anymore.


http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lawfulmoney.asp

[Joe King]

That's referred to as legislating from the bench and is NOT law.
No. It is called equity and is used where Law is incompetent to provide a remedy.


FRNs state on their face that each is a NOTE and by law notes are redeemable (for lawful money).

The "redeemable" part was removed years ago.

FRNs are like two party checks that everyone passes around, but that no one can cash.

[Joe King]

It's "paid" with FRN's

I hope you're not serious about any "payment of debt" via any debt instruments such as FRNs. It is not possible to "pay" a debt with a debt.

It's being "paid" back in-kind.
i.e. FRN "dollars" are what the national debt is comprised of, and will be serviced, with.

As far as the servicing of the debt goes, all tax receipts of the US gov are funneled to the Fed as part of a perpetual interest payment, and every "dollar" the gov spends is an interest bearing FRN "dollar".

The interest upon which is "paid" via your sweat.

[midnight rambler]

The "redeemable" part was removed years ago.

No, 12 USC 411 still states FRNs "shall be redeemed for lawful money on demand...".

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00000411----000-.html

[palani]

FRNs state on their face that each is a NOTE and by law notes are redeemable (for lawful money).
The difference between something that REDEEMABLE and something that has been REDEEMED is the action actually taken. An offer after it lays on the table for 72 hours becomes a contract. If you are silent when you had the opportunity to speak then you have lost the ability to take any action.

[sirgonzo420]

To redeem something is:

"to buy back. To free property from mortgage . . . by paying the debt for which it stood as security.”

[Joe King]

The "redeemable" part was removed years ago.

No, 12 USC 411 still states FRNs "shall be redeemed for lawful money on demand...".

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00000411----000-.html

It was removed from the Notes themselves years ago.
i.e. they no longer say upon them, "redeemable in lawful money" as they once did, therefor the ability for you or I to cash them no longer exists.

It'd be like trying to cash a "check" that doesn't say, "pay to the order of..." upon it.


My question would be, where is the regulation that authorized the change to the Notes?

[palani]

To redeem something is:

"to buy back. To free property from mortgage . . . by paying the debt for which it stood as security.”



REDEMPTION, contracts. The act of taking back by the seller from the buyer a thing which had been sold subject to th right of repurchase.

2. The right of redemption then is an agreement by which the seller reserves to himself the power of taking back the thing sold by returning the price paid for it. As to the fund out of which a mortgaged estate is to be redeemed, see Payment. Vide Equity of redemption.

I suppose Congress would be the seller in this instance.

Equity has to become involved as well:


2. An equity of redemption is a mere creature of a court of equity, founded on this principle, that as a mortgage is a pledge for securing the repayment of a sum of money to the mortgagee, it is but natural justice to consider the ownership of the land as still vested in the mortgagor, subject only to the legal title of the mortgagee, so far as such legal title is necessary to his security.

3. In Pennsylvania, however, redemption is a legal right. 11 Serg. & Rawle, 223.

4. The phrase equity of redemption is indiscriminately, though perhaps not correctly applied, to the right of the mortgagor to regain his estate, both before and after breach of condition, In North Carolina by statute the former is called a legal right of redemption; and the latter the equity of redemption, thereby keeping a just distinction between these estates. 1 N. C. Rev. St. 266; 4 McCord, 340.

5. Once a mortgage always a mortgage, is a universal rule in equity. The right of redemption is said to be as inseparable from a mortgage, as that of replevying from a distress, and every attempt to limit this right must fail.

[monty]

The original lawful money, the Spanish milled dollar was made the official monetary unit for the United States of America under The Articles of Confederation, before the Constitution was drafted.

[midnight rambler]

The original lawful money, the Spanish milled dollar was made the official monetary unit for the United States of America under The Articles of Confederation, before the Constitution was drafted.

Yes, and 'pieces of eight' originated from the Spanish milled dollar, hence the term 'two bits' being a quarter dollar.

[ghostof7]

The original lawful money, the Spanish milled dollar was made the official monetary unit for the United States of America under The Articles of Confederation, before the Constitution was drafted.

Monetary unit yes, as in weight of metal used, but there is no such thing as lawful money. Its not even statutorily defined.
The term was "coined" by Congress for banking purposes, but never defined.
And you can not redeem. At least not until the gold standard is reinstated where paper money is backed by metal.

[midnight rambler]

Hey look! The card-carrying Communist dung beetle is back! (you can tell 'cause it worships man's law aka 'statutory law' and not God's law aka 'the perfect law of liberty' [see James 1:25])

[ghostof7]

I hope you're not serious about any "payment of debt" via any debt instruments such as FRNs. It is not possible to "pay" a debt with a debt.

Can you point to the debt or debt holder (continued billing) after paying with paper?

[ghostof7]

1. Your post #32 has been reported as a personal attack.

2. James 1:25 is irrelevant to money.


But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it-not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it-they will be blessed in what they do.

[monty]

Monetary unit yes, as in weight of metal used, but there is no such thing as lawful money. Its not even statutorily defined.
The term was "coined" by Congress for banking purposes, but never defined.
And you can not redeem. At least not until the gold standard is reinstated where paper money is backed by metal.

The Word Dollar is defined in the Articles of Confederation. Dollar appears in the Constitution. Gold and silver coin are declared tender in payment. We can deduce that the dollar is the official monetary unit of the United States of America. We can also deduce gold and silver coin in dollar denomination are tender, hence they are lawful money.

There is no lawful money in circulation today. The United States of America was never on a gold standard. The monetary unit is the silver dollar. Both gold and silver coin are tender.

[ghostof7]

The Word Dollar is defined in the Articles of Confederation. Dollar appears in the Constitution. Gold and silver coin are declared tender in payment. We can deduce that the dollar is the official monetary unit of the United States of America. We can also deduce gold and silver coin in dollar denomination are tender, hence they are lawful money.

There is no lawful money in circulation today. The United States of America was never on a gold standard. The monetary unit is the silver dollar. Both gold and silver coin are tender.

The adoption of the US Constitution in 1787 rendered the Continental Articles of 1776 moot. Even though Britain lost the Rev War they still had and used their power to influence. They even closed the Boston harbor after they lost as they had control of it.
The US Constitution doesn't define a dollar nor specify that US mint coins must be gold or silver.
Sorry but its just not there.

All it states is "state debt" must be paid in gold and silver.
Congress has the power to coin money in anything necessary.


Congress's power to coin money is exclusive: under Article I, Section 10, the states are not permitted to "coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; [or] make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts...."
The US Constitution is the law of the land, not the Articles. The US Constitution does not define a dollar.

[monty]

The adoption of the US Constitution in 1787 rendered the Continental Articles of 1776 moot. Even though Britain lost the Rev War they still had and used their power to influence. They even closed the Boston harbor after they lost as they had control of it. The US Constitution doesn't define a dollar nor specify that US mint coins must be gold or silver. Sorry but its just not there. All it states is "state debt" must be paid in gold and silver. Congress has the power to coin money in anything necessary. The US Constitution is the law of the land, not the Articles. The US Constitution does not define a dollar. The reason the Constitution doesn't define dollar is because the people and the framers in 1789 had

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[monty]

Previously defined dollar in the Articles of Confederation. They knew what a dollar was. The balance of your post is opinion. The Constitution means what it said the way the framers and the people who ratified it understood it to mean in the language as it was understood in 1789. It is unchanging except by amendment. It's means the same today as in 1789.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[crimethink]

Hey look! The card-carrying Communist dung beetle is back! (you can tell 'cause it worships man's law aka 'statutory law' and not God's law aka 'the perfect law of liberty' [see James 1:25])

I saw that it had emerged from a crevice a couple days ago, but had not yet posted at that time. WHY is someone so stupid as to make their new nym so obvious?

[crimethink]

1. Your post #32 has been reported as a personal attack.


Thank you for self-reporting yourself.

[midnight rambler]

I saw that it had emerged from a crevice a couple days ago, but had not yet posted at that time. WHY is someone so stupid as to make their new nym so obvious?

Frankly I'm disappointed it flamed out so quickly, I was poised to post several MAKS 2017 videos this afternoon to agitate it.

[monty]

the adoption of the us constitution in 1787 rendered the continental articles of 1776 moot. Even though britain lost the rev war they still had and used their power to influence. They even closed the boston harbor after they lost as they had control of it.
The us constitution doesn't define a dollar nor specify that us mint coins must be gold or silver.
Sorry but its just not there.

All it states is "state debt" must be paid in gold and silver.
Congress has the power to coin money in anything necessary.


The us constitution is the law of the land, not the articles. The us constitution does not define a dollar.

^ ... http://constitutionalmilitia.org/mint-act-of-1792/


the mint act of 1792 defined the constitutional “dollar” thereby prohibiting congress from changing the definition
this statute is significant in several respects.
first, congress determined as an historical fact the meaning of the term “dollar[ ]” as used in the constitution (footnote 1)—to wit, the “spanish milled dollar as the same is now current”, containing 371 1/4 grains of fine silver. (footnote 2) by the act of 1792 *** [t]he spanish milled dollar, as the same was then current in use, was assumed as the standard. This fixed the meaning of the word “dollar” in the constitution so that the u.s. Monetary standard, the “dollar” to be coined by the united states was to be 371 1/4 grains of fine silver precisely so that congress could not debase the coinage below the standard.

second, congress made crystal clear that the “unit” of the monetary system is the silver “dollar[ ]”: “dollars or units—each to be of the value of the spanish milled dollar as the same is now current, and to contain [371 1/4 grains of pure] silver”; (footnote 3) and “the money of account of the united states shall be expressed in dollars or units, * * * and * * * accounts in the public offices and all proceedings in courts of the united states shall be kept and had in conformity to this regulation”. (footnote 4)

third, congress reiterated the understanding that the legal “value” of “money” is no abstraction subject to arbitrary definition, but consists in a coin’s actual weight in precious metal. (footnote 5) so congress did not create a “gold dollar”, or establish a “gold standard” or a “dual standard” as popular misconceptions hold. Nowhere did the act refer to a “gold dollar”, only to various gold coins of other names that it valued in “dollars”: “eagles—each to be of the value of ten dollars or units”, not be “ten dollars or units”. (footnote 6)


the mint act of 1792, section 19 reads:
“and be it further enacted, that if any of the gold or silver coins which shall be struck or coined at the said mint shall be debased or made worse as to the proportion of the fine gold or fine silver therein contained, or shall be of less weight or value than the same out to be pursuant to he directions of this act, through the default or with the connivance of any of the officers or persons who shall be employed at the said mint, for the purpose of profit or gain, or otherwise with a fraudulent intent, and if any of the said officers or persons shall embezzle any of the metals which shall at any time be committed to their charge for the purpose of being coined, or any of the coins which shall be struck or coined at the said mint, every such officer or person who shall commit any or either of the said offenses, shall be deemed guilty of felony, and shall suffer death.”

1.) U.S. Const. art. I § 9, cl. 1 and amend. VII.

2.) An Act establishing a Mint, Act of 2 April 1792, ch 16 § 9, 1 Stat. at 248.

3.) An Act establishing a Mint, Act of 2 April 1792, ch 16 § 9, 1 Stat. 246, 248.

4.) An Act establishing a Mint, Act of 2 April 1792, ch 16 § 20, 1 Stat. 250-51.

5.) See: Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution, (Chicago, Illinois R R Donnelly & Sons ., Inc., GoldMoney Foundation Special Edition [2011] of the Second Revised Edition, 2002) by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Volume I, page 194.

6.) pieces of eight: The monetary powers and disabilities of the united states constitution, (chicago, illinois r r donnelly & sons ., inc., goldmoney foundation special edition [2011] of the second revised edition, 2002) by dr. Edwin vieira, jr., volume i, page 193.

[madfranks]

the mint act of 1792, section 19 reads:
“and be it further enacted, that if any of the gold or silver coins which shall be struck or coined at the said mint shall be debased or made worse as to the proportion of the fine gold or fine silver therein contained, or shall be of less weight or value than the same out to be pursuant to he directions of this act, through the default or with the connivance of any of the officers or persons who shall be employed at the said mint, for the purpose of profit or gain, or otherwise with a fraudulent intent, and if any of the said officers or persons shall embezzle any of the metals which shall at any time be committed to their charge for the purpose of being coined, or any of the coins which shall be struck or coined at the said mint, every such officer or person who shall commit any or either of the said offenses, shall be deemed guilty of felony, and shall suffer death.”It's laughable to consider that anyone would be charged under this provision of the mint act, but if it ever happened, the defense would be that they were not acting with fraudulent intent. It's commonly accepted today that fiat money and central banking are better than gold and silver, so they would win that argument.

[monty]

It's laughable to consider that anyone would be charged under this provision of the mint act, but if it ever happened, the defense would be that they were not acting with fraudulent intent. It's commonly accepted today that fiat money and central banking are better than gold and silver, so they would win that argument.

It is amazing how rapidly public opinion can be changed. Before Lyndon Johnson debased US coins and made silver certificates non-redeemable it was a crime to deface the coins. It was a federal offence. That was 1965, just 52 years ago. It wasn't long after that jewley and ornaments made fom U.S. coins appeared. The Coinage Act of 1965 - Lyndon Johnson's remarks http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=27108

[old steel]

Look at what the cb's are doing.

Gives new meaning to the word insanity.


http://media.peakprosperity.com/images/BOJ-2017-07-14.jpg