Justification of the Courts

1 The Scottish writer and philosopher Sir Harry Lauder once said, “The best laid plans o’ mice ‘n men oft’ times go astray.”

2 Yes, our best intentions often re-bound to our detriment.

3 Such has occurred to the nation’s courts when they attempted to see liberty and justice done for some of our fellowmen.

4 Since we rely upon the courts to provide liberty and justice for all, it is sometimes necessary that they consider informal speech and writing as expressing the intent of the parties to an agreement.

5 For example, if a rancher used colloquial words and phrases to express the terms and conditions of a contract he entered into with a neighbor, justice would not be served if the courts did not consider the meaning or intent of the rancher and his neighbor in spite of their use of colloquial expressions.

6 However, when court opinions were published about such cases, lay people and professionals alike would often adopt some of the colloquial expressions, particularly as they might relate to a broader scope of the law than the focus of the court.

7 Idioms and vernacular in one part of the country were thus given national and formal acceptance through the formal discussion of them given by the courts.

8 In time, confusion about monetary terms spread to virtually every segment of society.

9 This confusion played into the hands of a tiny cabal of corrupt individuals.

10 We will say more about these individuals in a later report but for now, let’s reflect on what we’ve discovered thus far.

11 COLLOQUIALISMS BECOME “THE LAW”

12 Today’s monetary problems have come about due to our use of imprecise colloquial expressions, especially in the courts and in Congress.

13 When one false premise leads to a problem, other false premises become the basis of attempts to remedy the problem, thereby causing more problems.

14 The cumulative effect of our use of false premises is the root cause of almost all of America’s problems today.

15 REDEEMABLE CURRENCY & THE COURTS

16 Following the introduction of government-issued paper currency in the United States (Coinage Act of February 25, 1862), currency was redeemable in specie (silver or gold coin) at government-chartered banks, or at the United States Treasury.

17 In view of this easy and speedy redeemability, the courts held that, if a seller refused a tender of any officially-issued United States paper currency, he waived his right to collect on the debt or obligation.

18 This reasoning is essentially sound, for in the court’s and the public’s view, possession of such paper currency is tantamount to having actual money in hand.

19 This judgement by the courts began to be described by the public in colloquial phrases like, “You gotta accept paper money or you waive your claim to payment; Federal Reserve Notes are legal-tender and legal-tender’s what you gotta accept if you want to get paid.”

20 Although these errors in phraseology were unimportant in informal communications, they became both formal and “the law” in the public mind — through repetition.

21 THE “LEGAL TENDER” CASES

22 Following the first introduction of paper currency in the United States, the Coinage Act of February 25, 1862, and the Coinage Act of March 3, 1863 — two landmark decisions by the United States Supreme Court, called the Legal Tender Cases — helped perpetuate several incorrect uses of terminology and several incorrect lines of reasoning. (see KNOX v. LEE, 79 U.S. 457 [1870], and JUILLIARD v. GREEN-MAN, 110 U.S. 421 [1884]).

23 Through years of incorrect usage the phrase legal-tender has come to be grossly misunderstood today.

24 You can now see why we say that only the phrases: a legal tender; a tender; an illegal tender; the legal offer; an offer, etc., express complete proper and clear meanings, at law.

25 May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.