OK now what parts of those cases .....available to the public.......excluding the ones you can't source and the Fed does not bother to source....."make your argument" that were not a part of the Milam decision as well?
US v. Gardiner: "Gardiner next asserts that he was not subject to the jurisdiction of the IRS because
he did not receive ‘money’in 1970 and 1971
as the Federal Reserve Notes he received were not lawful money.
Such an argument has been summarily found to be without merit, United States v. Scott, 521 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1975); cf. Milam v. United States, 524 F.2d 629 (9th Cir. 1974), and we so find here."
Mathes v. CIR: "Congress has delegated the power to establish this national currency which is lawful money to the Federal Reserve System. 12 U.S.C. s 411. Congress has made the Federal Reserve note the measure of value in our monetary system, 12 U.S.C. s 412 (196 ,1 and has defined Federal Reserve notes as legal tender for taxes, 31 U.S.C. s 392 (1965). Taxpayers' attempt to devalue the Federal Reserve notes they received as income is, therefore, not lawful under the laws of the United States."
Poe v. CIR: "With respect to the capital gain realized by petitioners on the sale of their residence, they contend that the amount of deficiency determined by respondent was incorrect because the amounts they received upon the sale of their residence were in Federal Reserve notes, which are not lawful money... It is well established that Federal Reserve notes are lawful money even though not backed by gold and silver."
US v. Rickman: "Defendant argues that the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, s 8, United States Constitution. We have held to the contrary. United States v. Ware, 10 Cir., 608 F.2d 400, 402-403. We find no validity in the distinction which defendant draws between “lawful money” and “legal tender.” ... In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money. Defendant received Federal Reserve Notes when he cashed his pay checks and used those notes to pay his personal expenses. He obtained and used lawful money."
Bates v. US: "The standard unit of computation is the money dollar, an abstract or ideal unit of account. This standard unit of money has not changed in money value throughout the existence of our monetary system. There have been changes from time to time in the form of the physical representatives of money, but lawful money in the United States has been the same since the Act of Congress of April 2, 1792, provided that “The money of account of the United States shall be expressed in dollars or units, dimes or tenths, cents or hundredths, and mills or thousandths, a dime being the tenth part of a dollar, a cent the hundredth part of a dollar, a mill the thousandth part of a dollar * * *.”" (Decided in the 1980s, so they necessarily reference Federal Reserve Notes.)
Wilson v. US: "Plaintiffs further seek an injunction against the Internal Revenue Service...contending that federal reserve notes are not lawful money of the United States “as defined and intended by the spirit of the Constitution” and that Congress has violated the separation of powers doctrine by issuing federal reserve notes which are not redeemable in coin, thereby rendering federal reserve notes “counterfeit securities.” Pls. Brf. At ¶ 17–30, 37–39. Plaintiffs are incorrect."
Maxwell v. US: "The only thing “new” in the Motion to Alter is his assertion that the Order (Docket Entry No. 45) is unlawful because it “imposes sanctions of borrowed fiat Federal Reserve Notes (‘FRNs') or some tender other than lawful money of account of the United States” and that “[l]awful money of account is only standard weights of Coins as set by Congress[.]” (Docket Entry No. 47 at 3). Petitioner further argues that “[t]here is currently no such lawful money in general circulation or purchasable at par value by any tender that is in general circulation.” (Id. at 4). This is nonsense."
US v. Darcy: "This construction does not help defendant because her Standing Objection is without any legal or factual merit. She bases her claims of fraud and perjury on her nonsensical view that no lawful money of value is in circulation for private use by the public. As she says, “There are no lawful dollars out there only credit and debt ledger entries, and no one gets paid for anything with anything of valuable substance. The IRS can't tax credit, debt, or barter.” Standing Objection, dkt. # 11, at 1. She goes on with her explanation of “the problem”: A person getting an education loan receives a negotiable instrument that the applicant must cash at a bank where she is given Federal Reserve Notes, which are worthless.” Id. at 2."
US v. Wangrud: “For the tax years in question the defendant received checks...He now argues that he did not receive money, since the checks could be cashed only for federal reserve notes and that these are not redeemable in specie. We publish this opinion solely to make it clear that this argument has absolutely no merit. We affirm this conviction. By statute it is established that federal reserve notes, on an equal basis with other coins and currencies of the United States, shall be legal tender for all debts, public and private, including taxes. 31 U.S.C. s 392 (Supp.1976). This statute is well within the constitutional authority of Congress. U.S.Const. art. I, s 8...We have considered appellant's other argument and we find it to be without merit.”
