Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

16571Re: [tips_and_tricks] When GMAC goes Bankrupt

Expand Messages
  • Email41@aol.com
    Jan 19, 2009
      Here I go popping party balloons again, but I and others here have already shown (and I've been operating on that information for about 30 years) that HJR 192 was REPEALED long ago (1978 as my memory serves).
      There is a file explaining it all in this group's files.

      Barton Buhtz states: This action [i.e. the redemption] is documented and authorized through Public Policy HJR-192, Title IV, Sec. 401 of the Federal Reserve Act, the Supreme Court's confirmation in Guaranty Trust of New York vs. Henwood, et al (1939) and Public Law 73-10. Such action is further confirmed in USC Title XII, Title XXVIII, Sec. 1641, 3002 and the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act.

      The Supreme Court addressed HJR-192 in Guarantee Trust of New York vs. Henwood, et al (1939) 307 U.S. 247 (FN3) quoted it word for word and then expanded on it to include all future contracts. (I have not shepardized this case to see if it has been overturned.)

      PUBLIC LAW 97-258 - SEPT. 13, 1982,
      96 STAT. 1084 references in a chart listing Acts of Congress that have been repealed, the Act of June 5th, 1933, in 48 STAT 113. (The former H.J. Res. 192, 73rd Congress, 1st Session, Public Law 73-10. (see page below).)

      What is puzzling is that HJR 192 begins at 48 STAT 112, (a page before) and continues to 113. 48 STAT 112 is not listed as repealed in P.L. 97-258.

      In 1982 Congress re-codified Title 31 Money and Finance by way of P.L. 97-258, 96 STAT 877. In that statute the legal tender status of United States coins and currencies was re-assigned at section 5103.

      ยง 5103. Legal tender
      United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.

      Some have noticed that HJR 192 mentions within the body of the text: "Federal Reserve notes" and "Federal Reserve banks" [see: HJR 192 Sec. (1)(b) and (2)], whereas 31 USC 5103 mentions "Federal reserve notes" and "Federal reserve banks." {Could this be as significant as the difference between the United States of America and the United States?}

      31 USC 5103 is still a valid Code section.

      What I need to understand is that is it the position here that Congress made a mistake when it came to the repeal of a statute and the issuance of currency of the realm, declaring what is and is not "legal tender"?

      Or,... did Congress know exactly what they were doing?

      I suspect the later.

      And, the recent Kahre case proves that one is NOT precluded from dealing
      in the constitutional money and is not prevented from choosing to PAY
      debts instead of merely DISCHARGING them!



      Moderator/Bear: I approved this message just so someone else would get to say this. It goes to show that all that glitters is not gold.

      Inauguration '09: Get complete coverage from the nation's capital.(http://www.aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000027)
    • Show all 15 messages in this topic