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

HJR-192 repealed - public law 95-147

Expand Messages
  • hobot
    Beginning in 1963, the words redeemable in lawful money and will pay to the bearer on demand were removed from future issues of Federal Reserve Notes:
    Message 1 of 20 , Dec 27, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Beginning in 1963, the words "redeemable in lawful money" and
      "will pay to the bearer on demand" were removed from future issues
      of Federal Reserve Notes: further reflecting the public policy
      stated in HJR-192. And, strangely enough, on October 28, 1977,
      HJR-192 was quietly repealed by public law 95-147. The joint
      resolution entitled "Joint resolution to assure uniform value to
      the coins and currencies of the United States" approved June 5,
      1933 (31 U.S.C. 463), shall not apply to obligations issued on or
      after the date of enactment of this section.

      The reason for the repeal of HJR-192 is somewhat obscure. After 44
      years of unchallenged implementation, this public policy is
      clearly established by custom, usage and participation in the
      credit system by the American public. Those of us operating on the
      privilege of limited liability, via the public credit, are still
      bound by the rules of the giver of the privilege.
    • coby wells
      Would it be possible today to take an old silver certificate or federal reserve note, (with the words redeemable in lawful money; and will pay to the bearer on
      Message 2 of 20 , Dec 28, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Would it be possible today to take an old silver certificate or federal reserve note, (with the words redeemable in lawful money; and will pay to the bearer on demand,) and redeem it?  Would the Federal Reserve Bank or the United States Treasury not be bound to honor the certificate regardless of the age?  Would it not be considered a binding contract that the United States Treasury would have to honor?

        hobot <hobot@...> wrote:
        Beginning in 1963, the words "redeemable in lawful money" and
        "will pay to the bearer on demand" were removed from future issues
        of Federal Reserve Notes: further reflecting the public policy
        stated in HJR-192. And, strangely enough, on October 28, 1977,
        HJR-192 was quietly repealed by public law 95-147. The joint
        resolution entitled "Joint resolution to assure uniform value to
        the coins and currencies of the United States" approved June 5,
        1933 (31 U.S.C. 463), shall not apply to obligations issued on or
        after the date of enactment of this section.

        The reason for the repeal of HJR-192 is somewhat obscure. After 44
        years of unchallenged implementation, this public policy is
        clearly established by custom, usage and participation in the
        credit system by the American public. Those of us operating on the
        privilege of limited liability, via the public credit, are still
        bound by the rules of the giver of the privilege.

        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
        http://mail.yahoo.com

      • brokenwrench
        whenever the government calls back a coin or a paricular bill and wwwithdraws them from circulation, after 3 years they are not honored. a friend of mine
        Message 3 of 20 , Dec 29, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          whenever the government calls back a coin or a paricular bill and wwwithdraws them from circulation, after 3 years they are not honored. a friend of mine inherited a $500 bill, a $1000 dollar bill and a 10,000 bill from her retired banker father. each of her bothers and sisters got the same. the fed reserve bank in st louis refused to honr them for deposit or to cash them. they were told to go to a pawn shop or a coin dealer to sell them as collectables

          coby wells <cbwells2004@...> wrote: Would it be possible today to take an old silver certificate or federal reserve note, (with the words redeemable in lawful money; and will pay to the bearer on demand,) and redeem it? Would the Federal Reserve Bank or the United States Treasury not be bound to honor the certificate regardless of the age? Would it not be considered a binding contract that the United States Treasury would have to honor?
        • Frog Farmer
          ... But the fact of the repeal is not in doubt, unless you haven t seen it yourself. ... Where have you been?! It s been challenged all along! Google
          Message 4 of 20 , Dec 29, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            hobot [mailto:hobot@...] admitted:

            > The reason for the repeal of HJR-192 is somewhat obscure.

            But the fact of the repeal is not in doubt, unless you haven't seen it
            yourself.

            > After 44
            > years of unchallenged implementation,

            Where have you been?! It's been challenged all along! Google
            "Congressman McFadden" - his indictment has still not been acted upon.

            > this public policy is
            > clearly established by custom,

            Custom kicks in after 70 years, and is still rebuttable.

            > usage and participation in the
            > credit system by the American public.

            Part of the American public. That's what's great about a republic - a
            majority are not supposed to be able to remove the rights of a minority.

            > Those of us operating on the
            > privilege of limited liability, via the public credit, are still
            > bound by the rules of the giver of the privilege.

            I'm glad you admitted that. But you haven't cited anything to refute
            anything in the "Clarity" file, or in the recently posted memorandum of
            law on the monetary system. The "rules" start with the constitution.

            About 20 years ago, as part of my job I was being trained to handle a
            fund of $10M. In the middle of that training, I learned that the total
            number of "dollars" in the entire world credit system was just over 3
            trillion.

            Do you have any idea what it might be today? Over 1,000 trillion, with
            no real connection to anything. Mistakes are made in government, and
            they get corrected over long time spans. This one will be corrected,
            and is being corrected. That majority you mentioned, bound by the
            rules, will eventually have to face the fact that some rules just cannot
            be skipped over forever. Another way to tell that the scheme you defend
            is bound to fail is it is mathematically impossible. Law and
            impossibility cannot co-exist.

            A few list members were wondering how to use the fact of HJR192's
            repeal. I just yesterday had the thought that the perfect situation for
            a test would be in defense against a money judgment. And now we have a
            list member who's worried about having a judgment against them. Let's
            see if they take the opportunity to use the new information that FRNs
            are no longer legal tender (despite it still being said that they are by
            those who will defend them to the death because of personal vested
            interests in them) there is no longer any THING that can be exacted
            under color of law. Yes, participants in the now un-authorized Ponzi
            Scheme are permitted to continue in their dream state, but us others out
            here who are and have been awake the whole time are no longer forced to
            even pretend that it makes any sense. And we can insulate ourselves
            from it. The means have been shown on this list. The will to do it
            must exist as well.

            Regards,

            FF
          • Frog Farmer
            ... No. Executive orders, and physical reality, prevent it. ... The certificates were repudiated. The US is bankrupt. Here s a link to Congressman
            Message 5 of 20 , Dec 29, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              coby wells [mailto:cbwells2004@...] asked:

              > Would it be possible today to take an old silver certificate or
              > federal reserve note, (with the words redeemable in lawful money; and
              > will pay to the bearer on demand,) and redeem it?

              No. Executive orders, and physical reality, prevent it.

              > Would the Federal
              > Reserve Bank or the United States Treasury not be bound to honor the
              > certificate regardless of the age?

              The certificates were repudiated. The US is bankrupt. Here's a link to
              Congressman McFadden's indictment of the Federal Reserve:
              http://www.iff-ifoundfreedom.com/money/mcfadden.html

              > Would it not be considered a
              > binding contract that the United States Treasury would have to honor?

              Like the Indian Treaties?

              Regards,

              FF
            • Ron Goodger
              I agree with Frog Farmer, the FRN as legal tender issue needs tested, but I urge caution. It needs done properly by one of our more experienced members (like
              Message 6 of 20 , Dec 30, 2006
              • 0 Attachment

                I agree with Frog Farmer, the FRN as legal tender issue needs tested, but I urge caution.  It needs done properly by one of our more experienced members (like FF or Handyman) to keep from losing and setting a bad precedent.  If a more inexperienced member is going to do it, then all of us need to work on the procedure together with him as a group to prevent this.

                 

                The discussion so far on this topic has been in bits and pieces.  I have yet to see a point by point articulation of the argument supported by statutes and case law.

                 

                Ron

              • Frog Farmer
                ... You ll have to read the file in the list archives. And there s really not a lot to it. It isn t hard to understand, just hard to come across the proofs.
                Message 7 of 20 , Dec 30, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Ron Goodger [mailto:lrgoodger@...] wrote:

                  > The discussion so far on this topic has been in bits and pieces. I
                  > have yet to see a point by point articulation of the argument
                  > supported by statutes and case law.

                  You'll have to read the file in the list archives. And there's really
                  not a lot to it. It isn't hard to understand, just hard to come across
                  the proofs. But now they're all out there for anyone who cares.

                  If you'd like to argue it, say which part of the following you don't
                  agree with:

                  1. The constitution made gold and silver coin the money of account of
                  the United States of America. It had already been used in that area
                  since the landing of Columbus, if not earlier.

                  2. The Monetary law of 1792 established the standard which the penalty
                  for deviating from was death.

                  3. An executive used his power to manipulate the military against
                  Americans, and violated too many constitutional provisions to count,
                  under the guise of an "emergency". Congress adjourned "sine die". That
                  constitutional congress has never met again.

                  4. After bankers had engineered the power to regulate the money away
                  from congress (not constitutionally, but practically, in the vacuum of
                  moneyed opposition) another socialist executive decided to try to take
                  away the property (gold) of the people. It worked on most, but not all.
                  The proof is in the law that decriminalized them.

                  5. Another unconstitutional statute was passed by the Congress
                  (Agricultural Adjustment Act) and HJR192 was an amendment to that act.

                  5. As the mathematical impossibility of the dishonest Ponzi Scheme
                  advanced to the point of discovery by a large minority, the decision was
                  made to steal the silver coin as well. An expert was hired under false
                  pretenses. Soon the silver was being withdrawn without any warning to
                  those who worked to get it.

                  6. The AAA was ruled unconstitutional for those who didn't recognize it
                  themselves by the Supreme Court in U.S. v Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 6, 1936)

                  7. HJR 192 was repealed in the late 1970's.

                  8. The changes brought about by it were negated, voided.

                  We can start there.

                  Regards,

                  FF
                • Lola
                  I think the suggestion below is sound. I believe Handyman earlier stated that one of the remedies against a $ judgment was to motion the judge to define
                  Message 8 of 20 , Dec 31, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I think the suggestion below is sound.  I believe Handyman earlier stated that one of the remedies against a "$" judgment was to motion the judge to define what "$x,xxx" means while filing a judicial notice on the meaning of money as defined by the law of the land.
                     


                    Ron Goodger <lrgoodger@...> wrote:
                    I agree with Frog Farmer, the FRN as legal tender issue needs tested, but I urge caution.  It needs done properly by one of our more experienced members (like FF or Handyman) to keep from losing and setting a bad precedent.  If a more inexperienced member is going to do it, then all of us need to work on the procedure together with him as a group to prevent this.
                    The discussion so far on this topic has been in bits and pieces.  I have yet to see a point by point articulation of the argument supported by statutes and case law.
                    Ron

                    __________________________________________________
                    Do You Yahoo!?
                    Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                    http://mail.yahoo.com

                  • Michael Noonan
                    ... Okay. If Congress adjorned without assigning a day for a further meeting, there must have been some reason for doing so. It doesn t make sense that
                    Message 9 of 20 , Jan 4, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- Frog Farmer <frogfrmr@...> wrote:

                      >3. An executive used his power to manipulate the
                      >military against Americans, and violated too many
                      >constitutional provisions to count, under the guise
                      >of an "emergency". Congress adjourned "sine die".
                      >That constitutional congress has never met again.


                      Okay. If Congress adjorned without assigning a day
                      for a further meeting, there must have been some
                      reason for doing so.

                      It doesn't make sense that Congress would just walk
                      away.

                      There is till a "Congress," of SOME kind that
                      eventually convened.

                      Would that "Congress" have met anew without
                      explaining itself?





                      __________________________________________________
                      Do You Yahoo!?
                      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                      http://mail.yahoo.com
                    • Michael Noonan
                      How about this? I do not know why Congress walked out, en masse, that in itself an unusual occurance, but apparently they did. Still, why all would agree to
                      Message 10 of 20 , Jan 5, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        How about this?

                        I do not know why Congress walked out, en masse, that
                        in itself an unusual occurance, but apparently they
                        did. Still, why all would agree to such a crucial
                        ramification is bothersome.

                        Then, I wondered, what would have replaced the
                        Constitutional Congress? Perhaps this is where the
                        Congress of Art 1 section 8, clause 17 comes in, would
                        be my answer, and this country has been under Federal
                        municipal rule ever since, would be one conclusion.

                        Any other opinions, speculations may clarify the
                        actual events.

                        __________________________________________________
                        Do You Yahoo!?
                        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                        http://mail.yahoo.com
                      • brokenwrench
                        your answer lies in the history books read what happened in the congress between 1860-1879.after the civil war was over the states were put under martial rule
                        Message 11 of 20 , Jan 5, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          your answer lies  in the history books read what happened in the congress between 1860-1879.after the civil war was over the states were put under martial rule and their government reps were assigned by the feds.(carpetbaggers)

                          Michael Noonan <mn_chicago@...> wrote:

                          How about this?

                          I do not know why Congress walked out, en masse, that
                          in itself an unusual occurance, but apparently they
                          did. Still, why all would agree to such a crucial
                          ramification is bothersome.

                          Then, I wondered, what would have replaced the
                          Constitutional Congress? Perhaps this is where the
                          Congress of Art 1 section 8, clause 17 comes in, would
                          be my answer, and this country has been under Federal
                          municipal rule ever since, would be one conclusion.

                          Any other opinions, speculations may clarify the
                          actual events.

                          ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __
                          Do You Yahoo!?
                          Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                          http://mail. yahoo.com

                        • mn_chicago
                          I believe this adequately explains most of the surrounding circumstances...finally. Senate Report 93-549 War and Emergency Powers Acts, Executive Orders and
                          Message 12 of 20 , Jan 8, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I believe this adequately explains most of the
                            surrounding circumstances...finally.

                            Senate Report 93-549
                            War and Emergency Powers Acts,
                            Executive Orders and the New World Order


                            The Introduction to Senate Report 93-549 (93rd
                            Congress, 1st Session, 1973) summarizes the situation.

                            "A majority of the people of the United States have
                            lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 73
                            years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed
                            by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been
                            abridged by laws brought into force by states of
                            national emergency. The problem of how a
                            constitutional democracy reacts to great crises,
                            however, far antedates the Great Depression. As a
                            philosophical issue, its origins reach back to the
                            Greek city-states and the Roman Republic. And, in the
                            United States, actions taken by the Government in
                            times of great crises have - from, at least, the Civil
                            War - in important ways, shaped the present phenomenon
                            of a permanent state of national emergency."


                            The Foreword to the Report states in part -


                            "Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a
                            state of declared national emergency. In fact, there
                            are now in effect four presidentially proclaimed
                            states of national emergency: In addition to the
                            national emergency declared by President Roosevelt in
                            1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed
                            by President Truman on December 16, 1950, during the
                            Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency
                            declared by President Nixon on March 23, 1970, and
                            August 15, 1971.

                            These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of
                            Federal law [hundreds more since 1973, particularly in
                            the Clinton administration since Jan 21, 1993]. These
                            hundreds of statutes delegate to the President
                            extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the
                            Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens
                            in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range
                            of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to
                            rule the country without reference to normal
                            Constitutional processes.

                            Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the
                            President may: seize property; organize and control
                            the means of production; seize commodities; assign
                            military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize
                            and control all transportation and communication;
                            regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict
                            travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control
                            the lives of all American citizens."


                            [Here comes the explanation that eluded me as to how/
                            why the entire Congress would act as one...they had no
                            choice]

                            When the Southern states walked out of Congress on
                            March 27, 1861, the quorum to conduct business under
                            the Constitution was lost. The only votes that
                            Congress could lawfully take, under Parliamentary Law,
                            were those to set the time to reconvene, take a vote
                            to get a quorum, and vote to adjourn and set a date,
                            time, and place to reconvene at a later time, but
                            instead, Congress abandoned the House and Senate
                            without setting a date to reconvene. Under the
                            parliamentary law of Congress, when this happened,
                            Congress became sine die (pronounced see-na dee-a;
                            literally "without day") and thus when Congress
                            adjourned sine die, it ceased to exist as a lawful
                            deliberative body, and the only lawful, constitutional
                            power that could declare war was no longer lawful, or
                            in session.

                            The Southern states, by virtue of their secession from
                            the Union, also ceased to exist sine die, and some
                            state legislatures in the Northern bloc also adjourned
                            sine die, and thus, all the states which were parties
                            to creating the Constitution ceased to exist.
                            President Lincoln executed the first executive order
                            written by any President on April 15, 1861, Executive
                            Order 1, and the nation has been ruled by the
                            President under executive order ever since. When
                            Congress eventually did reconvene, it was reconvened
                            under the military authority of the Commander-in-Chief
                            and not by Rules of Order for Parliamentary bodies or
                            by Constitutional Law; placing the American people
                            under martial rule ever since that national emergency
                            declared by President Lincoln. The Constitution for
                            the United States of America temporarily ceased to be
                            the law of the land, and the President, Congress, and
                            the Courts unlawfully presumed that they were free to
                            remake the nation in their own image, whereas,
                            lawfully, no constitutional provisions were in place
                            which afforded power to any of the actions which were
                            taken which presumed to place the nation under the new
                            form of control.

                            President Lincoln knew that he had no authority to
                            issue any executive order, and thus he commissioned
                            General Orders No. 100 (April 24, 1863) as a special
                            field code to govern his actions under martial law and
                            which justified the seizure of power, which extended
                            the laws of the District of Columbia, and which
                            fictionally implemented the provisions of Article I,
                            Section 8, Clauses 17-18 of the Constitution beyond
                            the boundaries of Washington, D.C. and into the
                            several states. General Orders No. 100, also called
                            the Lieber Instructions and the Lieber Code, extended
                            The Laws of War and International Law onto American
                            soil, and the United States government became the
                            presumed conqueror of the people and the land.

                            Martial rule was kept secret and has never ended, the
                            nation has been ruled under Military Law by the
                            Commander of Chief of that military; the President,
                            under his assumed executive powers and according to
                            his executive orders. Constitutional law under the
                            original Constitution is enforced only as a matter of
                            keeping the public peace under the provisions of
                            General Orders No. 100 under martial rule. Under
                            Martial Law, title is a mere fiction, since all
                            property belongs to the military except for that
                            property which the Commander-in-Chief may, in his
                            benevolence, exempt from taxation and seizure and upon
                            which he allows the enemy to reside.

                            [Here is where I have to part company with Frogger on
                            his indictment of Lincoln as a traitor to this
                            country. Lincoln opposed the bankers who wanted to
                            have him finance the Civil War though them. He opted,
                            instead, to issue US Notes that carried no interest.
                            Had Lincoln lived, I believe he would have rectified
                            the situation and reverse the only option he believed
                            he could exercise to hold the country together.]

                            President Lincoln was assassinated before he could
                            complete plans for reestablishing constitutional
                            government in the Southern States and end the martial
                            rule by executive order, and the 14th Article in
                            Amendment to the Constitution created a new
                            citizenship status for the new expanded jurisdiction.
                            New laws for the District of Columbia were established
                            and passed by Congress in 1871, supplanting those
                            established Feb. 27, 1801 and May 3, 1802. The
                            District of Columbia was re-incorporated in 1872, and
                            all states in the Union were reformed as Franchisees
                            of the Federal Corporation so that a new Union of the
                            United States could be created. The key to when the
                            states became Federal Franchisees is related to the
                            date when such states enacted the Field Code in law.
                            The Field Code was a codification of the common law
                            that was adopted first by New York and then by
                            California in 1872, and shortly afterwards the Lieber
                            Code was used to bring the United States into the 1874

                            Brussels Conference and into the Hague Conventions of
                            1899 and 1907.

                            In 1917, the Trading with the Enemy Act (Public Law
                            65-91, 65th Congress, Session I, Chapters 105, 106,
                            October 6, 1917) was passed and which defined,
                            regulated and punished trading with enemies, who were
                            then required by that act to be licensed by the
                            government to do business. The National Banking System

                            Act (Public Law 73-1, 73rd Congress, Session I,
                            Chapter 1, March 9, 1933), Executive Proclamation 2038

                            March 6, 1933), Executive Proclamation 2039 (March 9,

                            1933), and Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111 and 6260
                            prove that in 1933, the United States Government
                            formed under the executive privilege of the original
                            martial rule went bankrupt, and a new state of
                            national emergency was declared under which United
                            States citizens were named as the enemy to the
                            government and the banking system as per the
                            provisions of the Trading with the Enemy Act. The
                            legal system provided for in the Constitution was
                            formally changed in 1938 through the Supreme Court
                            decision in the case of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins,

                            304 US 64, 82 L.Ed. 1188.

                            On April 25, 1938, the Supreme Court overturned the
                            standing precedents of the prior 150 years
                            concerning "COMMON LAW" in the federal government.


                            THERE IS NO FEDERAL COMMON LAW, AND CONGRESS HAS NO
                            POWER TO DECLARE SUBSTANTIVE RULES OF COMMON LAW
                            applicable IN A STATE, WHETHER they be LOCAL or
                            GENERAL in their nature, be they COMMERCIAL LAW or a
                            part of LAW OF TORTS." (See: ERIE RAILROAD CO. vs.
                            THOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, 82 L. Ed. 1188)
                            The significance is that since the Erie Decision, no
                            cases are allowed to be cited that are prior to 1938.
                            There can be no mixing of the old law with the new
                            Law. The Common Law is the fountain source of
                            Substantive and Remedial Rights, if not our very
                            Liberties. (See also: Who is Running America?)


                            [This is a shocker!!!]

                            In 1945 the United States gave up any remaining
                            national sovereignty when it signed the United Nations

                            Treaty, making all American citizens subject to United

                            Nations jurisdiction. The "constitution" of the United

                            Nations may be compared to that of the old Soviet > Union.
                          • mn_chicago
                            Given that HJR-192 was repealed in the 1970s, the more interesting aspect is now to figure out why. There certainly was a very specific reason for its
                            Message 13 of 20 , Jan 8, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Given that HJR-192 was repealed in the 1970s, the more interesting
                              aspect is now to figure out why. There certainly was a very specific
                              reason for its implementation, and there is undoubtedly another very
                              specific reason for having it repealed, especially on the quiet.

                              This would seem unprecedented in monetary history, where a nation's
                              "currency" was purposefully changed from specie backing to fiat, only
                              to have the original change repealed prior to the fiat collapsing.

                              Any thoughts?
                            • Moisha Pippik
                              mn_chicago wrote:
                              Message 14 of 20 , Jan 8, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment

                                mn_chicago wrote:
                                 
                                <The significance is that since the Erie Decision, no
                                <cases are allowed to be cited that are prior to 1938.
                                <There can be no mixing of the old law with the new
                                <Law. The Common Law is the fountain source of
                                <Substantive and Remedial Rights, if not our very
                                <Liberties. (See also: Who is Running America?)
                                I have heard this statement before, however, this bares the question that if this is true, why is Miranda being used, and Erie, since the precedence claimed happened after the case took place.   
                                 
                                I do agree that we cannot mix old law with new law, but if the old law is good, why mix it with new, unlawful laws(nice axiom).  Congress hasn't been in session since 1870?  Abraham Lincoln made some new general orders, this is all the same game folks, smoke and mirrors, fiction, fiction, fiction.  I believe the correct thing is you cannot mix real with false.  Correct me if I'm wrong Bear.
                                 
                                Moisha
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 

                                __________________________________________________
                                Do You Yahoo!?
                                Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                                http://mail.yahoo.com

                              • brokenwrench
                                In 33 the Fed gov leased all the gold to bail out the Continetal Bank of Chicago which was 50/50 owned by the Vatican and the royal family of England.the bank
                                Message 15 of 20 , Jan 8, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                   In 33 the Fed gov leased all the gold to bail out the Continetal
                                  Bank of Chicago which was 50/50 owned by the Vatican and the royal
                                  family of England.the bank was wiped out in rthe stock market crash
                                  and bankrupted the Vatican and the throne of England. So we bailed
                                  them out.
                                    Prescott Bush was the head of the Bank of New York that
                                  made the transfer to a bank in Berlin that transfed  the leases to the
                                  Central Italian bank. Mussolini handed the Pope the check.
                                    Prescott Bush was the first person convicted under the Tradeing with the Enemy Act and
                                  sentenced to 6 years for his part in this.
                                  >    the lease expired in 77


                                  mn_chicago <mn_chicago@...> wrote:
                                  Given that HJR-192 was repealed in the 1970s, the more interesting
                                  aspect is now to figure out why. There certainly was a very specific
                                  reason for its implementation, and there is undoubtedly another very
                                  specific reason for having it repealed, especially on the quiet.

                                  This would seem unprecedented in monetary history, where a nation's
                                  "currency" was purposefully changed from specie backing to fiat, only
                                  to have the original change repealed prior to the fiat collapsing.

                                  Any thoughts?


                                • Joey T.
                                  Law is Law! Public Policy is not Law! You can t mix apples and oranges! The Law that is still in action is the Archain Law or the Ancient Law that is
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Jan 8, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                     
                                     Law is Law!  Public Policy is not Law!  You can't mix apples and oranges!  The Law that is still in action is the "Archain Law"  or the "Ancient Law" that is forever settled.  It's like the footer on a house.  It's forever Settled, whereas Public Policy is waving to and frow like a storm tossed wave!
                                     
                                    Joey-T.: 
                                    -------Original Message-------
                                     
                                    Date: 01/08/07 19:26:13
                                    Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: HJR-192 repealed - public law 95-147
                                     


                                    mn_chicago wrote:
                                     
                                    <The significance is that since the Erie Decision, no
                                    <cases are allowed to be cited that are prior to 1938.
                                    <There can be no mixing of the old law with the new
                                    <Law. The Common Law is the fountain source of
                                    <Substantive and Remedial Rights, if not our very
                                    <Liberties. (See also: Who is Running America?)
                                    I have heard this statement before, however, this bares the question that if this is true, why is Miranda being used, and Erie, since the precedence claimed happened after the case took place.   
                                     
                                    I do agree that we cannot mix old law with new law, but if the old law is good, why mix it with new, unlawful laws(nice axiom).  Congress hasn't been in session since 1870?  Abraham Lincoln made some new general orders, this is all the same game folks, smoke and mirrors, fiction, fiction, fiction.  I believe the correct thing is you cannot mix real with false.  Correct me if I'm wrong Bear.
                                     
                                    Moisha
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     

                                    ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __
                                    Do You Yahoo!?
                                    Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                                    http://mail. yahoo.com

                                     
                                    FREE Emoticons for your email - By IncrediMail! Click Here!
                                  • chemelt
                                    I beleive it is so that they can say that you were using FRNs Voluntarily since you were NOT being compelled by HR 192 to use them.
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Jan 9, 2007
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      I beleive it is so that they can say that you were using FRNs
                                      Voluntarily since you were NOT being compelled by HR 192 to use them.


                                      --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "mn_chicago" <mn_chicago@...>
                                      wrote:
                                      >
                                      > Given that HJR-192 was repealed in the 1970s, the more interesting
                                      > aspect is now to figure out why. There certainly was a very specific
                                      > reason for its implementation, and there is undoubtedly another very
                                      > specific reason for having it repealed, especially on the quiet.
                                      >
                                      > This would seem unprecedented in monetary history, where a nation's
                                      > "currency" was purposefully changed from specie backing to fiat, only
                                      > to have the original change repealed prior to the fiat collapsing.
                                      >
                                      > Any thoughts?
                                      >
                                    • Michael Noonan
                                      ... Yeah. Try that argument next time in front of a public policy court.
                                      Message 18 of 20 , Jan 10, 2007
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- "Joey T." <ieajt@...> wrote:

                                        >
                                        > Law is Law! Public Policy is not Law! You can't
                                        > mix apples and oranges!
                                        > The Law that is still in action is the "Archain Law"
                                        > or the "Ancient Law"
                                        > that is forever settled.

                                        Yeah. Try that argument next time in front of a
                                        "public policy" court.



                                        ____________________________________________________________________________________
                                        Cheap talk?
                                        Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
                                        http://voice.yahoo.com
                                      • Frog Farmer
                                        ... Why would one who cared about his own rights voluntarily enter a public policy court? I think there s an old maxim to the effect of one is not dragged
                                        Message 19 of 20 , Jan 10, 2007
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Michael Noonan [mailto:mn_chicago@...] wrote:

                                          > Yeah. Try that argument next time in front of a
                                          > "public policy" court.

                                          Why would one who cared about his own rights voluntarily enter a public
                                          policy court?

                                          I think there's an old maxim to the effect of "one is not dragged into
                                          equity in chains". A courtroom filled with the same 100 people during
                                          the same three hour period could be any one or more of several "courts"
                                          depending upon who was saying what to whom. A photo is insufficient to
                                          confirm the type of court the courtroom is currently servicing.

                                          Regards,

                                          FF
                                        • Michael Noonan
                                          ... For anyone who took me seriously, the response was a bit facetious to Law is Law! Public Policy is not law!
                                          Message 20 of 20 , Jan 11, 2007
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            --- Frog Farmer <frogfrmr@...> wrote:

                                            > Why would one who cared about his own rights
                                            > voluntarily enter a public
                                            > policy court?
                                            >

                                            For anyone who took me seriously, the response was a
                                            bit facetious to Law is Law! Public Policy is not law!



                                            ____________________________________________________________________________________
                                            Do you Yahoo!?
                                            Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
                                            http://new.mail.yahoo.com
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.