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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] HJR-192 repealed - public law 95-147

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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      HJR-192 was quietly repealed by public law 95-147.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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 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.