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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: More on HJR 192; Got (Lawful) Money?

Expand Messages
  • Jake
    ...   I don t know why you d even want to argue the point as the matter was settled over 70 years ago, after the Bank Holiday of 1933  - see e.g., U.S. v.
    Message 1 of 57 , Feb 2, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      > Received second letter from the Judge.  Part of what he said is: " I am certain you are aware that interest rates are at historic lows and that you can probably do better if you actively manage the money than simply allowing it to sit in the Prothonotary' s account.  FURTHER, IF YOU FAIL TO ACT THE TIME WILL COME WHEN THE FUNDS CAN ARGUABLY BE TRANSFERRED TO THE STATE, something I am certain you do not want to occur, nor do I.  I encourage you to accept the fact that we are not going to give you gold and that you will have to take greenbacks."
      >
      > Gold was never requested and payment with greenbacks is an interesting fact I have not yet digested.  It just goes to show how ignorant about money our judiciary is.  How will they ever tender greenbacks?  It is just a letter but somehow I hope to use it.  I am thinking.  Any ideas?
       
      I don't know why you'd even want to argue the point as the matter was settled over 70 years ago, after the "Bank Holiday of 1933" - see e.g., U.S. v. Bankers' Trust Co., 294 U.S. 240 (1935):
       
      A very long-winded way of saying to people who expected payment in gold, "you're screwed - take what Congress says is 'legal tender' or take nothing."  Excerpts:
       
      These cases present the question of the validity of the Joint Resolution of the Congress, of June 5, 1933, with respect to the 'gold clauses' of private contracts for the payment of money. 48 Stat. 112 (31 USCA 462, 463).
       
      "This resolution, the text of which is set forth in the margin,1 declares that 'every provision contained in or [294 U.S. 240, 292]   made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby' is 'against public policy.' Such provisions in obligations thereafter incurred are prohibited. The resolution provides that 'Every obligation, heretofore or hereafter incurred, whether or not any such provision is contained therein or made with respect thereto, shall be discharged upon payment, dollar for dollar, in any coin or currency which at the time of payment is legal tender for public and private debts.'
       
      * * *
       
      The devaluation of the dollar placed the domestic economy upon a new basis. In the currency as thus provided, states and municipalities must receive their taxes; railroads, their rates and fares; public utilities, their charges for services. The income out of which they must meet their obligations is determined by the new standard. Yet, according to the contentions before us, while that income is thus controlled by law, their indebtedness on their 'gold bonds' must be met by an amount of currency determined by the former gold standard. Their receipts, in this view, would be fixed on one basis; their interest charges, and the principal of their obligations, on another. It is common knowledge that the bonds issued by these obligors have generally contained gold clauses, and presumably they account for a large part of the outstanding obligations of that sort. It is also common knowledge that a similar situation exists with respect to numerous industrial corporations that have issued their 'gold bonds' and must now receive payments for their products in the existing currency. It requires no acute analysis or profound economic inquiry to disclose the dislocation of the domestic economy which would be caused by such a disparity of conditions in which, it is insisted, those debtors under gold clauses should be required to pay $1.69 [294 U.S. 240, 316]   in currency while respectively receiving their taxes, rates, charges, and prices on the basis of $1 of that currency.
       
      We are not concerned with consequences, in the sense that consequences, however serious, may excuse an invasion of constitutional right. We are concerned with the constitutional power of the Congress over the monetary system of the country and its attempted frustration. Exercising that power, the Congress has undertaken to establish a uniform currency, and parity between kinds of currency, and to make that currency, dollar for dollar, legal tender for the payment of debts. In the light of abundant experience, the Congress was entitled to choose such a uniform monetary system, and to reject a dual system, with respect to all obligations within the range of the exercise of its constitutional authority. The contention that these gold clauses are valid contracts and cannot be struck down proceeds upon the assumption that private parties, and states and municipalities, may make and enforce contracts which may limit that authority. Dismissing that untenable assumption, the facts must be faced. We think that it is clearly shown that these clauses interfere with the exertion of the power granted to the Congress, and certainly it is not established that the Congress arbitrarily or capriciously decided that such an interference existed.
       
      The judgment and decree, severally under review, are affirmed.
       
      ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    • Frog Farmer
      ... That is just not true. Who are you working for, Jake? You might want to study more history. ... Yes, I mentioned it, and there is nothing similar about
      Message 57 of 57 , Feb 4, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Jake wrote:

        > I don't see how Hagar is controlling & you're missing the point I was
        > trying to make with cases the court dealt with in Bankers', which was
        > simply that whatever Congress says "money" is, that's what it is &
        > that's what you'll take, like it or not.

        That is just not true. Who are you working for, Jake? You might want
        to study more history.

        > Frog Farmer mentioned the Kahre case & I saw a similar deal when a guy
        > wanted to buy back his house that had been foreclosed on @ the
        > sheriff's sale with silver coin. They said that's fine, but we'll
        > only take it @ face value, not by weight & spot market price of the
        > metal.

        Yes, I mentioned it, and there is nothing "similar" about the "deal" at
        the sheriff's sale. You miss the point entirely of using gold or silver
        at a sheriff's sale. I'll leave that for you to discover.

        > In other words, a $1 silver coin is $1; a $50 gold coin is
        > $50; a $1 bill is $1; a $50 bill is $50 - you can write a check or do
        > an electronic funds transfer too, but the dollar amount this house
        > sells for will remain the same no matter what form is used.

        It may, but it doesn't have to. Imagine two sheriff's events, one
        populated with idiots and morons, and one populated with 90% idiots and
        morons, and 10% law scholars. Do you seriously believe that one could
        not have a different outcome than the other?! I can't believe that.

        > The "under color of state law" claim is a separate issue

        And only if an idiot or moron decides to make it one. I'd bet they'd
        waive the issue altogether. A student of law would most likely not get
        this far.

        > & when the
        > matter is just down to what form of payment you'll accept,

        Which it is not, in legal tender cases and money issue cases. Let me
        ask you two non-Socratic non-rhetorical questions:

        1. Is the act of "acceptance" a voluntary act because of the nature of
        the word? (That's my understanding of the word.) If it is not your
        understanding, please explain its mandatory nature within a complete
        sentence or paragraph.

        2. Do you recognize a difference between the concepts of "payment" and
        "discharge"?

        > I don't see that you have an argument. Referring back to the Bankers'
        cases:
        >
        > "The Constitution 'was designed to provide the same currency, having a
        > uniform legal value in all the States.'

        No, it wasn't. It was designed to preserve what already was and had
        been throughout memorable history. The only change was on the face of
        the coins. Now we have the government counterfeiting its people's own
        coins! And violating the constitutions both state and federal on many
        fronts. Show them a law, and they'll break it!

        > It was for that reason that
        > the power to regulate the value of money was conferred upon the
        > federal government,

        Value meant the proportion of metals in the alloys, and the amounts of
        the metals in each coin. That was done and was never repealed. I hope
        everyone understands that point.

        > while the same power, as well as the power to emit
        > bills of credit, was withdrawn from the states.

        It wasn't "withdrawn"; it was denied. But it was never granted to the
        feds either:
        http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/bancroft/part_three.htm

        > The states cannot
        > declare what shall be money, or regulate its value. Whatever power
        > there is over the currency is vested in the Congress."

        Apples and oranges. Money is what it was when the people adopted their
        constitutions. It's what they affirmed it was immediately thereafter
        and has never been repealed.

        As to "whatever power there is over the currency":
        "Currency" is whatever is "current" as money BY LAW.

        > is vested in the Congress.

        Their only power is to obey the law and keep it the same now and
        forever, thus it is known as a standard" of weights and measures. The
        word "dollar" is the name of the monetary unit that has a specific
        weight and measure of a specific "value" (metallurgical purity). To
        change the meaning of the word "dollar" would take a constitutional
        amendment.

        Recent "new math" students have come to think in terms of what "old
        math" students used to call "absolute numbers" where the "value" of "+5"
        is the same as the value of "-5". This is THEIR problem!! Today, a
        piece of paper representing the default of a promise to pay is taken by
        recent graduates and arrivals as equal to actual payment in substance
        which extinguishes the debt forever and does not pass it on to another
        party. Again, this is THEIR problem!

        And again, the repeal of HJR192 is so painful to the banking interests
        that their shills suffer nearly 100% cognitive dissonance in regards to
        that fact when discussing money (positive) and finance (negative).

        Regards,

        FF
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.