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

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

Expand Messages
  • The Handyman
    ... From: Jake To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 8:32 PM Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: More on HJR 192; Got (Lawful)
    Message 1 of 57 , Feb 2, 2009
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Jake
      Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 8:32 PM
      Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: More on HJR 192; Got (Lawful) Money?

      Jake said:
      "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):"
      What was settled Jake?
       Private contracts...private parties...not exactions! 
      The Bankers' case starts off with: "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)."   And goes on to say on page 6  "that this instant case involves contracts between private parties."  U.S. v. Bankers'' Trust Co.  was decided in 1935.   HAGAR v. RECLAMATION DIST. NO. 108, 111 U.S. 701 was decided in  1884 and it is still in effect.  Bankers' did not disturb that Hagar held that acts of Congress making notes a legal tender do not apply to exaction under state law.  My case is not between private parties and there is no contract.  It involves an exaction of property under the color of state law and payment for that exaction.  But payment with legal tender cannot be made pursuant to Hagar.  Compron?  Understand?  Do you see why I want to argue the matter?  The state has to pay me something.  What can they use as payment in an exaction pursuant to Hagar?  Shalom
      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:

    • 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
        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

        > I don't see that you have an argument. Referring back to the Bankers'
        > "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:

        > 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

        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).


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