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

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

Expand Messages
  • Frog Farmer
    ... ... And that s how it was in 1935. But then Congress repealed HJR192 (maybe because it was obviously unconstitutional?) as amply proven herein.
    Message 1 of 57 , Feb 3, 2009
      Jake wrote:

      > 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):
      > 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.

      And that's how it was in 1935. But then Congress repealed HJR192 (maybe
      because it was obviously unconstitutional?) as amply proven herein. And
      recent decisions prove it, by making reference to the two separate and
      unequal monetary systems created by Congress and in plain sight to those
      with eyes to see them today (one employer named "Kahre" comes to mind).

      Even the IRS argues against the contentions of the case quoted from
      1935. They claim a new $50 coin right from the mint can be worth $800
      or more! That's parity?! No time needed for them to collect dust or
      get rare or anything! Such is the world we live in today, where the
      most ridiculous lies can be believed if the spokesperson is official
      enough for the Rubes.


    • 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.