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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Dollar sign/symbol

Expand Messages
  • Frog Farmer
    ... I saw it in the Stautes at Large while researching something else. I want to say it was 1978, but I am only sure about it being sometime in the 1970 s.
    Message 1 of 34 , Mar 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      On Mar 2, 2005, at 8:40 AM, Robert Mulder wrote:

      > Can you provide a reference for me for when/how this was repealed? 

      I saw it in the Stautes at Large while researching something else. I
      want to say it was 1978, but I am only sure about it being sometime in
      the 1970's.

      > And was the entire HJR-192 repealed, or just certain portions of it?

      I remember seeing in the margins, "HJR 192 Repealed". I had a
      photocopy of the page, but it was stolen with some of my other files.
      What I read seemed to repeal the prohibition in making contracts for
      payment in gold and silver. It took up most of a page or more as I

      >   If it has been 'repealed' as you say,

      If you are really interested, you can go to the Statutes at Large and
      find it too by flipping through page by page. Then it can be as you
      say too.

      > then why do we not have a Constitutional, Gold and Silver backed
      > money supply today??

      Maybe because the concept of a "Gold and Silver backed money supply" is
      a false concept created as disinformation.

      Gold and silver ARE money, and were before Congress existed. Dollars
      of silver were in circulation before Congress existed. I have a
      collection of many dollar coins of silver from all over the world.
      Paper Notes that were NOT the money needed to extinguish them used to
      be "backed" by money but are no longer in WIDE circulation and are no
      longer honored by our bankrupt treasury. They are still accepted at
      the grocery store, however.

      Money is not "backed" by anything. If you mistakenly believe that the
      absence of money IS money, then the mistake is easier to make, and your
      absence of money (debt) has to be "backed" by some thing. Today, debt
      is "backed" by only "confidence". Real money is still money needing
      no backing. Silver and gold do not lose much weight over periods
      longer than you will live. The "dollar" is a unit of measurement of
      silver. But today people are willing to view the absence of a dollar
      as being a dollar itself, because of the confidence they have that
      someday somewhere someone will give them a dollar for their piece of
      paper or digit in a computer account. It seems they have a long time
      to wait, since today they can only get about seven dollars for every
      hundred debt units they've voluntarily accepted in lieu of money.

      The Constitution was abandoned and the Congress that originally adopted
      it ceased to exist as a matter of law when it adjourned sine die. Now
      it is only used as a guideline for the military occupation government
      in its attempts to pacify the occupied people.

      I've been using constitutional gold and silver for over 25 years, with
      no problem (besides robberies). It required me to want to do it
      first. If I didn't try, I couldn't have done it. Have you tried?
    • Frog Farmer
      ... Actually, people of both views can be accomodated, just as for some we live in a republic while others swear it is a democracy. Some people will deal in
      Message 34 of 34 , Mar 8, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        On Mar 8, 2005, at 10:44 AM, Robert Mulder wrote:

        > The FDIC has a different opinion on this matter:
        > "It is the opinion of the Secretary of the Treasury that Public Law
        > 93-373 did not repeal or alter the so-called Gold Clause Resolution of
        > 1933 (31 U.S.C. 463). The Resolution prohibits any contractual
        > provision which purports to give the obligee the option of requiring
        > payment of the obligation in money or a specified amount of gold.
        > Deposit contracts which purport to give the bank's customer such an
        > option are therefore rendered legally unenforceable by the terms of
        > the Gold Clause Resolution. Contracts specifically payable only in
        > gold may be similarly unenforceable where the parties to the contract
        > view the gold as a medium of discharging a debt, such as a deposit
        > liability, rather than as a commodity to be traded."

        Actually, people of both views can be accomodated, just as for some we
        live in a republic while others swear it is a democracy.

        Some people will deal in debt, and some will not. The reason gold is
        money is because it is a store of value and a medium of exchange. It is
        perfect U.S. money for transacting common law exchanges of property, or
        labor. Notice that even in the secretary's eyes, it all depends upon
        how the parties "view" the gold. Isn't that interesting? And notice
        the clever slight of hand trying to equate "discharge of debt" (in
        equity jurisdiction, no doubt) with "payment" at the common law, which
        finally extinguishes debt (while "discharge" merely transfers it to
        another party), and usually avoids debt creation altogether. The
        secretary depends upon the people involved to have a view. Should we
        do some man-on the street interviews and see how many Post-911
        Americans have a view on the topic?

        The Secretary of the Treasury has to maintain an opinion (but you don't
        have to agree with it!) that permits the monetization of debt as
        politically driven public policy. But one who claims his rights to
        property, and exercises them with gold and silver, cannot be made to
        part with his common law substance only to be "compensated" with
        "elastic" units of irredeemable bad debt. That result, where the human
        suddenly awakes to the fact that he lost his gold and now has a right
        to pursue debt in court, until he accepts paper fiat legal tender ( or
        better yet, "a deposit liability") is a voluntary action. He must
        first have permitted a debt to be created. This requires consciousness
        in the moment, and a timely objection when debt is being offered.
        Because once a debt exists, so-called "legal tender" can discharge it
        by government fiat.

        The old method of "cash on the barrelhead" protected everyone, with no
        one having to become either a creditor or a debtor, and wouldn't that
        feel nice in this time when the more you borrow the richer you become,
        when nothing is lent and nothing is paid back? "And yet real goods
        and services are transferred to the government."
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.