31 usc 5118

USC › Title 31 › Subtitle IV › Chapter 51 › Subchapter II › § 5118
PREVNEXT
31 USC § 5118 - Gold clauses and consent to sue


(a) In this section—
(1) “gold clause” means a provision in or related to an obligation alleging to give the obligee a right to require payment in—
(A) gold;
(B) a particular United States coin or currency; or
(C) United States money measured in gold or a particular United States coin or currency.
(2) “public debt obligation” means a domestic obligation issued or guaranteed by the United States Government to repay money or interest.
(b) The United States Government may not pay out any gold coin. A person lawfully holding United States coins and currency may present the coins and currency to the Secretary of the Treasury for exchange (dollar for dollar) for other United States coins and currency (other than gold and silver coins) that may be lawfully held. The Secretary shall make the exchange under regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
(c)
(1) The Government withdraws its consent given to anyone to assert against the Government, its agencies, or its officers, employees, or agents, a claim—
(A) on a gold clause public debt obligation or interest on the obligation;
(B) for United States coins or currency; or
(C) arising out of the surrender, requisition, seizure, or acquisition of United States coins or currency, gold, or silver involving the effect or validity of a change in the metallic content of the dollar or in a regulation about the value of money.
(2) Paragraph (1) of this subsection does not apply to a proceeding in which no claim is made for payment or credit in an amount greater than the face or nominal value in dollars of public debt obligations or United States coins or currency involved in the proceeding.
(3) Except when consent is not withdrawn under this subsection, an amount appropriated for payment on public debt obligations and for United States coins and currency may be expended only dollar for dollar.
(d)
(1) In this subsection, “obligation” means any obligation (except United States currency) payable in United States money.
(2) An obligation issued containing a gold clause or governed by a gold clause is discharged on payment (dollar for dollar) in United States coin or currency that is legal tender at the time of payment. This paragraph does not apply to an obligation issued after October 27, 1977.



Any help dissecting this guys?

-It appears to outline a difference in US money vs coin/currency "(C) United States money measured in gold or a particular United States coin or currency." So US MONEY is only measured in various forms

-(2) appears to lend credence to the A4V theory as it calls public debt obligations issued or guaranteed by the US government to repay - Am I reading this wrong or taking it out of context?

-(b) appears to exempt the government from paying out in gold. Section (c) (1) (A),(B),(C) seem to clarify the government exempting itself from and withdrawing its consent it gave presumably at a prior time in history

-(3) again appears to reinforce the A4V theory to me again...? Doesn't it list basically everything as "public" debt??

-(d) (1) "obligation" EXCEPT US Currency - PAYABLE in US MONEY. This one I would like for someone to elaborate on if possible. It's intriguing.

-(d) (2) appears to allow gold clauses to be paid off in FRN's yes?



I'm not sure what I'm asking here - maybe just interpretations.... I think there is some interesting language in here that can be used as some foundations for suitors claims. I haven't quite grasped the concept David mentioned in his remedy video about coin currency and FRN's dont really jibe... They aren't Federal Reserve Tokens, so are they US Notes in coin form? There was also a mention of $1000 cap or something?

Or does this whole section just basically say "FRN's cover all payments and debts. Suck it up."?

I'd stay away from the A4V stuff.

If you do a bit of tax and estate planning, you can greatly reduce taxes.

If you avoid contracts of performance on debt, you'll have way more money.

There are so many loopholes in commerce, there is no reason to do irregular things.

A4V scares me. I doubt I'd ever try it. It is interesting to me, however. I only have researched it because I am in real debt basically FORCED upon me via the court system (Child support). It was artificially inflated far beyond what my earnings were (three times what it should have been for 24 months) and I slipped into a hole tens of thousands deep with an interest rate at about 15% or better. Even though I was able to prove my income didn't match (not even close) to what was ordered, there is no legal mechanism to do ANYTHING retroactively- soooooooooooo I have an exponentially growing debt which exceeds my ability to pay and I have already been held in prison once (against the Alabama Constitution's strict prohibition against such act). Can you see why A4V would interest me? (I wont try it though - too scared of the potential to be labeled "fraud") My ex wife (who is now my friend again) even says that it's out of control and out of her hands. (Once the gob'ment gets involved they don't leave you alone until you pay in full). This is the background that spurred my research into contract law, the constitution, money, etc etc. Not to sound like a cry baby but my life has been destroyed by this- lost jobs/income, imprisoned, lost time with children, robbing Peter to pay Paul to avoid further confinement etc and I am trying to find ways to overcome it. I learned on day one here there is no silver bullet and life style must (and has) changed. Wrapping my head around money/ lawful money and such has really broadened my horizons and given me some hope. The simple fact of getting job withholdings back from the IRS for demanding lawful money gives me hope that I can recover some money and help me dig out!

Anyone familiar with Carl Miller and montgomery ward v eugene glasure? It apparently took place in Michigan where someone was able to discharge debt with coffee beans, because a dollar is a unit of measurement. I cannot find the case referenced anywhere online, so I am unable to verify the authenticity of it, however, Carl makes a great presentation of it. It piques my interest - also it ties in with David's video on remedy where he mentions that Michigan's Attorney General is informed and states that they are not required to pay in gold or silver - - - all of this blows my mind and makes me believe IF you know how to work the system, you can make demand and pay off these debts. I am NOT trying to get something for free by taking out loans and trying A4V to live high on the hog. I think the Carl Miller example (if verified to be true) lends credence to the fact that debts can be paid in a variety of ways, since a true dollar (measured in gold or silver) doesn't exist. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=yh5NoOhZ6BI

Excuse my whining please. I am in a difficult situation where I see no way out, even after proving that I was not liable to pay what they alleged even when my ex wife is trying to help me!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BAMAJiPS

A4V scares me. I doubt I'd ever try it. It is interesting to me, however. I only have researched it because I am in real debt basically FORCED upon me via the court system (Child support). It was artificially inflated far beyond what my earnings were (three times what it should have been for 24 months) and I slipped into a hole tens of thousands deep with an interest rate at about 15% or better. Even though I was able to prove my income didn't match (not even close) to what was ordered, there is no legal mechanism to do ANYTHING retroactively- soooooooooooo I have an exponentially growing debt which exceeds my ability to pay and I have already been held in prison once (against the Alabama Constitution's strict prohibition against such act). Can you see why A4V would interest me? (I wont try it though - too scared of the potential to be labeled "fraud") My ex wife (who is now my friend again) even says that it's out of control and out of her hands. (Once the gob'ment gets involved they don't leave you alone until you pay in full). This is the background that spurred my research into contract law, the constitution, money, etc etc. Not to sound like a cry baby but my life has been destroyed by this- lost jobs/income, imprisoned, lost time with children, robbing Peter to pay Paul to avoid further confinement etc and I am trying to find ways to overcome it. I learned on day one here there is no silver bullet and life style must (and has) changed. Wrapping my head around money/ lawful money and such has really broadened my horizons and given me some hope. The simple fact of getting job withholdings back from the IRS for demanding lawful money gives me hope that I can recover some money and help me dig out!

Anyone familiar with Carl Miller and montgomery ward v eugene glasure? It apparently took place in Michigan where someone was able to discharge debt with coffee beans, because a dollar is a unit of measurement. I cannot find the case referenced anywhere online, so I am unable to verify the authenticity of it, however, Carl makes a great presentation of it. It piques my interest - also it ties in with David's video on remedy where he mentions that Michigan's Attorney General is informed and states that they are not required to pay in gold or silver - - - all of this blows my mind and makes me believe IF you know how to work the system, you can make demand and pay off these debts. I am NOT trying to get something for free by taking out loans and trying A4V to live high on the hog. I think the Carl Miller example (if verified to be true) lends credence to the fact that debts can be paid in a variety of ways, since a true dollar (measured in gold or silver) doesn't exist. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=yh5NoOhZ6BI

Excuse my whining please. I am in a difficult situation where I see no way out, even after proving that I was not liable to pay what they alleged even when my ex wife is trying to help me!

---

Did you sign the agreement concerning child support between yourself and the court?

Before I could no longer afford him, my attorney funneled me into agreements which I was not comfortable with in the first place. I wish I could go back and re-do all those contracts I entered in knowing now what I know. It was ME representing myself pro-se that I was finally able to even get the child support lowered to a reasonable level. Once I felt the empowerment of being able to negotiate with the state appointed attorney I realized there was a better way. Now I'm trying to figure out how I can amend or void previous agreements because knowing what I know now - the contract is supposed to benefit ME (the one who DIDNT draft it) and I entered into several not knowing my rights and under delusion and ignorance! I am trying to untangle this web but it is indeed a layered mess and I am trying to overcome 30+ years of conditioning as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BAMAJiPS

Before I could no longer afford him, my attorney funneled me into agreements which I was not comfortable with in the first place. I wish I could go back and re-do all those contracts I entered in knowing now what I know. It was ME representing myself pro-se that I was finally able to even get the child support lowered to a reasonable level. Once I felt the empowerment of being able to negotiate with the state appointed attorney I realized there was a better way. Now I'm trying to figure out how I can amend or void previous agreements because knowing what I know now - the contract is supposed to benefit ME (the one who DIDNT draft it) and I entered into several not knowing my rights and under delusion and ignorance! I am trying to untangle this web but it is indeed a layered mess and I am trying to overcome 30+ years of conditioning as well.

---

That's what you are being held too....

You are being held to contract.

A contract for performance.

If you hadn't signed the contract, you would have some room to work.

The whole episode is predicated on a servitude known as a license.

A license is a grant from grantor to grantee.
This servitude is conditional.

that contract began in 2000 when my spouse and I signed a "license" to marry did it not? From that point on we allowed our whole personal affairs to be regulated, no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BAMAJiPS

USC › Title 31 › Subtitle IV › Chapter 51 › Subchapter II › § 5118
PREVNEXT
31 USC § 5118 - Gold clauses and consent to sue


(a) In this section—
(1) “gold clause” means a provision in or related to an obligation alleging to give the obligee a right to require payment in—
(A) gold;
(B) a particular United States coin or currency; or
(C) United States money measured in gold or a particular United States coin or currency.
(2) “public debt obligation” means a domestic obligation issued or guaranteed by the United States Government to repay money or interest.
(b) The United States Government may not pay out any gold coin. A person lawfully holding United States coins and currency may present the coins and currency to the Secretary of the Treasury for exchange (dollar for dollar) for other United States coins and currency (other than gold and silver coins) that may be lawfully held. The Secretary shall make the exchange under regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
(c)
(1) The Government withdraws its consent given to anyone to assert against the Government, its agencies, or its officers, employees, or agents, a claim—
(A) on a gold clause public debt obligation or interest on the obligation;
(B) for United States coins or currency; or
(C) arising out of the surrender, requisition, seizure, or acquisition of United States coins or currency, gold, or silver involving the effect or validity of a change in the metallic content of the dollar or in a regulation about the value of money.
(2) Paragraph (1) of this subsection does not apply to a proceeding in which no claim is made for payment or credit in an amount greater than the face or nominal value in dollars of public debt obligations or United States coins or currency involved in the proceeding.
(3) Except when consent is not withdrawn under this subsection, an amount appropriated for payment on public debt obligations and for United States coins and currency may be expended only dollar for dollar.
(d)
(1) In this subsection, “obligation” means any obligation (except United States currency) payable in United States money.
(2) An obligation issued containing a gold clause or governed by a gold clause is discharged on payment (dollar for dollar) in United States coin or currency that is legal tender at the time of payment. This paragraph does not apply to an obligation issued after October 27, 1977.



Any help dissecting this guys?

-It appears to outline a difference in US money vs coin/currency "(C) United States money measured in gold or a particular United States coin or currency." So US MONEY is only measured in various forms

-(2) appears to lend credence to the A4V theory as it calls public debt obligations issued or guaranteed by the US government to repay - Am I reading this wrong or taking it out of context?

-(b) appears to exempt the government from paying out in gold. Section (c) (1) (A),(B),(C) seem to clarify the government exempting itself from and withdrawing its consent it gave presumably at a prior time in history

-(3) again appears to reinforce the A4V theory to me again...? Doesn't it list basically everything as "public" debt??

-(d) (1) "obligation" EXCEPT US Currency - PAYABLE in US MONEY. This one I would like for someone to elaborate on if possible. It's intriguing.

-(d) (2) appears to allow gold clauses to be paid off in FRN's yes?



I'm not sure what I'm asking here - maybe just interpretations.... I think there is some interesting language in here that can be used as some foundations for suitors claims. I haven't quite grasped the concept David mentioned in his remedy video about coin currency and FRN's dont really jibe... They aren't Federal Reserve Tokens, so are they US Notes in coin form? There was also a mention of $1000 cap or something?

---

Without the indented format I find that very difficult to read in the opening post. Try this link.


It sounds like this is a more recent rendition of ending the Emergency - in other words abolishing HJR-192.

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...l_PL94-412.jpg

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...tipulation.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BAMAJiPS

that contract began in 2000 when my spouse and I signed a "license" to marry did it not? From that point on we allowed our whole personal affairs to be regulated, no?

---

Let's straighten out a few things.

A license is not a contract. A license is a grant of privilege in exchange for some SERVITUDE.
A license is a SERVITUDE.
A person petitions (begs) for a license. That which is licensed is then brought under the police powers of state government.

The license made your marriage a general partnership between her, you, and state government.
The marriage license is arguably one of the most binding agreements a person could sign.

With regard to divorce and family service courts, these are administrative courts. Some would say corporate courts ...

The agreement to pay child support is a contract, a private contract.

Look in an old Bible. You will find that a Certificate of Marriage was signed by two competent witnesses. You have gone one step further and brought the State by License into your marriage as some kind of supervisory third party. Maybe a guardian ad lidum at best. Maybe more as Trustee of any Issuance - children.

License over marriage was traditionally granted by the priests if you wanted to marry outside your tribe. I think a couple in Leviticus married and a creep was sanctioned to spear them both. I like to think that kind of measure was symbolic of them being driven out of the Camp. But apply this today. Did you or your wife have any notion that is what you were up to applying for a license from the State? In America it is easy to trace the marriage license to interracial marriages.

You might consider number two of the Lesson Plan:

1 Identity
2 Record keeping
3 Redeeming lawful money

With a libel of review you would open a record in the USDC to keep a log of the state binding you to this fraud by omission. It might get the State to forgive your obligations or even set you up to form a jury down the line that would look at it in light of the facts and truth. Think about that. If the State is ever stupid enough to take you to court, like criminal proceedings (again) then you would likely be able to admit your Refusals for Cause to the State's presentments into evidence. If you get the R4C's into evidence the jury would likely read the Cause of Action portion of your LoR.


Regards,

David Merrill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Look in an old Bible. You will find that a Certificate of Marriage was signed by two competent witnesses. You have gone one step further and brought the State by License into your marriage as some kind of supervisory third party. Maybe a guardian ad lidum at best. Maybe more as Trustee of any Issuance - children.

License over marriage was traditionally granted by the priests if you wanted to marry outside your tribe. I think a couple in Leviticus married and a creep was sanctioned to spear them both. I like to think that kind of measure was symbolic of them being driven out of the Camp. But apply this today. Did you or your wife have any notion that is what you were up to applying for a license from the State? In America it is easy to trace the marriage license to interracial marriages.

You might consider number two of the Lesson Plan:

1 Identity
2 Record keeping
3 Redeeming lawful money

With a libel of review you would open a record in the USDC to keep a log of the state binding you to this fraud by omission. It might get the State to forgive your obligations or even set you up to form a jury down the line that would look at it in light of the facts and truth. Think about that. If the State is ever stupid enough to take you to court, like criminal proceedings (again) then you would likely be able to admit your Refusals for Cause to the State's presentments into evidence. If you get the R4C's into evidence the jury would likely read the Cause of Action portion of your LoR.


Regards,

David Merrill.

---

I forgot all about the license being used to regulate marriages between persons of different races being intermarriage was considered against the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BAMAJiPS

Or does this whole section just basically say "FRN's cover all payments and debts. Suck it up."?

---

5 years 6 months ago

I've been reading some posts here and realize that a lot of you are just bouncing your opinions and theories around.

Let me tell you why people lose in court. They lose because they haven't withdrawn consent. Specific consent.

Read the gold clause USC (I'm in the states where they might shoot me for traveling) title 5118. See what it says about consent.

The statutes are nothing but contracts which are activated by applicatory consent and ratified by a lifetime of agreement.

Start asking your questions from the law. It's all there, anything you need to learn. You need to see if for yourself. Start with the statutory definitions of persons. Inhabitants, Residents, any word "they" use. "They are corporations acting "as" governments. As such "they" can't force you to contract.

They can keep you asleep. And they are worried about us because we threaten the commoditization of rights, which is a worldwide, quadrillion dollar industry.

Well, it means that it's against the law to demand payment in any type of US currency, but only if you waive consent being charged, and only if it's after a certain date (they play games with this it's originally HJR-192.

This particular law is worth hours of study, even more. http://worldfreemansociety.org/forum...ements-they-do

Note that in this code the USA withdraws consent to be sued over the money thing. The interesting thing is C-3 on the page, which is a very twisted consent clause.

In subsection (c)(3), the words “may be expended” are substituted for “an amount appropriated or authorized to be expended” and “shall be available for or expended in”, and the words “dollar for dollar” are substituted for “on an equal and uniform dollar for dollar basis”, to eliminate unnecessary words.
In subsection (c)(1), before clause (A), the word “Government” is substituted for “United States” for consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the United States Code. The words “to anyone” are added for clarity. The words “whether by way of suit, counterclaim, set-off, recoupment, or other affirmative action or defense in its own name or in the name of” are omitted as surplus. The word “employees” is added for consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the Code. The word “instrumentalities” is omitted as unnecessary because of section 101 of the revised title. The word “claim” is substituted for “right, privilege, or power” to eliminate unnecessary words and for consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the Code. The words “in any proceeding of any nature whatsoever” are omitted as surplus. In clause (C), the words “or demand” are omitted as surplus. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/t...temp_noupdates

Commoditization of rights.

That says it all. Thank you for the Cornell Law link.



You focus on consent at:

Quote:

---

In subsection (c)(3), the words “may be expended” are substituted for “an amount appropriated or authorized to be expended” and “shall be available for or expended in”, and the words “dollar for dollar” are substituted for “on an equal and uniform dollar for dollar basis”, to eliminate unnecessary words.

---

I believe the demand for lawful money is equivalent to withdrawal of consent. The demand makes claim to the realm of lawful money outside the scope of the misused Trading with the Enemy Act.

I am working that out now. I have highlighted the verbiage that indicates murder, behind the inadequate bonding due to felony witness tampering; the Witness being God.

Quote:

---

I told the President, however, that I believed that he has such authority under the Trading with the Enemy Act, I understood it to be the belief of the President that while some of his advisers had told him that he could do this, others had told him that it would not be legal. I had already asked Senator Thomas J. Walsh, who was to have become my Attorney General, to give me a report on such Presidential authority. As Senator Walsh had died suddenly, however, on March 2d, I had asked Mr. Homer S. Cummings to become Attorney General and had requested him for an opinion. On the evening of March 4th, I received the verbal opinion of the new Attorney General on which I based the Presidential Proclamation signed during the night of March 5th-6th, closing all banks. [Bold added to describe murder and coercion upon threat thereof.] Public Addresses and Papers of FDR 1933 - Pages 870-871

---

See how FDR writes? He never tells or describes what the new AG's opinion was, but I cannot help but presume it was influenced by his predecessor suddenly dying the day before.


But above all is my choice:

Quote:

---

Php 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Php 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Php 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Php 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chex

5 years 6 months ago

I've been reading some posts here and realize that a lot of you are just bouncing your opinions and theories around.

Let me tell you why people lose in court. They lose because they haven't withdrawn consent. Specific consent.

Read the gold clause USC (I'm in the states where they might shoot me for traveling) title 5118. See what it says about consent.

The statutes are nothing but contracts which are activated by applicatory consent and ratified by a lifetime of agreement.

Start asking your questions from the law. It's all there, anything you need to learn. You need to see if for yourself. Start with the statutory definitions of persons. Inhabitants, Residents, any word "they" use. "They are corporations acting "as" governments. As such "they" can't force you to contract.

They can keep you asleep. And they are worried about us because we threaten the commoditization of rights, which is a worldwide, quadrillion dollar industry.

Well, it means that it's against the law to demand payment in any type of US currency, but only if you waive consent being charged, and only if it's after a certain date (they play games with this it's originally HJR-192.

This particular law is worth hours of study, even more. http://worldfreemansociety.org/forum...ements-they-do

Note that in this code the USA withdraws consent to be sued over the money thing. The interesting thing is C-3 on the page, which is a very twisted consent clause.

In subsection (c)(3), the words “may be expended” are substituted for “an amount appropriated or authorized to be expended” and “shall be available for or expended in”, and the words “dollar for dollar” are substituted for “on an equal and uniform dollar for dollar basis”, to eliminate unnecessary words.
In subsection (c)(1), before clause (A), the word “Government” is substituted for “United States” for consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the United States Code. The words “to anyone” are added for clarity. The words “whether by way of suit, counterclaim, set-off, recoupment, or other affirmative action or defense in its own name or in the name of” are omitted as surplus. The word “employees” is added for consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the Code. The word “instrumentalities” is omitted as unnecessary because of section 101 of the revised title. The word “claim” is substituted for “right, privilege, or power” to eliminate unnecessary words and for consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the Code. The words “in any proceeding of any nature whatsoever” are omitted as surplus. In clause (C), the words “or demand” are omitted as surplus. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/t...temp_noupdates

---

I have been thinking about this post...