Page 8 of 14 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 136

Thread: Remedy - lawful money solution

  1. #71
    Are we aware that house joint resolutions have no force of law?
    Last edited by shikamaru; 02-28-15 at 09:25 PM.

  2. #72

  3. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by NONOFED View Post
    Not aware. How is that?
    If you look up the term 'resolution' in Black's Law Dictionary, it states that a resolution is an opinion. It even gives two paragraphs on the distinction between a resolution and a law.

    If you are talking about the confiscation of gold in 1933, you are talking about government's power of eminent domain, seizure, and condemnation. I'll have to fish out my write up on this from another forum if interested.

    Here is a little bit from this forum with a court case that is tangent to the seizure of gold in 1933, eminent domain.
    Last edited by shikamaru; 02-28-15 at 02:30 AM.

  4. #74
    In the United States, such Resolutions could have greater weight than any Opinion of the U.S. Attorney General. It might be that opinions affect the conduct, suggestions or advice of counsel/attorneys to their clients (governmental or otherwise). Laws would effect conduct of the executive. Whereas opinions might effect the conduct or counsel or advice attorneys, bar members or judges might have. For example a District Attorney would throw a case out of the window on the basis of interpretation through the lens of such Resolutions. It might be worth noting that a lot of FBI agents and Federal agents are said to be trained attorneys.
    Last edited by allodial; 02-28-15 at 02:46 AM.
    All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
    "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2
    Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.

  5. #75
    You make me wonder how when an opinion has widespread effect, is it not law?

  6. #76
    All information is good, i'm taking it in and I appreciate it. Thank you all.

  7. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by NONOFED View Post
    All information is good, i'm taking it in and I appreciate it. Thank you all.
    I will add more later as I sift through.

    From Default of the Fourth Liberty Bond:

    The legal basis for the refusal of the US Treasury to redeem in gold was House Joint Resolution 192, dated June 5, 1933.[18] This resolution was later held to be unconstitutional and thrown out by the U.S. Supreme Court.[19] Chief Justice Hughes writing for the majority elaborated the precedent that Congress may not legally nullify its own contracts:

    We conclude that the Joint Resolution of June 5, 1933, insofar as it attempted to override the obligation created by the bond in suit, went beyond the congressional power.
    —Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, Perry v United States, 294 US 330 (1935), Page 294 U. S. 354

    Due to the significant restrictions placed on gold trading by Roosevelt's reforms, the Court ruled that the bond-holders' loss was unquantifiable, and that to repay them in dollars according to the 1918 standard of value would be an "unjustified enrichment".[17] The ruling therefore had little practical effect.
    It seems allodial wasn't just "whistlin' Dixie through a strawhat" with his statement about opinions having weight ....

  8. #78
    More coming ....

    Executive Order 6102

    Executive Order 6102 required all persons to deliver on or before May 1, 1933, all but a small amount of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates owned by them to the Federal Reserve, in exchange for $20.67 (equivalent to $371.10 today[3]) per troy ounce. Under the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917, as amended by the recently passed Emergency Banking Act of March 9, 1933, violation of the order was punishable by fine up to $10,000 (equivalent to $180 thousand today[3]) or up to ten years in prison, or both.
    So, the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 was amended by the Emergency Banking Act of March 9, 1933 leading up to EO 6102.
    Thus, WAR POWERS were used to condemn and confiscate gold from private owners.

    There was a problem with EO 6102 and later its modification EO 6111. It was ruled void by a federal district court.
    Allow me to clarify, the EO was ruled void but the power of government to confiscate/seize/condemn property .... ANY PROPERTY ... was upheld.

    Only one person was ever prosecuted under the act, a New York attorney by the name of Frederick Barber Campbell.

    This court case will clear up many misconceptions most people have concerning this period in American history: Campbell v. Chase National Bank (1933)

    HJR-192, EO 6102 & 6111, the Emergency Banking Relief Act of 1933 ..... all chicken feed.

    The real power concerning the confiscation of gold coin during this period was EMINENT DOMAIN.

    EMINENT DOMAIN is a SOVEREIGN PREROGATIVE. You should eventually find this out in your study of Common Law.

    I find it interesting that the term eminent domain or dominium eminenss (L. supreme lordship) was taken from a treatise written by the Dutch jurist, Hugo Grotius, concerning the law of war; conquest; and dominion titled De Jure Belli Ac Pacis (On the Law of War and Peace).

    I say dominium eminens has its roots in war powers.
    It isn't classed as such in the modern era, but it has its roots in the right of the conqueror to take what he pleased without limitation.
    Today, the steel glove's appearance is covered in velvet in an attempt to obscure its roots .....

    So-called private property is subject to the sovereign's interests at least in the opinion of the courts.
    Gold and silver coin issued by the sovereign is considered the sovereign's.

    This is one of the reasons I don't recommend anyone new to law study statutes out the chute. One needs to study history, politics, political economy, and sociology before studying law and ultimately statutes.

    Law and statutes are absolute garbage without the history and the political exigencies, intentions, and motivations of the law makers.

  9. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by shikamaru View Post
    It seems allodial wasn't just "whistlin' Dixie through a strawhat" with his statement about opinions having weight ....
    Not known for talking sh.....smack.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    You make me wonder how when an opinion has widespread effect, is it not law?
    Bench legislation. The House is a curia or sub-curia (curia as in 'court'). Administrative / omnibus "supersedeas" (i.e. stay of proceedings; "equity follows the law"). Off the top related it seems are 'interpleaders' (seems related) [afaik the bond of an interpleader can operate in the manner of supersedeas]. Perpetual forgiveness of debt smells like an interpleader to me (you forgive us we forgive you in perpetuity). HJR 192 should or could still operate as an extraordinary writ (certiorari, mandamus, prohibition all combined) or as a bundle of extraordinary writs. IMHO its an error to think its something for nothing but the accounting (and the metaphysics though 'wild') seems kosher to me especially from the view of a resulting trust or constructive trust arising out of the mistake or misfeasance or errors of a trustee or even out of outright theft.

    Re: courts and legislatures

    .. the common conception of law in which it is legislatures that primarily create the 1aw and courts that primarily apply it. This conception has eclectic affinities with legal positivism, and although it may have been a helpful intellectual tool in the past, it now increasingly generates more problems than it solves. For this reason, the author argues, legal philosophers are better off abandoning it.
    It might be that what is taught in American high schools (and even law schools) about the distinctions between legislatures and courts comes down to being quite defective (if not outright deceptive). Legislatures and courts have the same roots--at least in the English or Norman traditions.

    Name:  lwhpsb.gif
Views: 302
Size:  19.3 KB
    Bills and Resolutions
    A proposed law may be introduced into either chamber of the Congress as a bill or a joint resolution. When a bill or a resolution is introduced, it is ordered to be printed and referred to one or more committees for review. Multiple versions of the same bill are not uncommon since each time a bill is successfully amended, or when it is introduced into the other house after passage in the first, a new version of the bill is required to be printed.

    The sequential numbering of bills for each session of the Congress began in the House with the 15th Congress (1817) and in the Senate with the 30th Congress (1847). For these bills, the researcher may consult the bill's number in the index of the appropriate Journal (House or Senate) to determine the ultimate fate of the proposed legislation.

    Resolutions are also legislation, but unlike bills they may be limited in effect to the Congress or one of its chambers. Simple resolutions relate to the operations of a single chamber or express the collective opinion of that chamber on public policy issues. Concurrent resolutions relate to the operations of Congress, including both chambers, or express the collective opinion of both chambers on public policy issues. Unlike simple and concurrent resolutions, joint resolutions are considered to have the same effect as bills and require the approval of the President. However, only joint resolutions may be used to propose amendments to the Constitution, and in this instance do not require the approval of the President. Thus, the Bill of Rights was introduced as a joint resolution in the 1st Congress and did not require the approval of the President, while the legislation annexing Texas and granting it statehood was introduced as a joint resolution but did require presidential approval. (Source: Library of Congress)
    This might be best viewed in the light of U.S. Congress having plenary power over its territories (Territorial Government, licensed banks, the Federal Reserved banks, trust companies, clearing houses, financial institutions, investment companies, etc.). Why sales licenses or vendor's licenses are pretty much mandatory in many situations should become obvious with a bit of meditation on the facts.

    It might also be worth noting:

    All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
    Related: Shared Authority: Courts and Legislatures in Legal Theory (Law and Practical Reason) (Amazon.com link) [That is a newer book though my views are derived primarily from pre-1900s texts.]
    Last edited by allodial; 03-01-15 at 12:33 AM.
    All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
    "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2
    Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.

  10. #80
    freeman beam
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by ag maniac View Post
    See the green seal on the right of the note? "The Department of the Treasury 1789"

    I made a rubber stamp which I use across the Treasury seal on the right side "Redeemed for Lawful Money as per 12USC411". It is now, permanently a USN. Nobody takes notice.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •