Federal Reserve Act - Remedy video.

[allodial]

I think the confusion is simplifying adopting a floating exchange rate (SDR's) for gold as NIXON taking us off the gold standard. There is still a standard and that standard is based in an earmarked gold price to this day ($42.22/troy ounce. The UN's IMF Trust Fund). This simplification leads to incorrect presumptions about lawful money.
...
United States currency notes are indeed several other forms of lawful money including postage stamps.
...
As we spoke, it was pointed out that many times the US Code does not portray an accurate reflection of the Public Laws. I thought that worth a trip down to the federal repository [SE Corner of the Monuments] and produced the Public Law in question. Albeit she may have had a point; that when the attorneys topically organize the Public Law into US Code they may tend to put their attorner sway on the final reading in the Code, it is a little difficult to see it happening in this specific example.

Do you see that? Congress just slipped in the term currency, without any justification or legislative amendment action - apparently changing the definition of US notes. The only reasoning or justification for doing so was so that Title 31 could be re-enacted into Positive Law - meaning that it extended outside of the districts into the law of the land.

In treaty-linguistics the term "high contracting parties" contrasts with those parties which have 'de facto adoption of a given treaty--in that they can sign a treaty and bind the party they represent but not in a de jure sense. That is, consider that the US could sign a treaty in a defacto sense and only bind the districts of the United States but not the united states of America which formed The United States of America or not the de jure states or nations which formed the United States. And so, perhaps there is a similarity where U.S. Congress can keep 'two books' not only economically (kind've like there is CAFR and then there is perhaps "public accounting tomfoolery" called "the budget" but jurisprudentially. The plenary power over the district-state that US Congress might have might let them hold a secret meeting and decide to put "currency" in front of notes in the related 'chapter and verse'--and such might even have served as a kind of notice in the Federal Register--legislation/treaty by notice (see Delcaration by the United Nations and the pertinence of treaties by notice)--but still there is the defacto kind of treaty and the dejure kind of treaty.

Let us reiterate:

defacto vs. de jure
legal vs. lawful
not high contracting vs high contracting
organic vs. corporate/military
positive law vs public policy/executive orders
state of America vs military-revenue district or Congressional "plenary power zones"

So the scam/sham might hereby be decoded with respect to "the Code".

More? OK!

To clarify regarding high contracting parties

one of the best summaries of what a high contracting party is can be found on Yahoo Answers--believe it or not.

What is a high contracting party in international law?
Best Answer: It describes parties to any international agreement which have both signed and ratified it.

So this brings us quite clearly and squarely to the term 'ratification' as compared to 'signature'/'assent'. The plenary zones of the U.S. Congress--remember military power of any commander in chief of the United States have their most immediate source in the U.S. Congress. Thusly IMHO it would follow that military-revenue districts are suitably referable to as 'plenary power zones'. The US Congress or one of its representatives (ministers plenipotentiary) could SIGN or ASSENT to a treaty but it would not necessarily constitute organic ratification in any de jure state, tribe, nation or free association of the Americas. Outside of the military-revenue districts, the US Congress convened by a commander in chief (flag officer) would have no power outside of the military venue--and cannot ratify. But the catch is that in a military district, the US Congress could sign a treaty without organic ratification and it could be instantly 'law' for the districts or 'defacto plenary power zones' but not positive law.

Now one might want to investigate how the US Treaty making power changed after the U.S. Civil War --especially with respect to so-called "Indians". (If I recall correctly--it changed drastically!)

The relevance is to the ability of U.S. Congress to keep two sets of books--not just accounting books but 'law books' one organic and one defacto. But mystery might be well-unraveled in realizing that 'ratification' in the defacto isn't really an organic ratification but just assent carried over by "capital integration" or what I might call "consolidation" or "merger" into the "defacto zone" (public policy / plenary power zones).

"US currency notes" flies in the "defacto" but probably isn't kosher in the organic sense.

And perhaps reminder of a discussion whereby I mentioned a potential 'scheme' in of having driver licenses be renewed every few years rather than being a way to "renew an identity" (silly idea!) or to "keep up to date pictures on file" (ummm suuuure) but instead as a way to "obtain" (perhaps weakly) a case-by-case ratification where there would otherwise be none. Kind've like "Treaty Assent-to-Ratification Conversion & Service Packs".

Do you figure that the fiduciaries of People's Republic of China knows that the United States is a lot smaller than it might at first appear?