Lawful money per US Code

[David Merrill]

You write that on the backside of your paychecks?

[allodial]

It might be worth considering that relation between the world 'gold' and the word 'yield'.

[David Merrill]

It might be worth considering that relation between the world 'gold' and the word 'yield'.

That is an interesting comment...


?

[allodial]

Etymologically speaking:

yield (n.)
O.E. gield "payment, sum of money" (see yield (v.)); extended sense of "production" (as of crops) is first attested mid-15c. Earliest English sense survives in financial "yield from investments."

yield (v.)
O.E. geldan (Anglian), gieldan (W.Saxon) "to pay" (class III strong verb; past tense geald, p.p. golden), from P.Gmc. *geldanan "pay" (cf. O.S. geldan "to be worth," O.N. gjaldo "to repay, return," M.Du. ghelden, Du. gelden "to cost, be worth, concern," O.H.G. geltan, Ger. gelten "to be worth," Goth. fra-gildan "to repay, requite"), perhaps from PIE *ghel-to- "I pay," found only in Balto-Slavic and Germanic, unless O.C.S. zledo, Lith. geliuoti are Germanic loan-words. Sense developed in English via use to translate L. reddere, Fr. rendre, and had expanded by c.1300 to "repay, return, render (service), produce, surrender." Related to M.L.G. and M.Du. gelt, Du. geld, Ger. Geld "money." Yielding in sense of "giving way to physical force" is recorded from 1660s.

[Freed Gerdes]

David, I am pretty sure that you posted something earlier about the $300 million in US Treasury notes that Congress authorized. This is public money, inelastic and backed by gold. FRN's are private money. While they both circulate at par, lawful is backed by value, FRN's are backed by debt; the difference is income tax liability, ie, the interest on the debt. While the fictional reserve banking system (see Mish website http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/ - he clarifies periodically that there are no 'reserves' backing FNR's) can print any amount of money they want, it is not wealth, only a claim on wealth. Since the banksters get the newly printed money first, they use it to buy up real assets (like gold). But the world debt is unpayable, and that ponzi system is about to crash. Rather than devalue gold by 1/20th, the Federal Reserve will just buy gold for about $20,000 per ounce. Presto, the US govt has enough 'cash' to pay off all its debts.
ps to shikamaru: the SCOTUS has struck down contracts which specified payment in gold. I think you can get around it by styling the contract in ounces of gold with no mention of dollar value. Assuming you are dealing in good faith with reliable parties, there is no reason why anyone else needs to know what your contract says.

[shikamaru]

The SCOTUS has struck down contracts which specified payment in gold.

When was the latest case which did this?
Also when you get a chance, could you provide such a case?

I think you can get around it by styling the contract in ounces of gold with no mention of dollar value. Assuming you are dealing in good faith with reliable parties, there is no reason why anyone else needs to know what your contract says.

I like it .

My opinion is that the tendering of gold and silver coin AT LAW (stated within the contract) is what gives the agreement force and intent.
Remember also that a dollar was originally a specific weight, grain, and purity of silver specie.

[David Merrill]

David, I am pretty sure that you posted something earlier about the $300 million in US Treasury notes that Congress authorized. This is public money, inelastic and backed by gold. FRN's are private money. While they both circulate at par, lawful is backed by value, FRN's are backed by debt; the difference is income tax liability, ie, the interest on the debt. While the fictional reserve banking system (see Mish website http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/ - he clarifies periodically that there are no 'reserves' backing FNR's) can print any amount of money they want, it is not wealth, only a claim on wealth. Since the banksters get the newly printed money first, they use it to buy up real assets (like gold). But the world debt is unpayable, and that ponzi system is about to crash. Rather than devalue gold by 1/20th, the Federal Reserve will just buy gold for about $20,000 per ounce. Presto, the US govt has enough 'cash' to pay off all its debts.
ps to shikamaru: the SCOTUS has struck down contracts which specified payment in gold. I think you can get around it by styling the contract in ounces of gold with no mention of dollar value. Assuming you are dealing in good faith with reliable parties, there is no reason why anyone else needs to know what your contract says.

I think you are talking about HJR-192 and it was repealed in around 1976.

[KnowLaw]

I think you are talking about HJR-192 and it was repealed in around 1976.

While the joint resolution may have been repealed in 1977, the public law (which reflects everything in the resolution) still remains on the books at Public Law 73-10 as Public Policy (otherwise known by such luminaries as Henry Kissinger as "foreign policy," if you can mentally hear him giving voice to these two words). That public policy is the foreign policy that he is often heard to be referring to, and why he's been so interested in it, since it provides for his ill-gotten standard of living.

[David Merrill]

While the joint resolution may have been repealed in 1977, the public law (which reflects everything in the resolution) still remains on the books at Public Law 73-10 as Public Policy (otherwise known by such luminaries as Henry Kissinger as "foreign policy," if you can mentally hear him giving voice to these two words). That public policy is the foreign policy that he is often heard to be referring to, and why he's been so interested in it, since it provides for his ill-gotten standard of living.

That is interesting!

I was thinking more about:

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

[Chex]

HRJ 192 declared void in 1982!!

Congress Reinstates Gold Clauses for contracts!!

I do NOT need your stamp of approval period. (Emphasis added).

Here is some info that you will all enjoy reading:

"The holding of gold remained prohibited until 1973, when Congress repealed the 1934 ban on private ownership of gold (87 Stat. 352 (1973), as amended by 88 Stat. 445 (1974), but did not address the 1933 prohibition of gold clauses.

This omission was remedied in 1982, when the statute was adopted (31 U.S.C.A. 5118(d)(2) (1983), hereinafter "section 5118"). The language provided that obligations covered by gold clauses prior to 1977 are, as before, dischargeable dollar for dollar with United States currency. . . . Gold clauses are enforceable after October 27, 1977, pursuant to section 5118; . . .Therefore, the gold clause contained in the August 28, 1982 contract is enforceable.

The amount of rent owed under the gold clause and the date from which it should accumulate will be determined at trial. THEREFORE, plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED."

The FAY CORPORATION a Washington corporation, Plaintiff v. BAT HOLDINGS 1, INC., also known as Marshall Field & Co., a Delaware corporation; and Frederick & Nelson Seattle, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants. No. C86-542D. United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle, 646 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT 946, 948, 952, 953 (October 23, 1986). And;

"This court concluded that the effect of novation was to revive the original gold clause. Thus rent after August 28, 1982 is to be made pursuant to the original lease terms "in lawful gold coin of the United States of America of the present standard of weight and fineness. . . ."Lease, Article II." FAY CORP. v. BAT HOLDINGS I INC., 651 F. Supp. 307, 308 (W.D. Wash. 1987). And;

"The court found the gold clause in the commercial lease to be enforceable. . . . Congress determined in 1977 that obligations entered into after 1977 would be enforceable. 31 U.S.C. section 5118(d)(2) (1983)." FAY CORP. v. FREDERICK & NELSON SEATTLE, INC., 896 F.2d 1227 (9th Cir. 1990). And;