Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: HJR-192 was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court

  1. #1

    HJR-192 was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court

    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.

  2. #2
    This sort of thing is going to get a lot more interesting around here. I want to process something that came to me today by phone - I mean sleep on it to "reset" bias and prejudice. It is a new perspective on counterfeiting and enforcement.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    This sort of thing is going to get a lot more interesting around here. I want to process something that came to me today by phone - I mean sleep on it to "reset" bias and prejudice. It is a new perspective on counterfeiting and enforcement.
    You may want to check out the rest of the Gold Clause Cases of the Supreme Court.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by shikamaru View Post
    You may want to check out the rest of the Gold Clause Cases of the Supreme Court.

    I was tending toward Secret Service. Any resistance to non-endorsement is promotion of counterfeiting. Even something along these lines. The 1865 formation of the Secret Service was just after the Trust - IN GOD WE TRUST - and Dan MAY has left it by avoiding the statute and precept of God as a Witness. If a public official violates statute he has no judicial or sovereign immunity - so Dan has taken out a $5K insurance policy! I do not trust in God pursuant to the fiat money cycle; I trust in Traveler's Insurance!

    Really? $5K? For false imprisonment?

  5. #5
    Senior Member Treefarmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    in the woods known to some as Tanasi
    Posts
    476
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    I was tending toward Secret Service. Any resistance to non-endorsement is promotion of counterfeiting. Even something along these lines. The 1865 formation of the Secret Service was just after the Trust - IN GOD WE TRUST - and Dan MAY has left it by avoiding the statute and precept of God as a Witness. If a public official violates statute he has no judicial or sovereign immunity - so Dan has taken out a $5K insurance policy! I do not trust in God pursuant to the fiat money cycle; I trust in Traveler's Insurance!

    Really? $5K? For false imprisonment?
    Your link "along these lines" doesn't work.
    Treefarmer

    There is power in the blood of Jesus

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    On the land known as Kansas
    Posts
    154
    "Counterfeit money is imitation currency produced without the legal sanction of the state or government. Producing or using counterfeit money is a form of fraud or forgery."

    The deposit of redeemed lawful money (redeemed US Treasury Notes) into accounts fractionalized by normal banking practice by Government agents (clerks, officers of the courts etc) is a crime.

    It is also "misuse of public monies". As issued, US Treasury notes cannot be used as "reserve currency" putting these lawful payments into a "reserve" account at local banks is also a crime.

    There is no immunity for these crimes by office nor oath with an elastic currency (insurance policy) BOND backing, it is a crime. The Treasury has its own enforcement agents.

    Those agents, once informed and given the paper trail (proof) of a Suitor using Redeemed lawful money have the duty to find out where and how those "public monies" were treated. If they were converted into fractional reserves, thus creating MORE elastic currency, directly benefiting the depositor and their office, they have, in fact, committed many "high crimes and misdemeanors".

    It is beyond time those crimes are reported and handled by Treasury agents.

Posting Permissions

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