Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: 31 usc 5118

  1. #1

    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    (3) Except when consent is not withdrawn under this subsection, an amount appropriated for payment on public debt obligations and for United States coins and currency may be expended only dollar for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?

  2. #2
    Or does this whole section just basically say "FRN's cover all payments and debts. Suck it up."?

  3. #3
    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.
    Last edited by shikamaru; 12-30-12 at 08:19 PM.

  4. #4
    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!

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by BAMAJiPS View Post
    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?

  6. #6
    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.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by BAMAJiPS View Post
    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.
    Last edited by shikamaru; 12-30-12 at 10:26 PM.

  8. #8
    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?

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by BAMAJiPS View Post
    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.




  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by BAMAJiPS View Post
    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.

Posting Permissions

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