Abolish the Fed

[David Merrill]

You can believe what you want, Johnny. That's easier than accepting the truth. As for your remark about "Jay" who is he? That's neither my name nor my handle.

Please, JohnnyCash? Can you allow for a much wider world than Jay? I am pretty convinced that Jay is busy with a much more interesting career as a Texas attorney! You can PM me any direct evidence of course but otherwise you seem unrealistic and unbalanced to assume anybody with a "Q"-sounding perspective is Jay or even from "Q".

Recently a member here was adamantly spouting worn out patriot mythology and it seemed that he was on a mission to disrupt with useless doctrine. I banished him and he just grabbed a new monaker and registered again. I have better things to do and hopefully so do you. BTW it turned out he just wanted to share his opinions before reading and realizing that Redeeming Lawful Money has its basis in law, the Federal Reserve Act and so now things are good. [I reinstated him under the first handle.] I am not shut down to new ideas and opposing opinions. But shunning somebody with lightly evidenced accusations is hurtful and way too easy to do over the Internet and in chat rooms.

Please be careful how you treat others!

[JohnnyCash]

Oh, I'm sorry. Seems to be a bad habit of mine, won't happen again. I hereby issue a formal apology to anyone I have ever called Jay who is, in fact, not Jay.

I don't favor banishment either (accept in extreme cases). I've learned much from the opposition and the fact they are here provides a level of comfort that you & the suitors are on the right track to remedy and freedom.

[bobbinville]

It could also mean that the dissenters are simply curious about what you have to say, and want to see things firsthand. In my case, I joined just so that I could offer comments if they were helpful without being confrontational or argumentative.

[John Howard]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=1&theater

[David Merrill]

I like the link!

[John Howard]

At the current silver price that would be $3.03 per gallon. I just paid 3.39. That might be an old picture.

[David Merrill]

Or an investment in junk silver.

[Goldi]

The 1792 Coinage Act (amended in 1900 and still in effect today)

The 1792 Coinage Act has NOT been amended. Sections 1-19 remain intact, unaltered, and have not been repealed. Section 20 of the act was moved to Revised Statute 3563 and is still in effect as well. Here are 2 court cases and one law review that reference that section as being intact and relevant today. http://www.mediafire.com/?36pin4jslin7rzq http://www.mediafire.com/?mzj14hxueejyh9o http://www.mediafire.com/?gg3vsfmyoab18sj In addition, in Johnson's speech on the implementation of the 1965 Coinage Act, he cleverly states that this act "supercedes" the 1792 Coinage Act. There is no term "supercede" to be found in Bouvier's or Blacks that I've found. So I went to Websters and one of the definitions of "supercede" is USURP. Fitting, ey? You cannot repeal by omission or by usurpation. Therefore, the 1792 Coinage Act is good law today. The last link above states as much.

[David Merrill]

The 1792 Coinage Act has NOT been amended. Sections 1-19 remain intact, unaltered, and have not been repealed. Section 20 of the act was moved to Revised Statute 3563 and is still in effect as well. Here are 2 court cases and one law review that reference that section as being intact and relevant today. http://www.mediafire.com/?36pin4jslin7rzq http://www.mediafire.com/?mzj14hxueejyh9o http://www.mediafire.com/?gg3vsfmyoab18sj In addition, in Johnson's speech on the implementation of the 1965 Coinage Act, he cleverly states that this act "supercedes" the 1792 Coinage Act. There is no term "supercede" to be found in Bouvier's or Blacks that I've found. So I went to Websters and one of the definitions of "supercede" is USURP. Fitting, ey? You cannot repeal by omission or by usurpation. Therefore, the 1792 Coinage Act is good law today. The last link above states as much.

Thank you Goldi!

[John Howard]

The 1792 Coinage Act has NOT been amended. Sections 1-19 remain intact, unaltered, and have not been repealed. Section 20 of the act was moved to Revised Statute 3563 and is still in effect as well. Here are 2 court cases and one law review that reference that section as being intact and relevant today. http://www.mediafire.com/?36pin4jslin7rzq http://www.mediafire.com/?mzj14hxueejyh9o http://www.mediafire.com/?gg3vsfmyoab18sj In addition, in Johnson's speech on the implementation of the 1965 Coinage Act, he cleverly states that this act "supercedes" the 1792 Coinage Act. There is no term "supercede" to be found in Bouvier's or Blacks that I've found. So I went to Websters and one of the definitions of "supercede" is USURP. Fitting, ey? You cannot repeal by omission or by usurpation. Therefore, the 1792 Coinage Act is good law today. The last link above states as much.

Here is an interesting discussion.