Remedy - lawful money solution

[NONOFED]

All information is good, i'm taking it in and I appreciate it. Thank you all.

[shikamaru]

All information is good, i'm taking it in and I appreciate it. Thank you all.

I will add more later as I sift through.

From Default of the Fourth Liberty Bond:

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.

It seems allodial wasn't just "whistlin' Dixie through a strawhat" with his statement about opinions having weight ....

[shikamaru]

More coming ....

Executive Order 6102

Executive Order 6102 required all persons to deliver on or before May 1, 1933, all but a small amount of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates owned by them to the Federal Reserve, in exchange for $20.67 (equivalent to $371.10 today[3]) per troy ounce. Under the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917, as amended by the recently passed Emergency Banking Act of March 9, 1933, violation of the order was punishable by fine up to $10,000 (equivalent to $180 thousand today[3]) or up to ten years in prison, or both.

So, the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 was amended by the Emergency Banking Act of March 9, 1933 leading up to EO 6102.
Thus, WAR POWERS were used to condemn and confiscate gold from private owners.

There was a problem with EO 6102 and later its modification EO 6111. It was ruled void by a federal district court.
Allow me to clarify, the EO was ruled void but the power of government to confiscate/seize/condemn property .... ANY PROPERTY ... was upheld.

Only one person was ever prosecuted under the act, a New York attorney by the name of Frederick Barber Campbell.

This court case will clear up many misconceptions most people have concerning this period in American history: Campbell v. Chase National Bank (1933)

HJR-192, EO 6102 & 6111, the Emergency Banking Relief Act of 1933 ..... all chicken feed.

The real power concerning the confiscation of gold coin during this period was EMINENT DOMAIN.

EMINENT DOMAIN is a SOVEREIGN PREROGATIVE. You should eventually find this out in your study of Common Law.

I find it interesting that the term eminent domain or dominium eminenss (L. supreme lordship) was taken from a treatise written by the Dutch jurist, Hugo Grotius, concerning the law of war; conquest; and dominion titled De Jure Belli Ac Pacis (On the Law of War and Peace).

I say dominium eminens has its roots in war powers.
It isn't classed as such in the modern era, but it has its roots in the right of the conqueror to take what he pleased without limitation.
Today, the steel glove's appearance is covered in velvet in an attempt to obscure its roots .....

So-called private property is subject to the sovereign's interests at least in the opinion of the courts.
Gold and silver coin issued by the sovereign is considered the sovereign's.

This is one of the reasons I don't recommend anyone new to law study statutes out the chute. One needs to study history, politics, political economy, and sociology before studying law and ultimately statutes.

Law and statutes are absolute garbage without the history and the political exigencies, intentions, and motivations of the law makers.

[allodial]

It seems allodial wasn't just "whistlin' Dixie through a strawhat" with his statement about opinions having weight ....

Not known for talking sh.....smack.

You make me wonder how when an opinion has widespread effect, is it not law?

Bench legislation. The House is a curia or sub-curia (curia as in 'court'). Administrative / omnibus "supersedeas" (i.e. stay of proceedings; "equity follows the law"). Off the top related it seems are 'interpleaders' (seems related) [afaik the bond of an interpleader can operate in the manner of supersedeas]. Perpetual forgiveness of debt smells like an interpleader to me (you forgive us we forgive you in perpetuity). HJR 192 should or could still operate as an extraordinary writ (certiorari, mandamus, prohibition all combined) or as a bundle of extraordinary writs. IMHO its an error to think its something for nothing but the accounting (and the metaphysics though 'wild') seems kosher to me especially from the view of a resulting trust or constructive trust arising out of the mistake or misfeasance or errors of a trustee or even out of outright theft.

Re: courts and legislatures

.. the common conception of law in which it is legislatures that primarily create the 1aw and courts that primarily apply it. This conception has eclectic affinities with legal positivism, and although it may have been a helpful intellectual tool in the past, it now increasingly generates more problems than it solves. For this reason, the author argues, legal philosophers are better off abandoning it.

It might be that what is taught in American high schools (and even law schools) about the distinctions between legislatures and courts comes down to being quite defective (if not outright deceptive). Legislatures and courts have the same roots--at least in the English or Norman traditions.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2306[/ATTACH]
Bills and Resolutions
A proposed law may be introduced into either chamber of the Congress as a bill or a joint resolution. When a bill or a resolution is introduced, it is ordered to be printed and referred to one or more committees for review. Multiple versions of the same bill are not uncommon since each time a bill is successfully amended, or when it is introduced into the other house after passage in the first, a new version of the bill is required to be printed.

The sequential numbering of bills for each session of the Congress began in the House with the 15th Congress (1817) and in the Senate with the 30th Congress (1847). For these bills, the researcher may consult the bill's number in the index of the appropriate Journal (House or Senate) to determine the ultimate fate of the proposed legislation.

Resolutions are also legislation, but unlike bills they may be limited in effect to the Congress or one of its chambers. Simple resolutions relate to the operations of a single chamber or express the collective opinion of that chamber on public policy issues. Concurrent resolutions relate to the operations of Congress, including both chambers, or express the collective opinion of both chambers on public policy issues. Unlike simple and concurrent resolutions, joint resolutions are considered to have the same effect as bills and require the approval of the President. However, only joint resolutions may be used to propose amendments to the Constitution, and in this instance do not require the approval of the President. Thus, the Bill of Rights was introduced as a joint resolution in the 1st Congress and did not require the approval of the President, while the legislation annexing Texas and granting it statehood was introduced as a joint resolution but did require presidential approval. (Source: Library of Congress)

This might be best viewed in the light of U.S. Congress having plenary power over its territories (Territorial Government, licensed banks, the Federal Reserved banks, trust companies, clearing houses, financial institutions, investment companies, etc.). Why sales licenses or vendor's licenses are pretty much mandatory in many situations should become obvious with a bit of meditation on the facts.

It might also be worth noting:

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Related: Shared Authority: Courts and Legislatures in Legal Theory (Law and Practical Reason) (Amazon.com link) [That is a newer book though my views are derived primarily from pre-1900s texts.]

[freeman beam]

See the green seal on the right of the note? "The Department of the Treasury 1789"

I made a rubber stamp which I use across the Treasury seal on the right side "Redeemed for Lawful Money as per 12USC411". It is now, permanently a USN. Nobody takes notice.

[BLBereans]

Eminent Domain:

"... The property of subjects is under the eminent domain of the state, so that the state or he who acts for it may use and even alienate and destroy such property, not only in the case of extreme necessity, in which even private persons have a right over the property of others, but for ends of public utility, to which ends those who founded civil society must be supposed to have intended that private ends should give way. But it is to be added that when this is done the state is bound to make good the loss to those who lose their property."

"When it came time to draft the United States Constitution, differing views on eminent domain were voiced. Thomas Jefferson favored eliminating all remnants of feudalism, and pushed for allodial ownership."

Extreme necessity warrants right over property, however, that phrase must be specifically defined as a real and existential threat of harm or death against a man, woman or child.

Any other "seizure" of property falls under 'war powers' over a conquered nation whereby the end of hostilities or peace has not been officially declared. The continuance of "Presidential Executive Orders" is evidence that the "emergency" or war has not yet ended; said war beginning during the "Lincoln Administration".

[allodial]

Any other "seizure" of property falls under 'war powers' over a conquered nation whereby the end of hostilities or peace has not been officially declared. The continuance of "Presidential Executive Orders" is evidence that the "emergency" or war has not yet ended; said war beginning during the "Lincoln Administration".

I had also in mind to put out there the idea of HJR 192 affecting the Lieber Code or being as an addenda or modifications on the conduct of the soldier in the field.

[pumpkin]

Just wanted to say this about eminent domain. The people are entitled to a trial by jury concerning their property and the states ability to take it. I have read the code of my state concerning eminent domain and it conflicts with the rules of court, and by state law, are therefore without force or effect (this is part of Indiana code itself, the rules of court control the courts, not the legislature). These preceedings are in equity, as it would take equity, not law to force the sale of a property. Equity jurisdiction is pathetically weak. The code on eminent domain even specifically employs the use of 'an appearance notice' (same as a traffic ticket). Appearance tickets DO NOT ESTABLISH IN PERSONAM JURISDICITON. That is only accomplished (per the rules of court) by a summons. The code also narrows the allowable pleadings (just as a traffic ticket does) against the rules of court, which I have already stated, is by code, therefore without force or effect.

[allodial]

Pumpkin:

It might be important to consider the distinction of being lost at sea vs. being on land. The typical State ID and Driver Licenses might have one "underwater". The typical traffic court is most likely not a court of criminal court jurisdiction just might be enforcing contracts in Admiralty (maybe even Navy Regulations on land--think: roads as rivers of tar, VINs as vessel numbers). The right to trial by jury and etc. might not apply in a military tribunal to members of the "Land Merchant Marine".

[pumpkin]

"The typical State ID and Driver Licenses might have you "underwater"."

Maybe. But Prima Facie only. I agree, it most certainly must be considered and rebutted. The driver license makes absolutely no difference concerning a traffic ticket (I know this for a fact-- I did rebut those presumptions however).

[BLBereans]

Just wanted to say this about eminent domain. The people are entitled to a trial by jury concerning their property and the states ability to take it. I have read the code of my state concerning eminent domain and it conflicts with the rules of court, and by state law, are therefore without force or effect (this is part of Indiana code itself, the rules of court control the courts, not the legislature). These preceedings are in equity, as it would take equity, not law to force the sale of a property. Equity jurisdiction is pathetically weak. The code on eminent domain even specifically employs the use of 'an appearance notice' (same as a traffic ticket). Appearance tickets DO NOT ESTABLISH IN PERSONAM JURISDICITON. That is only accomplished (per the rules of court) by a summons. The code also narrows the allowable pleadings (just as a traffic ticket does) against the rules of court, which I have already stated, is by code, therefore without force or effect.

People (man) have a right to trial by jury, however, that must be clearly evoked when one chooses to hold court by witness in the public arena.

U.S. Citizens are entitled to Jury Trials whereby the Jurors are instructed as to the "Law" by the Court Administrator (Judge).

Material possession of physical property by people is quite different than legal possession or Title Interest in property. "The State's ability to take property" should be defined as to whether or not one is referring to Legal Title and its conversion value in commerce or physical/material possession and enjoyment.

If the "war" is still extant by virtue of the continuance of Presidential Executive Orders, then Legal Title has already been "taken"; the Jury Trial is a mere formality, an internal administrative event in order to reveal hostiles on conquered land who refuse to cease making claims against "seized" booty.

[pumpkin]

"People (man) have a right to trial by jury, however, that must be clearly evoked when one chooses to hold court by witness in the public arena.

U.S. Citizens are entitled to Jury Trials whereby the Jurors are instructed as to the "Law" by the Court Administrator (Judge)."

I agree. Best to escape jurisdiction if you are the defendant. That is not too difficult if you have not caused an injury. Everyone should know that in nearly every state, the rules of court rule the court. Do not search for any answers in code, if the answer is in the rules of court. You will only get confused.

And if you do go to court, you had better claim to be one of the people (important to reserve all rights). Juries for equitable causes (nearly all causes can be equitable now) are only advisory. If you go to court and want a jury, you have better demand a common law jury. If you're the plaintiff, sue in dollars in lawful money. Not $. Peaceful possession is a very important component concerning property. Anyone who has a better claim should have made the better claim. When they do, ask for title. They won't have it either. Your possession without title wins over non possession without title. This is also an equitable win, as equity will keep that status quo of you having possession.

[allodial]

Rebutting presumptions especially as pertains to status as an accommodation party.

"The typical State ID and Driver Licenses might have you "underwater"."

Maybe. But Prima Facie only. I agree, it most certainly must be considered and rebutted. The driver license makes absolutely no difference concerning a traffic ticket (I know this for a fact-- I did rebut those presumptions however).

The application for the license might be the contract that ties into the State revenue stream. If the Plaintiff's presumptions remain unrebutted, the driver license might make a big difference. "prima facie" as in gives rise to presumptions based on appearances or on extant defendants' or intervenors' exercise of rights or failure to do so. It might help seeing attorneys as 'evidence police'. That said, HJR 192 might be restatement of the evidence of the intent of the original grantors, et. al. under the Declaration of Independence, etc. -- reducing of their Posterity to chattel/peonage wasn't part of the deal. Also AFAIK, it is against the duties of a conservator of the peace to undermine the prosperity of those he serves--kings, sheriffs and attorneys general have the duty to promote and/or to safeguard prosperity of the posterity it is outside their official duties to do otherwise. Laws against treason, embezzlement, etc. seem to echo such notions.

[allodial]

The legal positivists

Before I forget, eminent domain is to knowledge feudal in nature. Aristotelian, atheists oligarchs might have wet dreams over eminent domain. The relation of lawful money to property rights...deep stuff, eh?

Related:
The Evolution of Eminent Domain by Bruce L. Benson;
Standing on the Land (John Joseph, Randy Lee, and Richard Anthony)

P.S. Seems "legal positivists" like to make s.... things up.

[pumpkin]

If the Plaintiff's presumptions remain unrebutted, the driver license might make a big difference.

This is true, but IMO, the presumption is employment by the state, not a 'contract'. The state can tell its employees what they can and cannot do.

Presumptions are a dangerous thing. They can remain hidden and still control a case. It is best to eliminate any and all possible presumptions that could effect the case. 'No contract' is certainly at the top of the list. Not acting in a representative or within a fiduciary capacity is another. I would also add, not being a debtor. Any of those things could mean equity, and that usually doesn't end well.