The Four U.S. Dollars, or, The U.S. Dollar’s Relationship to Gold

[allodial]

More/source:

[Brian]

Whatever the dollar was, it is no longer that. As bad as it is the only dollars in general circulation that have any value are these:

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/images/UScoins.jpg

It ain't much but it is something: http://www.coinflation.com/

The only way IMO to walk back what has occurred in the last 100+ years is to force payment in current coin, with the seigniorage being used to extinguish T-bills. However that is very unlikely to happen as that would require discipline that the government does not have. Plus it would be violently opposed by the banks who want to continue issuing their poison coupons aka FRN's.

So it will likely just implode and the whole system will have to be rebooted. So prepare for the later and keep fighting for the former.

[David Merrill]

It seems that in the world it is primarily Americans who value debt.

[shikamaru]

It seems that in the world it is primarily Americans who value debt.

Gold is the currency of kings.
Silver is the currency of gentlemen.
Copper is the currency of peasants.
Debt is the currency of slaves.

[Chex]

Posted by shikamaru Gold is the currency of kings. Silver is the currency of gentlemen. Copper is the currency of peasants. Debt is the currency of slaves.

Posted by David Merrill It seems that in the world it is primarily Americans who value debt.

Why We're Not Returning to a Gold Standard http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-were...gold-standard/

Here's another problem: Any country with investments in the United States could demand its gold at any moment. That's what happened in 1971. For years, the price of gold had been fixed at $35 an ounce. Finally, the British ambassador asked that $3 billion of the United Kingdom's investments be converted into gold. The United States soon went off the gold standard. http://www.slate.com/articles/busine...gold_rush.html

Last Updated Apr 12, 2010 3:46 PM EDT Protected by a 109,000-acre U.S. Army post in Kentucky sits one of the Federal Reserve's most secure assets and its only gold depository: the 73-year-old Fort Knox vault. Its glittering gold bricks, totaling 147.3 million ounces (that's about $168 billion at current prices), are stacked inside massive granite walls topped with a bombproof roof. Or are they? http://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-there-gold-in-fort-knox/

youtube

But Greenspan's Stunning Admission: "Gold Is Currency; No Fiat Currency, Including the Dollar, Can Match It"

[shikamaru]

....

Here's another problem: Any country with investments in the United States could demand its gold at any moment. That's what happened in 1971. For years, the price of gold had been fixed at $35 an ounce. Finally, the British ambassador asked that $3 billion of the United Kingdom's investments be converted into gold. The United States soon went off the gold standard. http://www.slate.com/articles/busine...gold_rush.html

....

Note your usage of the term 'fixed'.

Valuing metals by paper is a slippery game. Expect the board to shift when conditions warrant, whether by greed or exigent circumstances.

[Chex]

Your correct. The statutory price of gold is set by law. It does not fluctuate with the market price of gold and has been constant at $42 2/9, or $42.2222, per fine troy ounce since 1973. The book value of the gold held by the Treasury is determined using the statutory price. Source http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/d...-hold-gold.htm

The underground of any city is fascinating

[American_National]

But Greenspan's Stunning Admission: "Gold Is Currency; No Fiat Currency, Including the Dollar, Can Match It"

Most Interesting . . . It would be really great to obtain a regulatory reference requiring the Federal Reserve system cartel to regard "Gold as Currency", especially in light of the FACT that the board of Governors of the foreign/private Federal Reserve system cartel are required to produce sufficient quantities of their acquired "gold certificates" at times and in amounts the appointed delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury decides are necessary to MAINTAIN the EQUAL PURCHASING POWER of each kind of United States currency . . . Which means that FRN's are considered to be a form of United States currency . . .

Why else would the foreign/private Federal Reserve system cartel be required to redeem their own "gold certificates" to prop-up the purchasing power of various forms of U.S. issued currency notes/coins/securities???!!!???

I believe that the answer is simple: the Federal Reserve system cartel is solely responsible for keeping the purchasing power of their elastic currency "notes" at par with various other forms of U.S. issued currency.

(a) Except to the extent authorized in regulations the Secretary of the Treasury prescribes with the approval of the President, the Secretary may not redeem United States currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) in gold. However, the Secretary shall redeem gold certificates owned by the Federal reserve banks at times and in amounts the Secretary decides are necessary to maintain the equal purchasing power of each kind of United States currency. When redemption in gold is authorized, the redemption may be made only in gold bullion bearing the stamp of a United States mint or assay office in an amount equal at the time of redemption to the currency presented for redemption.

91 Stat. 1229, Enacted Oct. 27, 1977, Public Law 95-147 at subsection (c):

(c) The joint resolution entitled "Joint resolution to assure uniform value to the coins and currencies of the United States," approved June 5, 1933 (P. L. 10 48 Stat. 112; 31 USC 463), shall not apply to obligations issued on or after the date of enactment of this section.

1. If the Federal Reserve Board of Governors are required by international treaty/agreement and/or federal-venue statute to recognize a certain range of weights and fineness of gold as a specie of tangible "Currency", and; and;and;and;

5. The U.S. Mint and Secretary of the Treasury has been ordered by the U.S. Congress to Mint and to issue a range of these (Constitutionally compliant, Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1) described Gold Coins to meet the needs of the United States, and;and;

(1) shall mint and issue coins described in section 5112 of this title in amounts the Secretary decides are necessary to meet the needs of the United States;

(a) The Secretary of the Treasury may mint and issue only the following coins:

(7) A fifty dollar gold coin that is 32.7 millimeters in diameter, weighs 33.931 grams, and contains one troy ounce of fine gold.
(8) A twenty-five dollar gold coin that is 27.0 millimeters in diameter, weighs 16.966 grams, and contains one-half troy ounce of fine gold.
(9) A ten dollar gold coin that is 22.0 millimeters in diameter, weighs 8.483 grams, and contains one-fourth troy ounce of fine gold.
(10) A five dollar gold coin that is 16.5 millimeters in diameter, weighs 3.393 grams, and contains one-tenth troy ounce of fine gold.

(11) A $50 gold coin that is of an appropriate size and thickness, as determined by the Secretary, weighs 1 ounce, and contains 99.99 percent pure gold.

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.

(d)

This paragraph does not apply to an obligation issued after October 27, 1977.

Given each of the above shown regulatory facts, shouldn't we be making our Notice/Demand for the use of Lawful money in each of our transactions very specific like the example shown below - because it appears that we currently have the choice of specie available to us in transacting our checks/drafts at Federal Reserve affiliated member banks?

The front of the check/draft plainly says: Pay to my order"Paper currency, in the form of the Federal reserve note, is defined as an "obligation of the United States" that may be "redeemed in lawful money on demandbut promissory notes supported by the monetary reserves of the United States.


When the words of a statute are unambiguouscourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says thereand judicial inquiry is complete. Connecticut National Bank v. Germain, 503 US 249, L. .Ed 2nd 391 (1992) ]


What are your (and other forum members) thoughts in regard to the above?

[American_National]

In continuing with the above (10000 character limit on replies) . . .

Since the U.S. Congress placed the entire monetary and taxation system under the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) back in 1966, There can be no refusal in affiliated financial institutions transacting such checks/drafts absent an accommodation endorsement. 80 Stat. 1125, Pub. L. 89-719, Nov. 2, 1966 - Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966


PART 2. COLLECTION OF ITEMS: DEPOSITARY AND COLLECTING BANKS

If a customer delivers an item to a depositary bank for collection:

(1) the depositary bank becomes a holder of the item at the time it receives the item for collection if the customer at the time of delivery was a holder of the item, whether or not the customer indorses the item, and, if the bank satisfies the other requirements of Section 3-302, it is a holder in due course; and

(2) the depositary bank warrants to collecting banks, the payor bank or other payor, and the drawer that the amount of the item was paid to the customer or deposited to the customer's account.

As plainly shown above, Section 4-205 of the U.C.C. protects our right to abstain from such inducements without compromising our ability to transact such check/draft mediums of exchange.

Furthermore, U.C.C. Section 3-401 also states that: A signature is defined as something which may be made

a) manually or by means of a device or machine, and

b) by the use of any name, including a trade or assumed name, or by a word, mark, or symbol executed or adopted by a person with present intention to authenticate a writing.

Thus, although in order for an item to be payable it could have a signature, the U.C.C. definition above makes clear that it doesn't just mean a typical handwritten rendition of the payee's name. It's much broader than that.

For example, the words, marks, instructions or symbols that the payee places on the signature line of the check/draft would arguably be deemed to have been adopted by the payee with the present intention to authenticate their writing or instruction.

Whereas, Contract originates as a natural event and first requires a meeting of the minds . . . our decision to contract or not to contract is premised on the nature and consideration of the offer. What is the nature and substance of their "offer"? What benefit/consideration is gained by me, you or anyone in exchange for our becoming an accommodation party to their commercial-paper? Each of us has the unlimited right NOT TO ELECT/ACCEPT to participate in their commercial-paper e/indorsment under the right and law of Contract which is in fact CHOICE!

obtained by duress, coercion, or intimidation is invalid, since the party coerced is not exercising his free will, and the test is not so much the means by which the party is compelled to execute the agreement as the state of mind induced Brown vs. Pierce, 74 U.S. 205, 7 Wall 205, 19 L.Ed. 134

By what delegation of authority does any of these various foreign/private Federal Reserve system cartel-affiliated financial institutions have any right to administrate or interfere with my property by choosing what specie(s) of "lawful money" of value or U.S. issues of statutory authorized forms of "legal tender" currency I must accept in their transacting the check/draft medium of exchange currently placed before them??? . . . and most importantly - how am i, a man made subject to any such delegations of authority absent my consent???!!!???

I find no tangible "value" and/or "store of value" [wealth] acquired by anyone who engages in the acceptance, transfer and use of such "commercial-paper" FRN's that presently have about 4.5-5.5% of the purchasing power required to successfully obtain the U.S. minted/issued Gold (and Silver) Coined dollar-unit counterparts . . . so make your demand for the use of "lawful money" in all transactions known!

Such repudiation/default of my written order combined with compelling my acceptance of their own choices of "legal tender" in such actions of repudiation/default - would be an "instant" theft of value at the time they transacted the instrument as well as an ongoing theft of the "store of value" (wealth) by their failure in properly filling my order as written!

Since the U.S. Congressional re-authorization of "Gold Clause" payable contractual obligations in October, 1977 - Where has federal-venue judges been granted any delegation of authority or right to override the standard of fineness, weight and dollar-unit value in the money of account of the United States that has been fixed/established by the U.S. Congress for such Title 31 U.S.C. 5112(a)(7..10) defined U.S. minted and issued Gold bearing dollar-unit Coins?

The market within this Nation "adjusts" the cost of goods/services to the fixed standard of dollar-unit "value" established by the governing regulatory authority - the standard of dollar-unit "value" does not dynamically change from moment to moment to "chase" the cost of goods/services within a national market . . .

"All experience shows that a currency not redeemable promptly in coin, but dependent on the credit of a promissor whose resources are rapidly diminishing, while his liabilities are increasing, soon sinks to the dead level of worthless paper." Hepburn v. Griswald, U.S. Supreme Court, 8 Wall 634
A promise to pay, with a reserved right to deny or change the effect of the promise, is an absurdity." Murray v. City of Charleston, 96 U.S. 432

Just writing about this ongoing pervasive "theft of value/wealth" commercial-paper charade imposed upon "We, the People" and our posterity (children and grandchildren) living and working within this Nation makes me angry beyond belief . . .

[David Merrill]

Thank you for posting!!

[walter]

It seems that in the world it is primarily Americans who value debt.

And this is the reason why there is no more factory's and manufacturing in the USA any more.
Once the USA joined the UN it moved into selling FRN's to the world as a valuable commodity.
In order to be of value to the rest of the worlds countries it needed to have top purchasing power while being stable. Otherwise why hold them?

When a county is placed in this position and has the highest value currency manufacturing becomes to expensive for other countries to purchase from.
All the free trade deals means to the USA is that the USA banks can sell their currency and set up shop in foreign jurisdictions.
USA has nothing else of value that the rest of the counties can afford with out making it them self or purchasing it from another country cheaper then the USA can make it.

Being the world's leader in selling dollars inc. chocks a society to be the only thing the society has of value to sell. And it is debt based. Go figure.

Eg. Vancouver BC. real estate is going through the roof and forcing many to leave the city because they can't afford to live there any more.
Reason being? The dollar is low and China and American buyers are investing heavy in foreign markets.
When there is a big difference between currency like 20 to 30% (Canada to USA) cross border shopping slows right down from Canadians buying in the US. The majority of the traffic is reversed.
Americans are taking their most valuable possession being FRN's and investing in foreign jurisdictions.
How does that help out the average American? It doesn't. Only the rich.

[American_National]

Thank you for posting!!

Thank you for your reply David. :-)

I'm trying to engage a community "think/input" process related to more rapidly reducing that portion of our Nation's debt that is currently payable to this foreign/private Federal Reserve system cartel...

In following the evidence/fact trail related to my two earlier posts:

1. The Federal Reserve system and their various affiliated member financial institutions function as a foreign and private international banking/credit cartel.

"Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are United States government institutions, they are not government institutions, they are private credit monopolies." Congressional

Record, June 10, 1932, p. 12595

"The Federal Reserve Board, and the Federal Reserve Banks are private Corporations." Congressional Record, Jan. 24, 1934, p. 1293

"Federal reserve banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of a Federal Tort Claims Act, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations in light of

fact that direct supervision and control of each bank is exercised by a board of directors. Federal reserve banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks,

banks are listed neither as "wholly owned" government corporations nor as "mixed ownership" corporations; federal reserve banks receive no appropriated funds from Congress and

the banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own names." Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d. 1239 (1982)

2. Given Chex's earlier post/youtube link [Thanks Chex! :-)] regarding the foreign/private Federal Reserve cartel's public admission by Allen Greenspan, as their currently sitting Chairman (at that time) that: "Gold is Currency; No fiat currencycan match it" . . .

What is a dollar? It's just something artificial we throw out there. What you're doing is you're fooling people into thinking they have purchasing power, when in fact they do
not. Denis Karnofsky, Chief Economic Advisor, St. Louis, St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank (June 10, 1978)

The Federal Reserve cartel Admits that "Gold" bullion is the most concentrated specie of tangible value "currency" to their foreign/private Federal Reserve system international banking/credit cartel.

3. The fact that Gold (and Silver) Coin are Constitutionally compliant (Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1) forms of such [foreign/private Federal Reserve cartel acknowledged/recognized] "currency" of value suitable for the actual payment (extinguishment) of such debts . . . In this Nation, all Constitutionally secured rights and prohibitions stand on their own, and need no further defense!

The term "dollar" means money, since it is the unit of money in this country, and in the absence of qualifying words, it cannot mean promissory notes or bonds or other evidences of debt.
The term also refers to specific coins of the value of one dollar

The Constitutional operating agreement forming the National government decrees that the species of "Gold" and "Silver" bearing Coin are forms of tangible value suitable for paying debts.

4. Various federal-venue courts + territorial tax court rulings have historically demonstrated that all such Gold (and Silver) bearing Coins (including those various U.S. minted/issued Gold (and Silver) bearing coins) that can be effectively connected with the conduct of a federal-venue insurance/benefit program "covered" trade or business activity performed anywhere in the world - are being valued and assessed by these courts at their precious metal "market value" as though they were "foreign Gold/Silver bearing coins", and as such - are subsequently being excise (benefit/privilege) taxed [by the "collections department" agent (d.b.a. IRS) of their foreign/private Federal Reserve cartel/IMF] for interest payments on the Federal debt according to the current international "market value" of their Gold/Silver precious metal content expressed in the unit symbol of "$" instead of the actual "dollar-unit" value established and authorized by the U.S. Congress that has been affixed by impression upon the face of all such U.S. minted and issued Gold (and Silver) bearing dollar unit coins . . .

"Resistance to additional income taxes would be even more widespread if people were aware that . . .100 percent of what is collected [in income tax] is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt . . . .[supra, n. 35] In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government." -

5. Enforcement of contracts containing "Gold clauses" has been reauthorized by the U.S. Congress since October 1977 (see my previous post of: Title 31 U.S.C. 5118(d)(2) - Gold Clauses and consent to sue)

6. In light of the fact that checks/drafts are a "medium of exchange" obligation offered by the maker to the payee that expresses a direction in writing to the bank/financial institution for immediate payment of a sum certain in money (as numerically expressed within a box (4 corners rule) shown on the face of the check/draft in units of "$[ ]", or as written out using long-form underlined words expressed in units of "dollars") of my own choosing, and NOT in any specie of the bank/financial institution's own choosing and financial advantage in transacting it . . . shouldn't we be making a very specific demand for payment of the check/draft to be paid in the highest concentration of tangible value specie of U.S. minted and issued dollar-unit Gold Coin possible, like the one described in federal-venue - which provides 1/4 troy ounce of Gold for every ten U.S. dollar-units of value?

"A promissory note cannot properly be equated with a check, since a note, even when payable on demand and fully secured, is still only a promise to pay, whereas a check is a direction to the bank for immediate payment, [and] is a medium of exchange . . ." Williams vs. Comm.of the Internal Revenue Service 429 US 569, L Ed 2d 48, 97 Supreme Ct. 850 (1977)

By example:

************************************************** **
Payee orders payment specifically made in the specie of lawful money of value
expressed in U.S. minted and issued legal tender Gold bearing Coin in ten dollar-units
ONLY, as currently authorized in Title 31 U.S.C. ; redeemed at par
per ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251, Sec. 16 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, presently

By demand: __________________________________________________ ___, Payee
(transacting absent my accommodation is authorized per U.C.C. 4-205)

************************************************** **

7. Upon all such repudiation/default of the financial institution in paying the check/draft "medium of exchange" instrument according to our written order (like that shown above) - shouldn't we be photocopying such checks/drafts and using them as supporting exhibits in making a demand for immediate set-off and extinguishment of portions of the National Debt that are currently payable to the foreign/private Federal Reserve system cartel, and base the set-off amount on the precious metal "market value" of such repudiated/defaulted on U.S. minted and issued coins now expressed in "$" [because this is what we must now pay the U.S. Mint in FRN's to purchase and acquire such coins] as the basis for our offset/extinguishment? As shown in a previous post - the Federal Reserve system has failed to maintain the purchasing power of their commercial-paper notes, not U.S. - so shouldn't the increased debt offset in "$" reflect their failure?

The Bureau of Public Debt is responsible for borrowing the money needed to operate the Federal Government and accounting for the resulting debt.
see: https://www.treasury.gov/about/organ...Pages/bpd.aspx

[American_National]

Once the USA joined the UN it moved into selling FRN's to the world as a valuable commodity.
In order to be of value to the rest of the worlds countries it needed to have top purchasing power while being stable. Otherwise why hold them?

"Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are United States government institutions, they are not government institutions, they are private credit monopolies." Congressional
Record, June 10, 1932, p. 12595

"The Federal Reserve Board, and the Federal Reserve Banks are private Corporations." Congressional Record, Jan. 24, 1934, p. 1293

"Federal reserve banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of a Federal Tort Claims Act, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations in light of
fact that direct supervision and control of each bank is exercised by a board of directors. Federal reserve banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks,
banks are listed neither as "wholly owned" government corporations nor as "mixed ownership" corporations; federal reserve banks receive no appropriated funds from Congress and
the banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own names." Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d. 1239 (1982)

Rothschild Bank of London, Warburg Bank of Hamburg, Rothschild Bank of Berlin, Lehman Brothers of New York, Lazard Brothers of Paris, Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York,
Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy, Goldman, Sachs of New York, Warburg Bank of Amsterdam, Chase Manhattan Bank of New York.

These same international cartel members are also principal members of the two international commercial arms that were established by the U.N. at the end of WWII for the collection of war debts and loans to developing member nations.

You presently recognize them as "The International Monetary Fund" (IMF) and "The International Board of Reconstruction and Development" (IBRD)... which most developing countries have grown to HATE being involved with!!!

You can see how ineffective their intangible "commercial-paper" debt-note system of credit advances made in exchange for principal and interest payments in tangible-value "Gold bullion" based currency is on a world-wide stage . . .

For a recent example - look at what is presently happening in Europe with their IMF/IBRD backed "Euro" paper currency . . . its purchasing power is gradually diminishing over time as all fiat currencies eventually do . . .

This erosion of purchasing power is one of the many reasons why the people of Great Britain recently voted in favor of beginning the process to "exit" the European Union. . . BREXIT

[David Merrill]

What is the timeline for Britain's involvement with the EU?

As I recall Britain stayed out of it for many years??

[American_National]

They did abstain for many years due to the initially small number of member E.U. "states" . . . There were only five.

Great Britain became a "member state" of the European Union on Jan. 1, 1973.

Ireland and Denmark also joined Britain in becoming the newest members of the community, bringing the total number of "member states" to nine.