Lawful money per US Code

[shikamaru]

The SCOTUS has struck down contracts which specified payment in gold.

When was the latest case which did this?
Also when you get a chance, could you provide such a case?

I think you can get around it by styling the contract in ounces of gold with no mention of dollar value. Assuming you are dealing in good faith with reliable parties, there is no reason why anyone else needs to know what your contract says.

I like it .

My opinion is that the tendering of gold and silver coin AT LAW (stated within the contract) is what gives the agreement force and intent.
Remember also that a dollar was originally a specific weight, grain, and purity of silver specie.

[David Merrill]

David, I am pretty sure that you posted something earlier about the $300 million in US Treasury notes that Congress authorized. This is public money, inelastic and backed by gold. FRN's are private money. While they both circulate at par, lawful is backed by value, FRN's are backed by debt; the difference is income tax liability, ie, the interest on the debt. While the fictional reserve banking system (see Mish website http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/ - he clarifies periodically that there are no 'reserves' backing FNR's) can print any amount of money they want, it is not wealth, only a claim on wealth. Since the banksters get the newly printed money first, they use it to buy up real assets (like gold). But the world debt is unpayable, and that ponzi system is about to crash. Rather than devalue gold by 1/20th, the Federal Reserve will just buy gold for about $20,000 per ounce. Presto, the US govt has enough 'cash' to pay off all its debts.
ps to shikamaru: the SCOTUS has struck down contracts which specified payment in gold. I think you can get around it by styling the contract in ounces of gold with no mention of dollar value. Assuming you are dealing in good faith with reliable parties, there is no reason why anyone else needs to know what your contract says.

I think you are talking about HJR-192 and it was repealed in around 1976.

[KnowLaw]

I think you are talking about HJR-192 and it was repealed in around 1976.

While the joint resolution may have been repealed in 1977, the public law (which reflects everything in the resolution) still remains on the books at Public Law 73-10 as Public Policy (otherwise known by such luminaries as Henry Kissinger as "foreign policy," if you can mentally hear him giving voice to these two words). That public policy is the foreign policy that he is often heard to be referring to, and why he's been so interested in it, since it provides for his ill-gotten standard of living.

[David Merrill]

While the joint resolution may have been repealed in 1977, the public law (which reflects everything in the resolution) still remains on the books at Public Law 73-10 as Public Policy (otherwise known by such luminaries as Henry Kissinger as "foreign policy," if you can mentally hear him giving voice to these two words). That public policy is the foreign policy that he is often heard to be referring to, and why he's been so interested in it, since it provides for his ill-gotten standard of living.

That is interesting!

I was thinking more about:

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_PL94-412.jpg

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_PL94-412_stipulation.jpg

[Chex]

HRJ 192 declared void in 1982!!

Congress Reinstates Gold Clauses for contracts!!

I do NOT need your stamp of approval period. (Emphasis added).

Here is some info that you will all enjoy reading:

"The holding of gold remained prohibited until 1973, when Congress repealed the 1934 ban on private ownership of gold (87 Stat. 352 (1973), as amended by 88 Stat. 445 (1974), but did not address the 1933 prohibition of gold clauses.

This omission was remedied in 1982, when the statute was adopted (31 U.S.C.A. 5118(d)(2) (1983), hereinafter "section 5118"). The language provided that obligations covered by gold clauses prior to 1977 are, as before, dischargeable dollar for dollar with United States currency. . . . Gold clauses are enforceable after October 27, 1977, pursuant to section 5118; . . .Therefore, the gold clause contained in the August 28, 1982 contract is enforceable.

The amount of rent owed under the gold clause and the date from which it should accumulate will be determined at trial. THEREFORE, plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED."

The FAY CORPORATION a Washington corporation, Plaintiff v. BAT HOLDINGS 1, INC., also known as Marshall Field & Co., a Delaware corporation; and Frederick & Nelson Seattle, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants. No. C86-542D. United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle, 646 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT 946, 948, 952, 953 (October 23, 1986). And;

"This court concluded that the effect of novation was to revive the original gold clause. Thus rent after August 28, 1982 is to be made pursuant to the original lease terms "in lawful gold coin of the United States of America of the present standard of weight and fineness. . . ."Lease, Article II." FAY CORP. v. BAT HOLDINGS I INC., 651 F. Supp. 307, 308 (W.D. Wash. 1987). And;

"The court found the gold clause in the commercial lease to be enforceable. . . . Congress determined in 1977 that obligations entered into after 1977 would be enforceable. 31 U.S.C. section 5118(d)(2) (1983)." FAY CORP. v. FREDERICK & NELSON SEATTLE, INC., 896 F.2d 1227 (9th Cir. 1990). And;

[shikamaru]

HRJ 192 declared void in 1982!!

Congress Reinstates Gold Clauses for contracts!!

I do NOT need your stamp of approval period. (Emphasis added).

Here is some info that you will all enjoy reading:

"The holding of gold remained prohibited until 1973, when Congress repealed the 1934 ban on private ownership of gold (87 Stat. 352 (1973), as amended by 88 Stat. 445 (1974), but did not address the 1933 prohibition of gold clauses.

This omission was remedied in 1982, when the statute was adopted (31 U.S.C.A. 5118(d)(2) (1983), hereinafter "section 5118"). The language provided that obligations covered by gold clauses prior to 1977 are, as before, dischargeable dollar for dollar with United States currency. . . . Gold clauses are enforceable after October 27, 1977, pursuant to section 5118; . . .Therefore, the gold clause contained in the August 28, 1982 contract is enforceable.

The amount of rent owed under the gold clause and the date from which it should accumulate will be determined at trial. THEREFORE, plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED."

The FAY CORPORATION a Washington corporation, Plaintiff v. BAT HOLDINGS 1, INC., also known as Marshall Field & Co., a Delaware corporation; and Frederick & Nelson Seattle, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants. No. C86-542D. United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle, 646 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT 946, 948, 952, 953 (October 23, 1986). And;

"This court concluded that the effect of novation was to revive the original gold clause. Thus rent after August 28, 1982 is to be made pursuant to the original lease terms "in lawful gold coin of the United States of America of the present standard of weight and fineness. . . ."Lease, Article II." FAY CORP. v. BAT HOLDINGS I INC., 651 F. Supp. 307, 308 (W.D. Wash. 1987). And;

"The court found the gold clause in the commercial lease to be enforceable. . . . Congress determined in 1977 that obligations entered into after 1977 would be enforceable. 31 U.S.C. section 5118(d)(2) (1983)." FAY CORP. v. FREDERICK & NELSON SEATTLE, INC., 896 F.2d 1227 (9th Cir. 1990). And;

HJR-192 was not what was important.

Government's claimed power of confiscating property via eminent domain is what the issue truly is.

Executive orders such as 6102 and the The Gold Reserve Act of 1934 are also of greater importance than HJR-192.

[David Merrill]

HJR-192 was not what was important.

Government's claimed power of confiscating property via eminent domain is what the issue truly is.

Executive orders such as 6102 and the The Gold Reserve Act of 1934 are also of greater importance than HJR-192.

In 1934 according to the Gold Reserve Act the people were initiated into Federal Reserve banking.

They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...

[martin earl]

Well, the fact remains that 300 million dollars worth of gold US minted coins were taken from the citizens in 1933-34, those coins were minted and issued to redeem the US notes used to finance the war of Federal aggression against then republics.

Those notes were redeemed and the coins placed back into circulation, after the war and gold and silver reached par value again. The exact same coins where taken back in 1933 and placed into a public trust.

I believe David has seen most if not all those coins on PUBLIC display in Denver, he can correct me if I am not correct.

The coins are held in trust and US notes were again issued for them and given to those people who turned them in. Those people like the people prior to the "Civil" war expected to be able to redeem said notes for newly minted coins AFTER the emergency of 1933 was over. That happened on a very small scale. The US gold and silver notes were then issued, mostly backed by gold or silver bullion, to save money on the coining process AND to comply with then and current law that limited US notes (backed directly by gold coins) to 300 million dollars in circulation per year.

The FRN WAS redeemable for a time directly into gold or silver coins (newly minted) or for gold or silver bullion. Mostly they were redeemed for US notes, backed by either forms of gold or silver at par value of the bullion.

There are still about 300 million in US notes being accounted for on the monthly treasury report "In circulation". What backs those notes (and our demand for redemption) are the original 300 million in gold coins to into the trust of the Treasury in 33/34, not any bullion, nor gold/silver certificates, nor ANY other property lienable by the US for payment of the national debt/federal reserve. These coins are separate from all other debt or currency issued by anyone! This distinction is important! The US notes issued for them or demanded redeemed via 12 USC 411 are also ddistinct and must be accounted for in some lawful way!

Who controls that trust and those public property coins today is the question and how do we report the fact that we (via our demand) are accessing those funds lawfully?

Clearly the IRS is not the way, there is someone at the treasury who needs notice of our demands, how much is being accessed and who is getting "paid" with said redeemed lawful money.

That is the only way our minority of "redeemed" will ever be recognized for our true lawful standing on the land.

[David Merrill]

This Treasury Vault is located on the SE Corner of the Golden Rectangle.





There is stronger evidence found at the Mason Museum on the NW Corner of that Rectangle regarding Colorado history, the State formation in fact is evolved around the first Governor writing script on the presumption the Union soldiers accepting it for pay and the merchants accepting it for supplies would be able to redeem the notes in gold at the Treasury.

In the wee hours as I enjoy working in the quiet of the witching hour I am reminded of a romance novel, I never even bothered noting the title or author that confirmed everything quite clearly. It was replete with conversations in the Oval Office between soon-to-be Governor GILPIN and President BUCHANAN but of course my presumption in hindsight is that the novel was written by a Mason who did his research at the same library. He apparently stumbled across the same archives and experience and interpretations of the massive information we call reality called upon him to relay his interpretation through that particular venue.

Presuming I am on to something here then, the gold in the video above represents the amount of gold behind the $300,000,000.00 in US notes minus the notes that have been destroyed. So adding up the coins' face value would likely come out somewhere far short of $300M.

Clearly the IRS is not the way, there is someone at the treasury who needs notice of our demands, how much is being accessed and who is getting "paid" with said redeemed lawful money.

Thank you! That is the purpose of serving Jacob Joseph LEW (Secretary) as the US Governor for the IMF. This is definitely worth some discussion how to improve Notice.

I am still pushing the envelope

}
}
}
}
___________________________}______________________ ____

Pragmatism

I present this Gospel of Pragmatism to the landscape of human consciousness with the growing conviction that Pragmatism is the first religious doctrine ever that is not a business plan. Pragmatism is quite the opposite of a business plan, defusing Christianity as a weapon and canceling any precept of guilt, that is to say abolishing any monetizing sin through priestcraft.

The Key

As I was studying a popular course...

[/B]

[Keith Alan]

I thought the 300 million was backed by gold certificates, not coin. Am I mistaken?

[Chex]

You think on the 1040 the first $3K deductible is in lawful money?

[David Merrill]

I thought the 300 million was backed by gold certificates, not coin. Am I mistaken?

You think on the 1040 the first $3K deductible is in lawful money?

That is probably the coin deductible found in this article. I produced this video including the 1984 premise that was at $1000.

If an investigation of bank records discloses an excess of $1000 in deposits in a single year, the IRS may accept this as prima facie evidence that the account holder uses private credit and is therefore a person obligated to make a return of income. Anyone who uses private credit -- e.g., bank accounts, credit cards, mortgages, etc. -- voluntarily plugs himself into the system and obligates himself to file. A taxpayer is allowed to claim a $1000 personal deduction when filing his return. The average taxpayer in the course of a year uses United States coins in vending machines, parking meters, small change, etc., and this public money must be deducted when computing the charge for using private credit.