HJR-192, Gold Redemption and Lawful Money

[psholtz]

Just found this interesting article:

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Mone...gal-tender.pdf

Haven't verified everything in it, but here's a brief synopsis:

* As we know by Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act (now Title 12, Sec 411), Fed notes may only be issued to Fed reserve banks for the purpose of making advances, and for no other reason. Why then, do we all have Fed notes in our pockets? (well, some of us, at any rate). Is the implication that we are all somehow "reserve banks" participating in the Federal reserve?

* The answer is found in (the infamous) HJR-192, wherein it was declared that Federal Reserve notes would now be "legal tender" for all debts, private and public. And so the Fed note found its way into the back pocket of the average American.

* Interesting tidbit: the original Federal Reserve Act (1913) only authorized the Fed banks to be in existence for 20 years. Funny how 1913 + 20 = 1933.

* First interesting tidbit I did not know: HJR-192 was attached to a statute called the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933. This act was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional in BUTLER v. US, 296 US 1 (1936).. the implication being that HJR-192 had been "rescinded" as early as 1936(!)

* Second interesting tidbit I did not know: regardless of the Supreme Court decision, Congress itself re-codified Title 31 (Money and Finance) by way of a statute known as PL 97-258, 96 Stat. 877 in 1982. In that statute the legal tender status of US coins and currencies was re-assigned, at section 5103. This statute also had a lengthy list of laws and statutes which were expressly repealed, including HJR-192(!) So even if the Supreme Court had not rescinded HJR-192 in 1936, by 1982 even Congress itself had rescinded HJR-192(!)

* HJR-192 suspended the common law in regard to payments of contracts in money, and so was a banker's delight b/c it effectuated a suspension of redemption of all the oustanding circulating notes. It also created a "legal" ability to "negotiate" checks and other money denominated securities w/o having to pay out lawful money (i.e., gold and silver coin). Instead, the banks could discharge their fiduciary duty by offering (i.e., "tendering") anything that was legal tender at that time.

* Upon the repeal of HJR-192, all the older common law remedies became available again and the banks could not "legally" evade their fiduciary duty to pay in lawful money. So next time I take a $100 draft (check) into a bank and demand payment, I really can (and should) be getting two ounces of gold (i.e., two U.S. American Eagles, worth $50 each). To the extent that I cannot and do not obtain such payment from the bank, the bank is financially insolvent and, in some manner, is committing fraud.

At one point, the author goes into the difference between "Federal Reserve notes" and "Federal reserve notes" (i.e., capital "R"). I'm not sure that I agree w/ that, but the rest of it seems very interesting.

Some of this may be old hat for the monetary gurus on this forum, but I was unaware of much of this stuff.

I'm in the process of verifying what, and how much, is actually true (famguardian is usually an extremely reliable source).

[Levi Philos]

http://goldismoney.info/forums/t1850...ury-notes.html

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/articl...lic-money.html

Audio File: http://friends-n-family-research.inf...rve_System.mp3

[David Merrill]

Very enlightening. Thanks!

The catch on being paid by check is the Pay to the Order of... instead of Pay to... Effectively you are a reserve bank making an order.

[Shoonra]

Under UCC 3-104 and 3-109, your attempt to draw a distinction between "pay to" and "pay to the order of" is unsupported.

[David Merrill]

Yet no checks ever say Pay to:

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Yet no checks ever say Pay to:

I do not know that for a fact. I recall seeing some "Pay to" checks fairly early on, from the 1950s, before the UCC and its usages were adopted.

Here is a website that includes some 19th century checks, some of which are simply "Pay to" and some (closer to the 20th century) say "Pay to the order of".

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...26as_qdr%3Dall

What is the legal difference? Nothing really, but I think the longer phrase was adopted to avoid the (almost imaginery) construction that one person gets the money but possibly not when he wants but when someone else might want. The longer phrase makes it clear that the named payee gets the money when he wants. In any case, the changeover of usages had nothing to do with the Gold Clause Resolution of 1933.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I do not know that for a fact. I recall seeing some "Pay to" checks fairly early on, from the 1950s, before the UCC and its usages were adopted.

Here is a website that includes some 19th century checks, some of which are simply "Pay to" and some (closer to the 20th century) say "Pay to the order of".

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...26as_qdr%3Dall

What is the legal difference? Nothing really, but I think the longer phrase was adopted to avoid the (almost imaginery) construction that one person gets the money but possibly not when he wants but when someone else might want. The longer phrase makes it clear that the named payee gets the money when he wants. In any case, the changeover of usages had nothing to do with the Gold Clause Resolution of 1933.

You do not know that and you admit that you don't know that Shoonra. The addition of extra verbiage must have some importance - otherwise the demand for lawful money instead of Fed private credit is nonsense.

My point was simply that next paycheck, Psholtz should simply single strikethrough the Order of... redacting out by novation the ordering of private credit to his little home bank. Complimenting with a certified copy of Title 12 U.S.C. §411* should do it. Now Psholtz will leave the bank with lawful money in the form of FRNs - non-endorsed funds. Simply write above his signature;

Redeemed in lawful money pursuant to Title 12 U.S.C. §411


True Name dba NAME ON ACCOUNT

The concept, which you have confirmed in your own research Shoonra, that HJR-192 has somehow been rescinded is in full support that we can draw on those reserves - and not through the private credit of the Fed. The Fed banks were abolished for instance, by charter in 1933 and that is when FDR declared war on the American people for "hoarding" - something you fully support, having said that so few people had gold it was okay for the US to seize it during that emergency. But either way that emergency is over Shoonra:

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...l_PL94-412.jpg
http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...tipulation.jpg

So the US government has all those bonds, FDR's Government bonds awaiting claim. Effectively, FDR's Government bonds instead of Government currency only postponed the subprime mortgage crisis a few decades.

“Recognized Government bonds are as safe as Government currency. They have the same credit back of them. And, therefore, if we can persuade people all through the country, when their salary checks come in, to deposit them in new accounts, which will be held in trust and kept in one of the new forms I have mentioned, we shall have made progress.” The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt; 1933 The Year of Crisis; Random House 1938; page 19. Excerpt from the Address before the Governors’ Conference at the White House. March 6, 1933.

This thread is a very simple confirmation that we may demand lawful money instead of private credit from the Fed. And like you have so kindly pointed out - it is when some fifth grader asks about the coins the whole Run on the gold window will start and end within minutes - crashing the dollar in general. How can quarters buy an ounce of gold at one window for $42.22/ounce and then you get to sell that ounce of gold for about $1K in the identical looking quarters? I have to apologize to a few members here who stayed focused on the coins... It took me a bit of your research Shoonra, to see how logical it is to place the emphasis on the coins - which do not say anything about the Fed on them.


Regards,

David Merrill.


* Phone # of my clerk and Reception # attached.

[PANICPASS]

Originally Posted by psholtz

Just found this interesting article:

* First interesting tidbit I did not know: HJR-192 was attached to a statute called the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933. This act was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional in BUTLER v. US, 296 US 1 (1936).. the implication being that HJR-192 had been "rescinded" as early as 1936(!)

If HJR 192 has been repealed why have they not said it is repealed in the USC ? When a law is repealed it will usually say [REPLEALED] after clicking on the code section you want to read. But there is no such notice for section 5103.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by PANICPASS

If HJR 192 has been repealed why have they not said it is repealed in the USC ? When a law is repealed it will usually say [REPLEALED] after clicking on the code section you want to read. But there is no such notice for section 5103.

These are largely theoretical arguments made by Internet macroeconomics pundits. They are true in some sense of debate but do not hold up to the test - like you have said - Congress ratified HJR-192 and only Congress can repeal it.

Shoonra? Has Congress ever repealed HJR-192? I think Shoonra showed that Congress has actually expressly repealed HJR-192. I believe that the effects of HJR-192 are still in place. I know a guy who is off the grid. It behooves him to use a laundramat. He is trained to hear the difference in jingle of silver quarters and listens for them while doing his laundry in the change machines. Funny how a quarter still buys a gallon of gas if you have a good ear for it...

The question Shoonra likes evading is has Congress ever repealed US notes? I will show you a Legal Tender opinion where Congress says that US notes shall remain in circulation.

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ll_juliard.jpg

And Shoonra admits that there are actual US notes "in circulation" today, just kept within the Treasury because they don't want to wear them out and have to retool the printing presses to replace them - inelastic currency. Yet Bernie, with all his law librarian subscriptions apparently still at his fingertips, will not show me where US notes were taken out of circulation. On January 21, 1971 though, the Treasury stopped putting more US notes into circulation because FRNs work just as well. And that simply means that if you non-endorse private credit, demanding lawful money, you get lawful money = US notes in the form of FRNs.

The moment the US government takes away our remedy, then the US government has stolen all the gold through HJR-192. So remedy is still on the books. In full force and effect. We still have the power to abolish the Fed by applying the remedy in law.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by PANICPASS

If HJR 192 has been repealed why have they not said it is repealed in the USC ? When a law is repealed it will usually say [REPLEALED] after clicking on the code section you want to read. But there is no such notice for section 5103.

31 USC sec 5103 in the current US Code dates only from the enactment of the title as Postive Law in 1982. As regards the official historical notes, that generally causes any earlier history of the provision to drop off the face of the earth. You could find the pre-1982 history of sec 5103 by making some efforts - which I know some people on this forum can't be bothered doing; for example, get an edition of the US Code or its commercial versions from before 1982. The provisions of the Gold Clause Resolution of 1933 ("HJR 192") were repealed in 1977; gold clauses attempted to be introduced into contracts after 1933 are still null and void, but, from the date of the 1977 repeal, any gold clauses that were in place before 1933 are now revived (I think not many of those contracts are still in effect) and new contracts with gold clauses can be made.