private currency exchange

[David Merrill]

Recently Mandalisj - Jeffrey Edward brought some things to my attention worth pondering. He made an erroneous assertion about the dollar being valued at $42.2/ounce gold though and I have made some comments based on that error about being able to conduct a private exchange. My comments however have some merit because by all right, the dollar should be valued at $42.2/ounce gold.

That is what I examined yesterday, based by and large on our most useful law librarian's post from a couple weeks back.

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/127657-post45.html

The "official" exchange rate for gold (42 and 2/9 dollars per ounce) is given in 31 USC sec 5117, as revised in 1984; the rate (approx $42.23) was the legal standard as of Oct. 19, 1976, the previous time that provision was revised. The whole section has its origins in 1934 legislation. The section says that the Federal Reserve System will not keep gold, but turn it over to the US Treasury in exchange for this $42.23 per ounce.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...7----000-.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...000-notes.html

We can go back to my Law Club days for the anecdote. A fellow came and lectured, from California and told us that if we ever encountered the Secret Jamaica Rambouillet Accord and tried to reveal its nature, we would certainly be killed. Well that was enough to get it stuck in my craw; I will tell you that for free. I thought it to be the inner workings of the Illuminati the way he described it and any mention of it has caught my attention ever since.

I made mention of the JR Accord recently in another thread I started: http://www.suijuris.net/forum/banks-...olic-cane.html

The Accord came up during Amendments to the Bretton Woods Agreements in early 1976. The curious Bloodline artifact about P.L. 94-564 is the way that without explanation, France and America were allowed to go into secret accord and make such a monumental decision as to take the Treasury's gold, held in trust at $42.2/ounce and put it into the UN's IMF fund, shifting the previously fixed exchange rate of the dollar to the new floating exchange rate based on Special Drawing Rights. SDRs are logically known as "paper gold" and America brags to be their inventer:

http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images.../SeizeGold.jpg

Sadly, this wrinkle in the set value for the US dollar effects US notes as well. So my idea about redeeming lawful money at $42.2/ounce and then exchanging for FRNs at some $900/ounce is bogus, because of the Secret Jamaica Rambouillet Accord. Which when you look at it carefully, is the moment in time when the Federal Reserve and Treasury decided it was safe to completely chattelize human flesh and bone - removing gold as the set standard. No wonder the California fellow's notions of assassination for anyone talking of such false balances.

Who was it around here citing First Lien by the Treasury on anything purchased by private credit of the Federal Reserve? That means anything you have bought with an endorsed paycheck may be taken away - you don't own it!

That is what we are looking at in the notes of §5117 linked.

But there is a lighter side. I found confirmation that the non-endorsed FRNs are indeed US notes in the form of FRNs - just that my notions of a get rich quick private currency exchange are worthless because US dollars, due to the Accord are par value too - not $42.2/ounce gold.

§ 321. General authority of the Secretary

(a) The Secretary of the Treasury shall— (5) prescribe regulations that the Secretary considers best calculated to promote the public convenience and security, and to protect the Government and individuals from fraud and loss, that apply to anyone who may—

(A) receive for the Government, Treasury notes, United States notes, or other Government securities; or

And that remark about US notes is currently, like your right to redeem lawful money = US notes, on the books. So all my assertions about redeeming lawful money and that it is possible, you have entitlement to perfect remedy according to the Federal Reserve Act itself etc. are true and herein confirmed by the U.S. Code.

Oh. And by the way, if you would like to contest the Bloodline's presumption that you are chattel, simply open up that private currency exchange in challenge of the Secret Jamaica Rambouillet Accord. According to an almost forgotten lecturer from California they will resolve the issue with coherent collumated monochromatic 620 nM light from the rooftop across the street (laser sight on the scope of a sniper rifle) as you stand at the counter.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

What about the $50 gold coin?

Thats a troy oz of gold for $50 legal tender set by Congress.

If I offer to pay a troy oz of gold value considered due to the Federal Reserve, they have to give me $50.

So a=b, and b=a...

I can give them $50 for every troy oz of gold value considered due.

The fact seems to be that there are 2 money systems in America, as evidenced by the recent tax case in Las Vegas involving thse coins.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

What about the $50 gold coin?

Thats a troy oz of gold for $50 legal tender set by Congress.

If I offer to pay a troy oz of gold value considered due to the Federal Reserve, they have to give me $50.

So a=b, and b=a...

I can give them $50 for every troy oz of gold value considered due.

The fact seems to be that there are 2 money systems in America, as evidenced by the recent tax case in Las Vegas involving thse coins.

I will give you a link. I keep it in my Favorites:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/

I recall we discussed this matter a little. You implied the 42.2/50 ratio is the same as the troy ounce/ounce ratio. I am retiscent to agree on that alone, but it sounds good to me. Also, the things you are saying ring true to some of the 1984 items mentioned in the video article. There may be some leads to plug in.

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ublicMoney.wmv
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...06869308133588
http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/convincing.html

Here is another source. It may have been around for a while but you can register with FindLaw for free and look up laws and case opinions easily.

http://www.findlaw.com/

So go through the video or whatever leads and use the inherent search engines on the US Code and the like. Pull up All Posts by Shoonra and that linked post for leads.

Give us something to hang our hats on.

Because of the JR Accord, I see no potential for opening up a currency exchange with US notes = lawful money = US dollars and FRNs as only redeemable in the same. Par value of gold and US dollar value are the same since the late Seventies.

Here is an example of a private currency exchange. I see a discrepancy - a known future disparity in price of something, so I buy a bunch today low, and sell them at lower than the future high - making a profit while saving people a few bucks. (attached) So I buy a gob of $35 buss passes as currency last year and sell them to people at a discount when they are about to buy them for $54 this year.




Regards,

David Merrill.

[Levi Philos]

I don't try to define "dollar" - my posts are an attempt to define "money."

My definition: Money is not a thing; money is a method of transferring ownership of things.

Since money is a "method" or a technique; money is actually a communication of ownership of real stuff by proxy.

As such, there is no danger of collapse of "money."

There is an almost certain danger of collapse of faith in "dollar."

I see an entire matrix of methods for transferring ownership of real things.

Methods with little security and few guarantees for transfers of low value.
Methods of high security and good guarantees for transfers of high value.
And a plethora of methods in between.

See the Ripple thread for more clues.

Originally Posted by Keihatsu

Here's how the system might work:

Define a public specification for a Transaction. It would store who, what, when, and where. Not why or how the transaction was determined. The protocol would be openly designed like HTTP or HTML.

With that described, companies would fill various roles:
- transaction coordinators
- transaction reporters
- transaction fulfillment
- wealth depositories
- wealth translators
- wealth lenders
- performance assurers

Performance assurers would probably become household names. When transacting, Trust would be gained by saying: "All my transactions are assured by XY Corp". If you failed to perform, they would perform on your promise (whatever that promise was).

Present a card at a convenience store. The card would identify you. The store would likely accept various performance assurance companies. Yours is one of them. Trust is gained. Performance will be made through your preferred method (eg. gold). If the store does not accept gold, a wealth translator would facilitate the trade. If they do accept gold, your wealth depository would transfer gold to the store's wealth depository. The coordinator follows the process and sends the result of all transactions to the parties' respective transaction reporters.

With the exception of the coordinators, all of the above businesses exist today. Their only change would be to communicate through the public protocol.

There is a cost to all of the above, but the benefit is authority becomes distributed into interchangeable entities. It also allows total freedom of interaction between participants. No entity can gain control and it eliminates central banks and the need for a transactional currency. Maybe most importantly, the system is built with accountability (rather than authority) at its core.

Keihatsu gets it.

Ripple is a decentralized mutual credit system; as such not a complete "money" system - but most certainly a step in the right direction. More here: http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=222321

Levi Philos

[Levi Philos]

I never said it was going to be easy.

I never said it would happen without some chaos.

It will take some serious effort and wetware computer time on the behalf of many people.

There is no natural monopoly of "money" formats, but it does seem logical to me that the people may finally settle on as few as four or five formats.

Hayek nailed it; competition in money systems brings stability.

Levi Philos

[PANICPASS]

Originally Posted by Levi Philos

I never said it was going to be easy.

Hayek nailed it; competition in money systems brings stability.

Levi Philos

Competition in money systems only bring more instability to the feds or the government that issue the money- as we all have seen (raid on liberty dollar) competition only pisses them off- . Government is always going to have the upper hand unless the people abolish the idea of having or needing a government in the first place.

[mandalisj]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

What about the $50 gold coin?

Thats a troy oz of gold for $50 legal tender set by Congress.

If I offer to pay a troy oz of gold value considered due to the Federal Reserve, they have to give me $50.

So a=b, and b=a...

I can give them $50 for every troy oz of gold value considered due.

The fact seems to be that there are 2 money systems in America, as evidenced by the recent tax case in Las Vegas involving thse coins.

very good point! i am glad at least some people on here were able to understand the point i was making ...

if i am wrong about the PAR VALUE (not market value) of a dollar being worth 0.02368422299169631141911127321646 ounces of gold, then why does the treasury issue a 0.9167 gold eagle of 1.0909 ounces with a face value of only $50? (50 / 1.0909 X 0.91670 = ~ $42 & 2/9)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Gold_Eagle

if i am wrong about the PAR VALUE of an ounce of gold being worth $42.2222 in accordance with USC 5117 then why does the Federal Reserve list the value of their gold at $42.2222?

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releas...1207assets.htm


Only gold and silver is money. Dollars are a specific measure of gold and silver. Federal Reserve notes, United States notes, or anything else denominated in dollars are CREDITS OF THE ISSUER DENOMINATED IN MONEY.

I recently found another citation from the United States code related to this issue. Ask yourself what they mean by 'par' value? Does par not mean 'dollar for dollar' or what? If you walk into a bank with a cashier check draw n upon it for $4,222.22 then they owe you VALUE equal to 100 ounces of gold. If you accept Federal Reserve notes than they just successfully ripped you off. If you signed the back of their check then you just testified that whatever they happed to give you was worth 100 ounces of gold. If you don't understand this, then you understand nothing about finance or commerce. Good luck!

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...Cite:+12USC360


TITLE 12--BANKS AND BANKING

CHAPTER 3--FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

SUBCHAPTER IX--POWERS AND DUTIES OF FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS

Sec. 360. Receiving checks and drafts on deposit at par; charges
for collections, exchange, and clearances

Every Federal reserve bank shall receive on deposit at par from
depository institutions or from Federal reserve banks checks and other
items, including negotiable orders of withdrawal and share drafts and
drafts drawn upon any of its depositors, and when remitted by a Federal
reserve bank, checks and other items, including negotiable orders of
withdrawal and share drafts and drafts drawn by any depositor in any
other Federal reserve bank or depository institution upon funds to the
credit of said depositor in said reserve bank or depository institution.
Nothing herein contained shall be construed as prohibiting a depository
institution from charging its actual expense incurred in collecting and
remitting funds, or for exchange sold to its patrons. The Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall, by rule, fix the charges
to be collected by the depository institutions from its patrons whose
checks and other items, including negotiable orders of withdrawal and
share drafts are cleared through the Federal reserve bank and the charge
which may be imposed for the service of the clearing or collection
rendered by the Federal reserve bank.

[mandalisj]

Originally Posted by PANICPASS

Competition in money systems only bring more instability to the feds or the government that issue the money- as we all have seen (raid on liberty dollar) competition only pisses them off- . Government is always going to have the upper hand unless the people abolish the idea of having or needing a government in the first place.

No, the liberty dollar people are going to prison because they tried to pretend that the coins they minted were dollars. If they had just called them something else like 'liberties' or whatever then they would not have broken the law. By calling them dollars they were trying to say that the government (or government incorporated entities) had to accept them at par in payment of debts. Why doesn't Credit Suisse or Johnson Mathey get in trouble for minting gold and silver? (answer: because they do not call them dollars)

[PANICPASS]

mandalisj wrote:

Only gold and silver is money. Dollars are a specific measure of gold and silver. Federal Reserve notes, United States notes, or anything else denominated in dollars are CREDITS OF THE ISSUER DENOMINATED IN MONEY.


Today's U.S. money is expressed in dollars, and not a specific measure of gold or silver. Today's Legal Tender dollars are not money because they cannot PAY a debt. Only money of substance can PAY a debt. Credits are not money, because they cannot PAY a debt. Money is substance--or are you going to change the definition of money too?

§ 5101. Decimal system

United States money is expressed in dollars, dimes or tenths, cents or hundreths,[1] and mills or thousandths. A dime is a tenth of a dollar, a cent is a hundredth of a dollar, and a mill is a thousandth of a dollar.

[Levi Philos]

Originally Posted by mandalisj

No, the liberty dollar people are going to prison because they tried to pretend that the coins they minted were dollars. If they had just called them something else like 'liberties' or whatever then they would not have broken the law. By calling them dollars they were trying to say that the government (or government incorporated entities) had to accept them at par in payment of debts. Why doesn't Credit Suisse or Johnson Mathey get in trouble for minting gold and silver? (answer: because they do not call them dollars)

Has anyone taken out a copyright on the term "dollar?"

Where's the problem?

LP