Demand for payment in a certain specie

[ttimmons]

I've heard it stated a number of times that demands for payment is unlawful/ or illegal. Is there any truth to my recollection? If so where might I go to research and review that cite? :?:

[sadie]

CLAUSE. JUNE 5, 1933
H.J.192 73rd Cong. 1st Sess.
Return to Home page

Joint resolution to assure uniform value to the coins and currencies of the United States.
Whereas the holding of or dealing in gold affect the public interest, and therefore subject to proper regulation and restriction; and
Whereas the existing emergency has disclosed that provisions of obligations which purport to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency of the United States, or in an amount of money of the United States measured thereby, obstruct the power of the Congress to regulate the value of money of the United States, and are inconsistent with the declared policy of the Congress to maintain at all times the equal power of every dollar, coined or issued by the United States, in the markets and in payment of debts. Now, therefore , be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That (a) every provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount of money of the United States measured thereby, is declared to be against public policy; and no such provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation hereafter incurred. Every obligation, heretofore or hereafter incurred, whether or not any such provisions is contained therein or made with respect thereto, shall be discharged upon payment, dollar for dollar, in any such coin or currency which at the time is legal tender for public and private debts. Any such provision contained in any law authorizing obligations to be issued by or under authority of the United States, is hereby repealed, but the repeal of any such provision shall not invalidate any other provision or authority contained in such law.
(b) As used in the resolution, the term "obligation" means an obligation (including every obligation of and to the United States, excepting currency) payable in money of the United States; and the term "coin or currency" means coin or currency of the United States, including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations. SEC. 2. The last sentence of paragraph (1) of subsection (b) of section 43 of the Act entitled "An Act to relieve the existing national economic emergency by increasing agricultural purchasing power, to raise revenue for extraordinary expenses incurred by reason of such emergency, to provide emergency relief with respect to agricultural indebtedness, to provide for the orderly liquidation of joint-stock land banks, and for other purposes", approved May 12, 1933, is amended to read as follows:
"All coins and currencies of the United States (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations)hereunto and hereafter coined or issued, shall be legal tender for all debts, for public and private, public charges, taxes, duties, and dues, except gold coins, when below the standard weight and limit of tolerance provided by law for the single piece, shall be legal tender only at valuation in proportion to their actual weight." Approved June 55,1933, 4:30 p.m.

[ttimmons]

as I read your post response my attention and eyes were immediately drawn to a laminated copy of HJR 192, 73rd Congress, 1st Session which hangs just two foot from me. It makes sense to me 100%.

Thanks very much for your reply!

[dashboy]

Ask them or the judge, while in court, what money aggregate type (M1, M2, or, M3) was loaned to you and why is your adversary asking for a different type to be repaid!! CASE DISMISSED!!

dashboy~

[logos]

dashboy:
Interesting way of stating it. Have you or anyone you know asked that of a judge or adversary in court? If so, what kind of response was given?

[dashboy]

I have no first hand knowledge of anyone ever asking that in open court but as soon as I have my day in court, I will let you know! I have tried my hardest to play devils advocate with that one and can't seem to come up with an answer, but of course I am not the smartest guy in the world! I was hoping there would be some responses to that post. Still waiting.

"did you or did you not make purchases using that credit card?"

as he/she attempts to "roll" on...

jon

[dashboy]

I can't remember Sir, I have had several credit cards in the past so I would need to see the original purchase reiceipts with my original signature upon them to tell you with all certainty! You do have those don't you since you are claiming I owe you based upon my alleged usage, right? Oh, you don't! Well I guess you have a problem making that frivilous determination then!


Dash~

and the judge then sayeth:

"...the bank has provided a statement of account that shows you owe them $$$. this is satisfactory to me. judgement for plaintiff in the amount of..."

now you are left to appeal and blah blah blah.

while i agree with where you are going dash, this is what i forsee as happening as it nearly happened to me until i declared bankruptcy and stalled it, perhaps permanently...the courts don't really give a crap about all that detail. they (the judges) scan the file and make a determination based upon surface reading, presuming you are guilty all along. it is very difficult to get them to admit you may actually be right. this is my experience so far, though limited. i know i sound negative, and i don't mean to be, however, real cases with real results that we can cite using our "theories" is what we need to win.

jon

im gonna start trying motions for more definite statements. try that