Who is the holder in due course?

Who is the ‘holder in due course’ of the gold/silver that was confiscated from the people under color of law, duress and coercion in 1933?

http://www.ark-of-salvation.org two_kb_cases.htm#case1

Case #1: K. Biegeleisen vs. Federal Reserve Bank of New York Index # : 97 Civ. 0379)

The question is: Who holds the title to all that gold and silver? There are three possible answers:

1.The citizens of the United States hold the title. The Supreme Court noted, in the nineteenth century (U.S. v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 1882), that the people of the United States are, collectively, the "sovereign" here, with all the rights formerly enjoyed by the King of England by the Treaty of Paris, "People of a state are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative." Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wend. 9, 20 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lansing...)_4_Wend._9,20. If the people own the gold and silver, and it is merely being held in trust for us by the Fed, then there is no problem, and this case can be put to rest.

2. The Federal Reserve Bank holds the title. Note that the Fed is a private, for-profit money-lending institution. If they claim to own this gold and silver, then questions arise. Who sold it to them? How did they pay for it? It was expropriated from the United States, within which the only constitutional legal tender is gold and silver coin (Constitution, Article I section 10). How can one pay for gold and silver with "more" gold and silver? You wind up with the same thing! And if not gold and silver, then with what could it have possibly been purchased? And if it wasn't paid for (and believe me, it wasn't), then how can they "own" it?

3. The "United States" holds the title. It may seem obvious to presume that the gold and silver of the United States is owned by the "United States". Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court declared, in 1945 (Hooven v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652), that there are two "United States" One -the one we are taught of in school- consists of 50 states united by and under the constitution, within which all constitutional law is preserved. If this "United States" owns the gold and silver, then it's the same as saying that the gold and silver are the property of the popular sovereignty, i.e. the citizens of the United States collectively, and there is no problem.

[mnchicago]

And your point is?

Mnchicago, my point is that on the suijuris form, it was said that the lender is always the holder in due course.

Now, as our forefathers ‘lent’ the government their private property - gold - does that not make the people the holder in due course? Or as David, puts it, the people are the heir to the first estate.

[mnchicago]

free_martha:

I was just "tweaking" you.

Who is the ‘holder in due course’ of the gold/silver that
was confiscated from the people under color of law,
duress and coercion in 1933?

You would have hard time convincing anyone, save perhaps
people on this forum, that the transfer of gold was done
under color of law, duress, or coercion.

What's done is done and will never be undone.

The world is not fair, all politics are dirty, and you will
never find any holders in due course for all the gold and
silver that was "given to satisfy loans" against the US.

Think of the mafia. Governments are not any different,
except that the mafia dose have a certain code of ethics.

Cheers!