This is where you want to get to in discharge

[jaylon]

Explanation Validity of the Obligation

Title 31 USC 3123 makes a statutory pledge of the United States government to payment of obligations and interest on the public debt.
It says, “the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay interest due or accrued on the public debt” and further delineates a portion of the total public debt which is held by the public, [you and me], as “the net public debt”.
Title 18 Sect. 8 defines ''obligation of the United States'' to include……“ all certificates of indebtedness and national bank currency” not only issued by, but “drawn upon authorized officers of the United States issued under any Act of Congress,” which of course includes the Secretary of the Treasury, and includes the rights established by HJR-192, to the prime-creditors and holders in equity of US Corporate public debt, which provide for their issuance as “Public Policy” in remedy for discharge of equity interest recovery on that portion of the public debt to its Principals, and Sureties bearing the Obligations of THE UNITED STATES, [[ and may very well prove to be "legal tender" once accepted by the United States Treasury.]
It appears this is a statutory remedy for equity interest recovery due the principles and sureties of the United States for the lawful discharge of debts in commerce in conjunction with US obligations to that portion of the public debt to these it is intended to reduce.

[[[ This may sound strange to the Court, but I am sure the Court is aware of more benefit that has been gained, by more people in shorter space of time from other provisions of the United States government stranger than this one.
This is what the law provides on its face and the defense has offered nothing of authority to dispute this understanding.]]]
I would ask the court, does opposing counsel question this as an obligation of the United States?

--reply--

Is the court/ opposing counsel saying substance of gold and silver and real money was not removed as a foundation for our financial system in 1933?

--reply--
Well your honor, Does the court/ opposing counsel question In it s place the “substance of the nation”: their private property and wealth that belongs to them has been hypothecated and placed at risk by the United States government as the collateral security now backing its obligations to US debt, credit and currency for commerce to function?
--reply--
This is well documented from the laws passed by Congress at that time, and if the Court questions this I will be happy to provide that information for its review.

The court knows under the 14th amendment and numerous Supreme Court precedents, as well as in equity, Private property can not be taken or pledged for public use without just compensation, or due process of law . The United States can not pledge or risk the property and wealth of its private citizens, for any government purpose without legally providing them remedy to recover what is due them on their risk.

The Court knows this obligation exists in equity and in law your honor.
I would ask the court, does opposing counsel question its remedy is not codified in statutory law and definition we have cited here? --reply--
The facts are, The entire financial reorganization of the United States continues on from 1933 backed by the private assets and wealth of those persons by whom it is owned, at risk backing the government’s obligations and currency by their implied consent, through the government having provided remedy for recovery of what is due them on their assets and wealth at risk.
Which is exactly what Congress has done in these statutes on the public debt and obligations of the United States. This is what we have asserted and our opponent nor their bank has shown anything to the contrary.
In Title 31 which defines legal tender, Congress does not specifically define “national bank” and “national banking association”, whose notes are there declared ‘legal tender’; it does define these terms to exclude the common legal definitions of a private banker or unincorporated banking institution used in the other sections of its banking code.
And by statutory definition those who constitute an association nationwide of private, unincorporated persons engaged in the business of banking to issue notes against these obligations of the United States due them; whose private property is at risk to collateralize the government’s debt and currency,
by legal definitions, a "national banking association";
such notes, issued against these obligations of the United States to [that part of] the public debt due its Principles and Sureties; such notes are required by law to be accepted as "legal tender" of payment for all debts public and private, and are defined in law as "obligations of the United States" and as “legal tender”.
Again, This is what the law provides on its face your honor and our opponent nor their bank has shown anything to the contrary, and has offered nothing of authority to dispute this understanding.

[[[ Unless the Court is going to presume to know what is or is not legal tender obligation the United States has bound itself or presume to know all the obligations the United States government may have in law or in equity and how it may have made provision to meet those obligations then the Court will not have knowledge to decide the issue, as the opposition has provided none. ]]]