UCC believe it or not

[palani]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Actually, you've been provided with plenty of evidence, but you and MRG have ignored it.

Or another way to look at it - your standards of 'evidence' are inferior to ours.

An aphorism is a short, pithy statement containing a truth of general import; an axiom is a statement of self-evident truth; a theorem is a demonstrable proposition in science or mathematics; an epigram is like an aphorism, but lacking in general import.

EVASION. A subtle device to set aside the truth

Evidence may be considered with reference to, 1. The nature of the evidence. 2. The object of the evidence. 3. The instruments of evidence. 4. The effect of evidence. 1. As to its nature, evidence may be considered with reference to its being 1. Primary evidence. 2. Secondary evidence. 3. Positive. 4. Presumptive. 5. Hearsay. 6. Admissions.

When primary evidence cannot be had, then secondary evidence will be admitted, because then it is the best. But before such evidence can be allowed, it must be clearly made to appear that the superior evidence is not to be had.

I would suggest you and lawdog prefer aphorisms to evidence.

Evidence of an automatic default on the oath might be considered to be presuming to occupy a de jure office in an occupied country.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Actually, you've been provided with plenty of evidence, but you and MRG have ignored it.

That's pretty much the nature of a "sovrun citizun," income tax protester/denier, or any other "true believer" who has drunk the Kool-Aid, isn't it, Shoonra?

Even when you present them with plenty of evidence that someone has conned them into believing things that just are not true, by the time they have reached the "true believer" stage they are so emotionally invested in their beliefs that they will say "all the courts are corrupt," "you're just a shill for the government," "all you lawyers are conspiring to hide the truth from the people," or some other emotional response.

Food for thought for you "sovruns" out there: if you act based on your beliefs, and end up in prison as a result, who is going to be in the cell....you or your alleged "straw man"?

[robhalford88]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

That's pretty much the nature of a "sovrun citizun," income tax protester/denier, or any other "true believer" who has drunk the Kool-Aid, isn't it, Shoonra?

Even when you present them with plenty of evidence that someone has conned them into believing things that just are not true, by the time they have reached the "true believer" stage they are so emotionally invested in their beliefs that they will say "all the courts are corrupt," "you're just a shill for the government," "all you lawyers are conspiring to hide the truth from the people," or some other emotional response.

Food for thought for you "sovruns" out there: if you act based on your beliefs, and end up in prison as a result, who is going to be in the cell....you or your alleged "straw man"?

By all means, keep providing 'evidence' that the world is flat. Not that you have a vested interest, or anything.
Do you?

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by Steel

....this is something I did physically hang in a Courthouse on a public board in the main corridor,
It hung for 3 days.

Getting back to something a bit closer to reality. This purported Memorandum alleges that the United States - meaning, I would suppose, the federal government -- was declared bankrupt by FDR on March 9, 1933 and codified at 12 USC[A] 95a.

Not so, even though this is an article of faith with the Redemption Theory. On that day in 1933, Congress enacted and the President signed a law amending the Trading with the Enemy Act to empower the President, during war or national emergency, to regulate or prohibit the hoarding of gold. The next day FDR did just that by Executive Order 6073, which recognized a national emergency but did not mention bankruptcy.

This provision was upheld decades later in Bauer v. U.S. (9th Cir 1957) 244 F2d 794.

Additionally, the attempt to depict this, or some other act of the Congress and/or President, as officially designating the US as bankrupt was rejected in State v. Casteel (Wis.App 2001) 247 Wis.2d 451, 634 NW2d 338; US v. Getzschman (8th Cir 11/28/03); US v. Wooten (6th Cir 4/29/04) 96 Fed.Appx 385; US v. Dimitt (D.Kan 1/6/92).

By the same token this "Memorandum" claims this bankruptcy "was recognized by the Supreme Court in Erie v. Tompkins". The case cited, Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (April 25, 1938) 304 US 64, 82 L.Ed 1188, 58 S.Ct 817, 114 ALR 1487, does not mention any bankruptcy nor does it reference any decision by the federal government, it deals with the choice of law to be made when a case involving state law is brought into federal court because of diversity of citizenship.

In other words, this "Memorandum" goes seriously wrong in the very first paragraph and it doesn't improve further on. The little "caveat" at the end is a (non-intentional) joke.

[Steel]

Thank you Shoonra for putting forth more than as lawdog would say "kool-aid"

I would like to positively conclude this, no one has ever argued this memorandum with any convincing or final evidence,

Rhetorical question, is if USA is not bankrupt why was our Gold taken and we have a large debt?



"Mr. Speaker, we are now in Chapter 11. Members of Congress are official Trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any bankrupt entity in world history, the United States government..." -- Mr. Trafficant from Ohio, Congressional Record, pg. H1303, March 17th, 1993


is or is not the US in bankruptcy? that is the first conclusion I would like to see us settle.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by Steel

Rhetorical question, is if USA is not bankrupt why was our Gold taken and we have a large debt?

Actually two questions. And I am by no means an economist nor a banker. But, the gold was taken out of circulation primarily because of a number of bad habits then persisting:

One was that foreign governments doing business with the US govt did not then respect US currency enough to accept it as medium of exchange for many large transactions, and they insisted on payment in gold.

The second was the prevelance of "gold clauses" in contracts. At that time it was practically habitual for contracts, especially those involving large businesses, to specify that amounts owed, interest, and the like, would be paid in gold coin. Some went even further and provided that they would be paid according to some formula that would guaranty as least as much gold as a certain amount of gold was worth on such-and-such a date (which pretty much indicates that, even with the gold standard, there was inflation). There was no good reason for such clauses, considering that every other part of the contract could be performed with US paper currency. It was estimated that there was not enough gold in the US to cover all these gold clauses if they were collected on the same day.

The point was that the demand for gold had created a supply and demand situaton where gold was obtaining an unnaturally high prince, simply because it was the medium of payment demanded by those foreign business and the domestic gold clause contracts. Since there wasn't enough gold to go around, people were paying premium prices to get enough gold just to satisfy these gold clauses. This was undermining the value of all other US currency.

It was not really possible to persuade foreign govts and businesses to change, but the demonetization of gold domestically, first with the Gold Clause Repeal Resolution, did a good deal to stabilize the value of US currencies. Then the corresponding purchase of gold in private hands at a fixed rate gave the US government enough gold to deal with foreign governments.

It's worth mentioning how many people were actually affected by this 1933 legislation demonitizing gold: Not many. In the depths of the Depression, gold coin was held by a comparatively few people, probably less than 10% of the population.

As for the national debt, there was a national debt when the US was on the gold standard. It wasn't as big then for a number of reasons, including simply that govt operations were considerably more modest in those days; we weren't sending men to the moon, or to Iraq for that matter.

I have begun reading a very interesting (and complex and thick) book, A History of the Federal Reserve by Allan H. Meltzer (Univ of Chicago, 2003). Very interesting and it shows that FED changed considerably following the 1929 stock market crash.

Bankruptcy does not depend on mere say-so, especially from politicians with an axe to grind. It requires an actual inability to meet liabilities and a court action to obtain a discharge of debt. The US govt is not only not a bankrupt debtor but there is no procedure by which it could be declared one. In re President of the U.S. (Bankr. DDC 3/11/85) 88 Bankr.Rptr 1.

[Steel]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Actually two questions. And I am by no means an economist nor a banker. But, the gold was taken out of circulation primarily because of a number of bad habits then persisting:

One was that foreign governments doing business with the US govt did not then respect US currency enough to accept it as medium of exchange for many large transactions, and they insisted on payment in gold.

The second was the prevelance of "gold clauses" in contracts. At that time it was practically habitual for contracts, especially those involving large businesses, to specify that amounts owed, interest, and the like, would be paid in gold coin. Some went even further and provided that they would be paid according to some formula that would guaranty as least as much gold as a certain amount of gold was worth on such-and-such a date (which pretty much indicates that, even with the gold standard, there was inflation). There was no good reason for such clauses, considering that every other part of the contract could be performed with US paper currency. It was estimated that there was not enough gold in the US to cover all these gold clauses if they were collected on the same day.

The point was that the demand for gold had created a supply and demand situaton where gold was obtaining an unnaturally high prince, simply because it was the medium of payment demanded by those foreign business and the domestic gold clause contracts. Since there wasn't enough gold to go around, people were paying premium prices to get enough gold just to satisfy these gold clauses. This was undermining the value of all other US currency.

It was not really possible to persuade foreign govts and businesses to change, but the demonetization of gold domestically, first with the Gold Clause Repeal Resolution, did a good deal to stabilize the value of US currencies. Then the corresponding purchase of gold in private hands at a fixed rate gave the US government enough gold to deal with foreign governments.

It's worth mentioning how many people were actually affected by this 1933 legislation demonitizing gold: Not many. In the depths of the Depression, gold coin was held by a comparatively few people, probably less than 10% of the population.

As for the national debt, there was a national debt when the US was on the gold standard. It wasn't as big then for a number of reasons, including simply that govt operations were considerably more modest in those days; we weren't sending men to the moon, or to Iraq for that matter.

I have begun reading a very interesting (and complex and thick) book, A History of the Federal Reserve by Allan H. Meltzer (Univ of Chicago, 2003). Very interesting and it shows that FED changed considerably following the 1929 stock market crash.

Bankruptcy does not depend on mere say-so, especially from politicians with an axe to grind. It requires an actual inability to meet liabilities and a court action to obtain a discharge of debt.

Impressive,
Aside from Nazi Germany style how would you venture to guess the US will pay its debt if bankruptcy turns out to be "fake" the Jews are now selling their portion to powers in Dubai, without bankruptcy protection what stops human collateral from being seized?

little brother 192 please help prove/disprove or observe there are people working here.

[Steel]

Thus far Shoonra I am not convinced, you have cited codes etc and I am searching them looking for your evidence, if you can link the documents I will read them,
I do however find more and more for Bankruptcy than anything against it,
Here is a nice read
http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archiv...e/msg00121.htm

[Steel]

This seems to be the sauce of the Bankruptcy speech,
anyone up for searching for the meat?

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/print.php?pid=14485

[Shoonra]

The Presidential Proclamation of a bank holiday does not mention the word "bankrupt", nor do any of the other FDR proclamations, executive orders, or statutes say that the federal govt is or was bankrupt.

That having been said, even the people who are touting the notion that govt was bankrupt cannot explain how a bankrupt condition runs continuously for more than 70 years. In bankruptcy court, once a debtor is discharged in bankruptcy, he cannot obtain another such decree for at least seven years.