The creation and lending of credit.

Jerseee,


I have noticed in a couple of your recent posts that you refer to the unlawful nature of creating and lending credit.& I have been doing some research on that as well.& If you wouldn't mind, could you provide any reference to code that you have about this.


I have a couple of cases to look up in the library tomorrow and then I will post again in regards to what they say.


Thanks,


Sara-Jane

[Jerseee]

Montana,

I found this at a favorite website of mine. They explain it well.


"In the federal courts, it is well settled that a national bank has not power to lend its credit to another by becoming surety, endorser, or guarantor for him". Farmers and Miners Bank v. Bluefield Nat'l Bank 11F 2d 83, 271 U.S. 669

“The exercise of powers not expressly granted to national banks is prohibited”. First Nat. Bank v. Nat. Exchange Bank, 92 U.S. 122, 128; California Bank v. Kennedy, 167 U.S. 362, 367; Concord Bank v. Hawkins, 174 U.S. 364.

"checks, drafts, money orders, and bank notes are not lawful money of the United States". State v. Neilon, 73, Pac. 3211, 43 Ore. 168

Thanks for the quick reply.& I will look these cases up at the library tomorrow as well.


Could you share your favorite site with us?

[Jerseee]

Sure.

http://www.nomoredebt.cc/efgs/

This site explains things very well but, they charge a lot.

I'm not in business with them, I just use some of their explanations from time to time for people here.

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by Jerseee

Montana,

I found this at a favorite website of mine. They explain it well.


"In the federal courts, it is well settled that a national bank has not power to lend its credit to another by becoming surety, endorser, or guarantor for him". Farmers and Miners Bank v. Bluefield Nat'l Bank 11F 2d 83, 271 U.S. 669

“The exercise of powers not expressly granted to national banks is prohibited”. First Nat. Bank v. Nat. Exchange Bank, 92 U.S. 122, 128; California Bank v. Kennedy, 167 U.S. 362, 367; Concord Bank v. Hawkins, 174 U.S. 364.

"checks, drafts, money orders, and bank notes are not lawful money of the United States". State v. Neilon, 73, Pac. 3211, 43 Ore. 168

Big Gold nuggets, folks

[wisper]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

Big Gold nuggets, folks

In the stuff that jersee posted, is the point, *only silver and gold* are legal tender?
The 3rd item in his quote, is contrary to much of what is taught or explained on this site. If HJR 192 says there is no money, only debt instruments, then the inclusion of that third item isn't even fools gold!?

[Libertarian]

In the stuff that jersee posted, is the point, *only silver and gold* are legal tender?
The 3rd item in his quote, is contrary to much of what is taught or explained on this site. If HJR 192 says there is no money, only debt instruments, then the inclusion of that third item isn't even fools gold!?

That third item is a state court (Oregon) case, not a federal case, and looks (from the volume number) to be very old. It was probably written before HR 192. It may have been overruled since then on that basis.