"US. Silver Certificates" Please take a look at this website.
because it's “we the politicians,
” and “we the judges now!”
Posted on 01/01/2004 5:39:13 PM PST by arete
If the Founding Fathers were able to come back, they would probably tell us that it is time for anther revolution to take our country and government back. Then they would be called terrorists and locked up never to be heard from again.
Richard W.
No, you just have to be a dim.
The 371.25 grains of 1792's dollar is 0.773 troy ounces. Today's silver price is $6 an ounce. So 1792's silver dollar is worth 4.64 Jan 2nd 2004 paper dollars.That valuation of the 1792 silvar dollar doesn't seem reasonable. If anyone can explain why it seems too low, let me know.With at around $416 today, 1900's 0.048375 troy ounce dollar is worth 20.1 Jan 2nd 2004 paper dollars.
Based on original intent Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) are, clearly, unconstitutional. Those who claim FRNs are constitutional based on implied powers must, nonetheless, predicate those implied powers on expressed powers. No such predication appears possible.
The Articles of Confederation and early drafts of the Constitution expressly empowered the central government to coin money, to borrow money, and to emit bills of credit (i.e., issue paper money, ultimately, but not immediately, redeemable in gold or silver). The last of these empowerments was omitted from the final draft. The states, however, were expressly denied the right to emit bills of credit. Here, then, are the only two clauses in the Constitution that potentially could provide the basis for a claim that FRNs are constitutional :
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5: “To coin money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 2: “To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
Clause 5 empowers Congress to coin money and to regulate its value. The Coinage Act of 1792 established the silver dollar standard. It defined a dollar as 412.5 grains of silver, 90% fine (i.e. 371.25 grains of pure silver). That Act has never been repealed or revised. In 1849 a gold dollar was defined and in 1873 and, again, in 1900 gold was statutorily established as the standard based on then existing respective market values of gold and silver and the initial defined standard.
The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 authorized the issuance of FRNs, “redeemable in lawful money.” Clearly, therefore, the statute did not consider FRNs lawful money. According to statute and case law, lawful money is silver, gold, silver certificates, gold certificates, and U.S Treasury demand notes. FRNs were initially redeemable in lawful money, but since 1933, they have expressly not been redeemable in gold or silver by U.S. citizens. Initially, the holder of a $1 FRN could redeem it at the U.S. Treasury for 1/20.67th of an ounce of gold. In 1934, FDR debased the FRN to 1/35th of an ounce; in 1972, the FRN was further debased to 1/38th of an ounce, and, in 1973 it was further debased to 1/42.22th of an ounce. In 1978, the 1973 Act was repealed and for the first time, the primary currency of the United States bore no relationship to the statutorily defined silver dollar of the Coinage Act of 1792.
Case law holds that Congress has no statutory power to declare any currency to be a legal tender if it deprives the recipient of purchasing power relative to statutory standards. In the light of the above-described debasements, then, FRNs cannot even properly serve as a legal tender, let alone lawful money. While FRNs are statutorily declared as “obligations” of the U.S. Government, neither the nature of the obligation nor the means of enforcing that obligation is sufficiently specified. FRNs, then, are not coins, not lawful money, not redeemable in lawful money, and are, statutorily, denied the status of legal tender.
FRNs also cannot be accorded constitutional status based on the power granted to Congress “to borrow money.” The power to borrow is different from the power to emit certificates of indebtedness, which circulate as media of exchange by force of government. The “argument” for constitutionality, then, boils down to: FRNs are constitutional because they are emitted by a structure that Congress has created and which are necessary and proper for that structure to fulfill its function. But is Congress, indeed, constitutionally permitted to create the structure of the FRS for the purposes it fulfills and does the necessary and proper clause supports its issuance of FRNs in that process.
The powers purportedly delegated to the FRS are illegal, first and foremost, because they delegate powers that the Congress does not, itself, have. Even if it had such powers, however, the grant of power is so broad that it constitutes an abdication of a power purportedly “vested” in Congress. While Congress has the rightful power to emit redeemable bills, such bills are a far cry from unredeemable emissions of a private issuer. Vested powers may not just be given away and to the extent that some aspects of the power are delegated they must be sufficiently well defined to allow appropriate monitoring.
The Constitution clearly placed both the power to coin money and the power to borrow money with the Legislative Branch even though such powers had, historically, been Executive powers in English common law. Delegation of these power to an executive agency flies in the face of the framer’s intent. Delegation of these powers to a private party is, clearly, unconstitutional.
"US. Silver Certificates" Please take a look at this website.
This one is an interesting summary that is worth reading.
Here is the tinfoil link. I haven't tracked down the appropriate court case other than seeing it in a few tinfoil webpages yet, though.
Here is another link to a class action lawsuit against the Fed. It will likely go nowhere but its interesting reading nonetheless.
For those who just want to read the Credit River decision, I'm posting it below. If you've seen the SPAM mails from places who say they can "eliminate your debts" -- they are hinging their work on this court case.
Tinfoil or not? You decide. Regardless, there are people hard at work trying to get rid of the Fed in the courts. We shall see whether they succeed or not.
IN THE JUSTICE COURT
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF SCOTT
TOWNSHIP OF CREDIT RIVER
JUSTICE MARTIN V. MAHONEY
First National Bank of Montgomery,
Plaintiff
vs
Jerome Daly,
Defendant
JUDGMENT AND DECREE
The above entitled action came on before the Court and a Jury of 12 on December 7, 1968 at 10:00 am. Plaintiff appeared by its President Lawrence V. Morgan and was represented by its Counsel, R. Mellby. Defendant appeared on his own behalf.
A Jury of Talesmen were called, impaneled and sworn to try the issues in the Case. Lawrence V. Morgan was the only witness called for Plaintiff and Defendant testified as the only witness in his own behalf.
Plaintiff brought this as a Common Law action for the recovery of the possession of Lot 19 Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minn. Plaintiff claimed title to the Real Property in question by foreclosure of a Note and Mortgage Deed dated May 8, 1964 which Plaintiff claimed was in default at the time foreclosure proceedings were started.
Defendant appeared and answered that the Plaintiff created the money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry as the consideration for the Note and Mortgage of May 8, 1964 and alleged failure of the consideration for the Mortgage Deed and alleged that the Sheriff's sale passed no title to plaintiff.
The issues tried to the Jury were whether there was a lawful consideration and whether Defendant had waived his rights to complain about the consideration having paid on the Note for almost 3 years.
Mr. Morgan admitted that all of the money or credit which was used as a consideration was created upon their books, that this was standard banking practice exercised by their bank in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, another private Bank, further that he knew of no United States Statute or Law that gave the Plaintiff the authority to do this. Plaintiff further claimed that Defendant by using the ledger book created credit and by paying on the Note and Mortgage waived any right to complain about the Consideration and that the Defendant was estopped from doing so.
At 12:15 on December 7, 1968 the Jury returned a unanimous verdict for the Defendant.
Now therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the Constitution of United States and the Constitution and the laws of the State of Minnesota not inconsistent therewith ;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
1.That the Plaintiff is not entitled to recover the possession of Lot 19, Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minnesota according to the Plat thereof on file in the Register of Deeds office.
2.That because of failure of a lawful consideration the Note and Mortgage dated May 8, 1964 are null and void.
3.That the Sheriff's sale of the above described premises held on June 26, 1967 is null and void, of no effect.
4.That the Plaintiff has no right title or interest in said premises or lien thereon as is above described.
5.That any provision in the Minnesota Constitution and any Minnesota Statute binding the jurisdiction of this Court is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and to the Bill of Rights of the Minnesota Constitution and is null and void and that this Court has jurisdiction to render complete Justice in this Cause.
The following memorandum and any supplementary memorandum made and filed by this Court in support of this Judgment is hereby made a part hereof by reference.
BY THE COURT
Dated December 9, 1968
Justice MARTIN V. MAHONEY
Credit River Township
Scott County, Minnesota
MEMORANDUM
The issues in this case were simple. There was no material dispute of the facts for the Jury to resolve.
Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of their interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire $14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Ansheuser-Busch Brewing Company v. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318, 46 N.W. 558. The Jury found that there was no consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing.
Even if Defendant could be charged with waiver or estoppel as a matter of Law this is no defense to the Plaintiff. The Law leaves wrongdoers where it finds them. See sections 50, 51 and 52 of Am Jur 2nd "Actions" on page 584 – "no action will lie to recover on a claim based upon, or in any manner depending upon, a fraudulent, illegal, or immoral transaction or contract to which Plaintiff was a party."
Plaintiff's act of creating credit is not authorized by the Constitution and Laws of the United States, is unconstitutional and void, and is not a lawful consideration in the eyes of the Law to support any thing or upon which any lawful right can be built.
Nothing in the Constitution of the United States limits the jurisdiction of this Court, which is one of original Jurisdiction with right of trial by Jury guaranteed. This is a Common Law action. Minnesota cannot limit or impair the power of this Court to render Complete Justice between the parties. Any provisions in the Constitution and laws of Minnesota which attempt to do so is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and void. No question as to the Jurisdiction of this Court was raised by either party at the trial. Both parties were given complete liberty to submit any and all facts to the Jury, at least in so far as they saw fit.
No complaint was made by Plaintiff that Plaintiff did not receive a fair trial. From the admissions made by Mr. Morgan the path of duty was direct and clear for the Jury. Their Verdict could not reasonably been otherwise. Justice was rendered completely and without denial, promptly and without delay, freely and without purchase, conformable to the laws in this Court of December 7, 1968.
BY THE COURT
December 9, 1968
Justice Martin V. Mahoney
Credit River Township
Scott County, Minnesota.
Note: It has never been doubted that a Note given on a Consideration which is prohibited by law is void. It has been determined, independent of Acts of Congress, that sailing under the license of an enemy is illegal. The emission of Bills of Credit upon the books of these private Corporations for the purpose of private gain is not warranted by the Constitution of the United States and is unlawful. See Craig v. Mo. 4 Peters Reports 912. This Court can tread only that path which is marked out by duty. M.V.M.
Screw the politicans and judges. Great graphics BTW.
Richard W.
Richard W.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.