HJR 192 and its legal effect

(...an ongoing discussion.)

Tue 5/18/2010 10:15 PM

Hi Larry,

Thanks for your response.

If it is as you say, then we need to bring Treason charges against every member of Congress, because Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 states: "No State shall...make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts...".

Due to this RESTRICTION on government, the de jure 50 States of the Union lost there ability to pay their debts, salaries, etc., resulting in either its bankruptcy, suspension or whatever, and thus, the creation of "this State" (which has no borders).

All I know it that I can no longer access the Constitutional County Court of Record for the People at the county of Dallas (see Texas Constitution, Art 5, Section 15, 17, et al.) whether due to the State being in bankruptcy, suspension, or whatever.

If you can show me how any of the "50 States of the Perpetual Union" can pay their debts (not discharge them), I would be very interested in your input.

Thanks,

Kevin

Date: Tuesday, May 18, 2010, 4:17 PM

Larry Becraft wrote:

Kevin,

Here is the huge flaw in your reasoning: HJR 192, being a joint resolution, was a law.

It was published as a law in the US Stats: 48 Stat. 112. It does not have 2 aspects: one as a resolution, and another as a law. When it was repealed, it was completely repealed.

You cannot do as you contend: repeal the resolution, but not the law.

Larry

Tue 5/18/2010 5:55 PM

Dear Kevin:

91 Stat 1229 is extremely conclusive.

Also, if there were Title 31 U.S.C. §5103 Frn's in circulation that would be lawful legal tender seeing as how the were deemed to trade at the nominal exchange rate of 50 to 1 US Gold Round.

Our brother in Amarillo, Tom reminded me of that fact which I forgot. Although there are only FRN's in circulation, which is internal business script, and actually is the illusion of lawful legal tender, I now believe that HJR 192 is a dead and gone issue.

The fact that unlawful legal tender is offered out and accepted by the residents is what perpetuates the scam.

It is just like your name.

The operators of "this state" offer out to do business with you if you will accept the commercial artificial person AVATAR as your name. 99.99999% do because it all sounds the same. Cool Scam.

Harmon is on point: it is all by agreed private obligations accepting the duties of fiduciary, because as he says, no one goes to prison for a contract violation. And all law moves by contract, but a fiduciary can be a penal violator. And ´penal´ is civil keeping in conformance with F.R.C.P., Rule 2, and State ex rel. McNamee v. Stobie and it just does not get any simpler than that.

The FRN money, or credits on account, is simply an offer and acceptance thing now. If you want to stay in the communitarian welfare benefit trust called this state and use FRN's then you can. It is voluntary.

If you want to loan the bank the promissory and allow them to deposit the note as money credits on account and fund the home loan deal with the money you created for free and they get to multiply your deposit 9 times in their bank and give you nada for the profits they are gonna make, and then you want to pledge the house as the collateral to a 30 year Deed of Trust contract obligating you to pay 3 times for the house, then you can.

It is all voluntary.

L -o-

Tue 5/18/2010 2:33 PM

Kevin Hines wrote:

Lewis---

As I read the various emails on this subject [below] I noticed CLEARLY that Congress repealed their JOINT RESOLUTION, but not the Statute at Large, i.e., "Chap 48, 48 Stat. 112".

Congressional resolutions apply only to those who make them, i.e., Congress and their subjects only.

Plese consult my published write-up, "Was HJR-192 Repealed?", that I prepared several years ago on this subject after getting email after email telling me that "HJR-192" had been repealed. Yes, "HJR-192" was repealed, but "Chap. 48, 48 Stat. 112" has NOT been repealed.

They can't repeal it as long as there is _insufficient_ lawful money in circulation for the people to use in their daily lives, and/or until they provide sufficient gold and silver coin to the States to pay its debts, per U.S. Constitution Art 1, Sec 10, Clause 1.

Kevin

Date:

Dear Larry:

First of all thank you.

Finally proof that 48 Stat § 112 and § 113 are both dead and gone.

Now, what does it mean?

Well, my mind is racing with thoughts of how to assert the fact that we have had our republic back in full working order since 1982.

It is just that we have been so confused that we stayed in the United States illusion of reality. Like breeding thoroughbreds with zebras and hoping for more thoroughbreds.

Just because the shadow of a zebra is the illusion of a horse, it ain't a horse. To write that we be confused is understating the completeness of our disorientation.

This lawful money thing is/must be a deal killer to all de facto administrative agencies and services demanding payment in credits on account or FRN's. If the only lawful tender is Federal Reserve Notes, FRN's, and the only stuff in circulation is the illusion of lawful tender called FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES, FRN's, then the de factos cannot collect on a demand for payment.

And, and this is huge -- a payroll check which was obtained by a Texan, from the source in a state, like Texas, on the dirt, and NOT in "this state" by the voluntary equal value exchange of labor for a payroll check representing value by lawful United States Dollar FRN notes manufactured into existence and not borrowed into existence with interest and IRS use taxes due on them like are the FRN's means that once again the private property of a man, his labor, will once again be untaxable.

Now, the question arises that if the National Banking Associations like Bank of America, Chase, Wells Fargo, etc., cannot cash a payroll check into lawful legal tender FRN's, then could the bank be considered insolvent and reportable to the Treasury and the Department of the Treasury... if the bank is out of balance, then it is not in full status and capacity and not abiding by its charter for providing both FRN's for people on the dirt of the state, and FRN's for 'US persons' who are 'residents of this state'.

Even back in 1969 when I worked in a bank, the comptroller told me that a bank is an interesting creature in that it has a commercial public face and a private internal operation actually separate from the commercial side.

I did not understand what he meant until now.

But the banks are now all chartered out of the illusion, the United States, so why would the banks be expected to have real lawful legal tender FRN money available?

In any case we have had back our Republic since the year 1982 and I did not even know it.

Law runs with the money. If you have lawful money trading at par, then you have access to Law.

If the FRN's are issued without interest and use tax, and deemed tradable at par, then there should be access to real law and there should be a way a man can reject the public policy courts of this state and demand law from a Texas Constitution Article 5, Section 15 law court in de jure county of the state. (See Texas Constitution Article 11, Sec 1 for definition of "this state" being a legal subdivision of "the state.")

The emergency is over. Been over!!! We never even recognized it.

Larry, a question... either by presentment of law/legal argument and demand for rebuttal, or in court, how can we now enforce the elimination of tax, debt, and fines and fees collection until 31 U.S.C. § 5103 lawful legal tender is re-introduced at large into society?

Can contracts and private obligations be written specifying that only the lawful legal tender FRN, spelling specific, as specified at 31 U.S.C. § 5103 is acceptable for the retirement of the debt of the contract or private obligation?

L -o-

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Larry Becraft wrote:

Lewis,

What does the below mean to you?

91 STAT. 1229:

(c) The joint resolution entitled "Joint resolution to assure uniform value to the coins and currencies of the United States", approved June 5, 1933 (31 U.S.C. § 463), shall not apply to obligations issued on or after the date of enactment of this section.

That section is posted here: home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/91Stat1229.pdf

Larry

Thu 5/13/2010 2:18 PM

Lewis Mohr wrote:

Dear Larry: I have spent 2 days now analyzing all that I can find about this debauched money issue and I find that the crafty mamzur kenite descendants of Cain as memorialized at Genesis 38 verse 2 have indeed repealed 48 chap 113, but surreptitiously allowed chap 112 to continue into the now present.

See the last page of the above attachment where the list of amendments and repeals are published and you will see the deceptive trade practice that is intended to make us think that 112 was repealed. It was not.

The illusion of money a.k.a., "FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES" and credit on account created by depositing promissory notes, and the settlement of those bank created credits through Department of the Treasury by the Accept for Value money order with draft instructions remains the only valid discharge for all debt claim presentments made to one of us people posterity heirs, "Texans" here in Texas as per 26 C.F.R. § 301.6109-1(g), by any commercial agent spawn of Satan from any agency or service of "the United States" communitarian welfare benefit trust, a.k.a., "The Matrix".

Now you know Dante was wrong about the burning in hell thing. However, when I see this kind of deception coming out of the spawn of Satan in Washington, DC and "The City" of London directed appointed officials, well I wish that I could shove a 1 inch diameter rod of re-bar up the rectum of the scum who write this kind of deception and right out of his mouth and chuck him up onto a rotisserie over the steel making blast furnace of hell and watch the mamzur dehydrate.

Of course we start the process with the mamzur spawn of Satan still being alive.

You know Law is very specific. In these four items (which I got from www.freedom-school.com/ and elsewhere), and for which compilation I did not want to waste time attempting to do a better job, and for the purpose of this email said attachments are just fine, the author makes an incorrect but 'a spawn of Satan intended presumption'.

1. Federal Reserve Notes Not Legal Tender
2. Wells Fargo Note pay to the order of...
3. example note with pay to the order of to the bank without recourse
4. example note with pay to the order of

If 112 ain't there in the repeal list, then it ain't there and we can make no presumption.

What say any of you??

Larry and Kevin, I know that you two know more about this issue than anyone else. And Larry you know that there are a plethora of case opinion establishing that law is exact and that we cannot presume the Congress intended to do any more than what they published in the chapters of the statute.

Are we being deceived again by the spawn of Satan who operate the de facto administrative government called "The Matrix"?

L -o-

Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 10:32:00 -0500

From: Larry Becraft

John,

Often, laws must be read in full and in context in order to properly understand them. The "public policy" you reference that is mentioned in HJR 192 appears to be explained in the first part of HJR 192:

"Whereas the holding of or dealing in gold affect the public interest, and therefore subject to proper regulation and restriction; and

"Whereas the existing emergency has disclosed that provisions of obligations which purport to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency of the United States, or in an amount of money of the United States measured thereby, obstruct the power of the Congress to regulate the value of money of the United States, and are inconsistent with the declared policy of the Congress to maintain at all times the equal power of every dollar, coined or issued by the United States, in the markets and in payment of debts."

Thus the "public policy" you mention is the Congressional desire to "regulate the value of money of the United States" and "to maintain at all times the equal power of every dollar, coined or issued by the United States, in the markets and in payment of debts."

You may read HJR 192 here:  http://educationcenter2000.com/legal/HJR_192_73rdCongress.html
[Ed. Note; Also see below.]

But of course, those are merely empty words of Congress; they are really lies. Congress today exercises its constitutional monetary powers only to provide this country with minor coins like pennies and quarters, which themselves are debased. It coins no "dollars" and allows an interstate monster, the Fed and organized banking, to monopolize credit and force us to use only bank credit as a medium of exchange. That Congressional cabal has erected a "weapon for quiet wars" designed to enslave the American people.

However, people are incorrect to think of HJR 192 in terms of some national bankruptcy. It was just one step, and a big one, in the war of fiat paper against specie carried out by the friends of paper money. That is exactly what HJR 192 was.

Larry

Larry Becraft wrote:

HJR 192 and its legal effect

There is no substantive difference at the federal level between a legislative bill that gets enacted into law and a joint resolution that gets enacted into law. A simple explanation of this fact is published on the Net here:

www.lexisnexis.com/help/CU/Serial_Set/About_Bills.htm

And there are several US Supreme Court cases so holding. Joint resolutions are different from simple resolutions, which are not law. If Congress enacts a joint resolution and the Prez signs it, it is as much of a federal law as a bill that gets enacted into law.

HJR 192, even though it was a joint resolution, was enacted by Congress and signed by the Prez, thus it became a law. As a law, it was published in the US Stats at Large, and the volume and page of the Stats where it was published is 48 Stat. 112, ch. 48. If you want access to the entire Volume 48 of the Stats, go here:

  http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/sal/048_statutes_at_large.pdf

After you download this huge file (which is also word searchable) go to page 112, and look at the “sidebar” on the left of the page and you will see that this is HJR 192. I recognize that some contend that HJR 192 is not a public law, but this contention is simply wrong.

For the last several years, there have been lots of arguments based on HJR 192 that have floated thru the movement, some contending that it constitutes some sort of remedy for us today. But legal history shows otherwise. Shortly after the seizure of gold during the FDR era, several lawsuits were in fact filed and 3 made their way to the Supremes: Norman, Nortz and Perry. See below quote from my money issue brief. In these cases, attacks were made on HJR 192 and other relevant legal documents related to the seizure of gold, but the Supremes essentially gave no remedy to these litigants. I would suggest that interested students read these 3 cases. To contend today that we have some sort of remedy embodied within HJR 192 would require reversing these cases.

Frankly, I am not concerned about HJR 192 because it was effectively repealed via a law Congress adopted in Oct. 1997. See 91 Stat. 1229. In the very last section of this law, it is stated that HJR 192 will not apply to obligations issued after this law becomes effective. This law’s operation has been the subject of several cases that I have posted on my website. See below. For the last 33 years, HJR 192 has been meaningless to Americans and is nothing more than part of the legal history of that extremely important legal topic, money.

I know that what I say here will not be well received by many who have learned wild arguments about HJR 192. The simple fact of the matter is that many gurus have spread crazy arguments about HJR 192 and gullible people have (without investigation or research) swallowed these arguments, “hook, line and sinker”. I just hope that people learn from this experience and will in the future require that gurus promoting certain arguments prove them. Some people approach life with the attitude that "if it sounds good I will do it", and I just hope that other people start demanding that the gurus prove their arguments before convincing innocents to act upon them.

But my act of clarifying this issue regarding HJR 192 should not be construed as indicating that I am supportive of our current monetary system. My undergrad degree was in economics and I fully understand this system. The present credit system we have and use as “money” is anti-constitutional and has been erected to transfer the wealth of the American people to the elite operators of this system. My web site is mostly devoted to the money issue and I have posted lots of substantive and important educational materials there:

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/

I encourage students to read Gouge’s Short History that I scanned and had Devvy post on her website, which is linked from mine.

I believe in specie, not social credit. One problem caused by the operation of this credit system is that the masters of this system pushed out (by hook and crook) real, public money so that, of necessity, we have to use this private credit as a medium of exchange. We need to advocate the principle expressed in Marigold; see quote appearing below.

Larry

PS: A dollar is a silver dollar.

As a direct and proximate result of the far reaching changes made in monetary law in 1933 and 1934, litigation on these points arose.

The 3 major Supreme Court decisions made as a consequence were

Norman v. Baltimore and O. R. Co. , 294 U.S. 240, 55 S.Ct. 407 (1935),

Nortz v. United States, 294 U.S. 317, 55 S.Ct. 428 (1935), and

Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330, 55 S.Ct. 432 (1935).

Norman, supra, dealt with a railroad bond payable in gold coin; Norman sought payment of $38.10 on a bond payable in the amount of $22.50, his basis for asking for more arising from the change made in the statutory gold dollar. Seeing the inherent justice in denying relief to a person seeking more than he was entitled, the Supreme Court in Norman denied the relief sought.

In Nortz, a plaintiff seeking similar relief got similar judgment as Norman. Nortz had $106,300 in gold certificates and was forced to exchange the same for inconvertible currency of the light standard. Based upon a higher market value of gold than legal value of the same, Nortz instituted suit to recover $64,334.07, the alleged difference between the market price of gold and the legal price. The Court denied his request for unjust enrichment.

In Perry, the issue concerned a federal gold bond and the method of its payment in light of the June 5, 1933, Joint Resolution. Although the Court in Perry held the Joint Resolution to be unconstitutional insofar as it applied to federal bonds, it ultimately determined that Perry had neither alleged nor proven any damage in his breach of contract action and was therefore not entitled to any. In this trilogy of cases, all parties were seeking a gain or benefit as a result of the monetary changes caused by the President and Congress.

The Joint Resolution of June 5, 1933, has no significance today because it has been effectively repealed; see 91 Stat. 1229.

For cases explaining the end of HJR 192's application in 1977, and the validity of gold clause contracts today, see

Fay Corp. v. BAT Holdings I, Inc., 646 F. Supp. 946 (W.D.Wash. 1986),
affirmed at Fay Corp. v. Frederick & Nelson Seattle, Inc., 896 F.2d 1227 (9th Cir. 1990),

Wells Fargo Bank v. Bank of America, 32 Cal.App.4th 424, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 521 (1995);

Trostel v. American Life & Casualty Insurance Company, 133 F.3d 679 (8th Cir. 1998);

Nebel, Inc. v. Mid-City National Bank, 329 Ill. App.3d 957, 769 N.E.2d 45 (2002); and

216 Jamaica Ave. v. S & R Playhouse Realty Co., 540 F.3d 433 (6th Cir. 2008).

This is what I call the Marigold principle, based on United States v. Marigold, 50 U.S. (9 How.) 560, 567-68 (1850)

"They appertain rather to the execution of an important trust invested by the Constitution, and to the obligation to fulfill that trust on the part of the government, namely, the trust and the duty of creating and maintaining a uniform and pure metallic standard of value throughout the Union. The power of coining money and of regulating its value was delegated to Congress by the Constitution for the very purpose, as assigned by the framers of that instrument, of creating and preserving the uniformity and purity of such standard of value * * *.

"If the medium which the government was authorized to create and establish could immediately be expelled, and substituted by one it had neither created, estimated, nor authorized, ­­ one possessing no intrinsic value, ­­ then the power conferred by the Constitution would be useless, ­­ wholly fruitless of every end it was designed to accomplish. Whatever functions Congress are, by the Constitution, authorized to perform, they are, when the public good requires it, bound to perform; and on this principle, having emitted a circulating medium, a standard of value indispensable for the purposes of the community, and for the action of the government itself, they are accordingly authorized and bound in duty to prevent its debasement and expulsion, and the destruction of the general confidence and convenience, by the influx and substitution of a spurious coin in lieu of the constitutional currency."

Freedom-School is not affiliated with the links on this page - unless otherwise stated.
This enterprise collectively is known and generally presented as "Freedom-School.com" - "we," "us" or "our" are other expressions of Freedom-School.com used throughout. "You" is in reference to the user / visitor.

This is the fine print that so important. Freedom School and other information served is so for educational purposes only, no liability expressed or assumed for use.
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
Freedom School does not consent to or condone unlawful action.
Freedom School advocates and encourages one and all to adhere to, support and
defend all Law which is particularly applicable.
Information is intended for [those] men and women who are not "US CITIZENS" or "TAXPAYERS" - continued use, reference or citing indicates voluntary and informed compliance. Support is not offered.

Freedom School is a free speech site, non-commercial enterprise and operation as
there is no charge for things presented.
Freedom-School.com site relies on this memorandum and others in support of this philosophy and operation.

The noteworthy failure of [the] government or any alleged agency thereof to at any time rebut anything appearing on this website constitutes a legal admission of the fidelity and accuracy of the materials presented, which are offered in good faith and prepared as such by Freedom School and any and all [third] parties affiliated or otherwise. THIS IS AN ELECTRONIC AGREEMENT AND IS A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT, EQUIVALENT TO A SIGNED, WRITTEN CONTRACT BETWEEN PARTIES - If the government, or anyone else, wants to assert that any of the religious and/or political statements appearing on this website are not factual or otherwise in error, then they as the moving party have the burden of proof, and they must responsively meet that burden of proof under the Administrative Procedures Act 5 U.S.C. § 556(d) and under the due process clauses found in the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to the national Constitution BEFORE there will be response to any summons, questions, or unsubstantiated and slanderous accusations. Attempts at calling presented claims "frivolous" without specifically rebutting the particular claim, or claims, deemed "frivolous" will be in deed be "frivolous" and prima facie evidence that shall be used accordingly. Hey guys, if anything on this site is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification.

Freedom-School.com is not responsible for content of any linked website or material.
In addition, users may not use Freedom-School.com to engage in, facilitate or further unlawful conduct;
use the service in any way, or manner, that harms us or anyone connected with us or whose work is presented;
damage, disable, overburden, or impair the service (or the network(s) connected to the site)
or interfere with anyone's use and enjoyment of the website.

All claims to be settled on the land - Austin, Travis county Texas, united States of America, using Texas Common Law.
All parts of this contract apply to the maximum extent permitted by law. A court may hold that we cannot enforce a part of this contract as written. If this happens, then you and we will replace that part with terms that most closely match the intent of the part that we cannot enforce. The rest of this contract will not change. This is the entire contract between you and us regarding your use of the service. It supersedes any prior contract or statements regarding your use of the Freedom-School.com site. If there exists some manner of thing missing we do not forfeit our right to that thing as
we reserve all rights.
We may assign, or modify, alter, change this contract, in whole or in part, at any time with or without notice to you. You may not assign this contract, or any part of it, to any other person. Any attempt by you to do so is void. You may not transfer to anyone else, either temporarily or permanently, any rights to use the Freedom-School.com site or material contained within.

GOOGLE ANALYTICS: While we do not automatically collect personally identifiable information about you when you visit the Freedom-School.com site, we do collect non-identifying and aggregate information that we use to improve our Web site design and our online presence.
Visitors to this site who have Javascript enabled are tracked using Google Analytics. The type of information that Google Analytics collects about you includes data like: the type of Web browser you are using; the type of operating system you are using; your screen resolution; the version of Flash you may be using; your network location and IP address (this can include geographic data like the country, city and state you are in); your Internet connection speed; the time of your visit to the Freedom-School.com site; the pages you visit on the Freedom-School.com site; the amount of time you spend on each page of the Freedom-School.com site and referring site information. In addition to the reports we receive using Google Analytics data, the data is shared with Google. For more information on Google's privacy policies, visit: www.google.com/privacy_ads.html
Here is Google´s description of how Google Analytics works and how you can disable it: "Google Analytics collects information anonymously, and much like examining footprints in sand, it reports website trends without identifying individual visitors. Analytics uses its own cookie to track visitor interactions. The cookie is used to store information, such as what time the current visit occurred, whether the visitor has been to the site before, and what site referred the visitor to the web page. Google Analytics customers can view a variety of reports about how visitors interact with their website so they can improve their website and how people find it. A different cookie is used for each website, and visitors are not tracked across multiple sites. Analytics requires that all websites that use it must update their privacy policy to include a notice that fully discloses the use of Analytics. To disable this type of cookie, some browsers will indicate when a cookie is being sent and allow you to decline cookies on a case-by-case basis."

Presentation Copyright© 2007, 2010
All Rights Reserved
H O M E