Re: FBI Raids Liberty Dollar - Confiscates All Ron Paul Dollar


"Deadrat" <a@xxxxx> wrote in message
news:8z%aj.32279$JD.19753@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Robert Miller" <xyzstargazzr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:835af$476c7b3b$97d59627$21074@xxxxxxxxxx:


"Deadrat" <a@xxxxx> wrote in message
news:lGHaj.56364$eY.53543@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Robert Miller" <xyzstargazzr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:ae045$476b2d54$97d59627$32516@xxxxxxxxxx:


"Deadrat" <a@xxxxx> wrote in message
news:0fCaj.31074$lD6.7883@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Robert Miller" <xyzstargazzr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:a001c$476aab6d$97d5954b$26973@xxxxxxxxxx:


"Deadrat" <a@xxxxx> wrote in message
news:02laj.32098$JD.14232@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Robert Miller" <xyzstargazzr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:d7801$4769d2a1$97d5954b$19770@xxxxxxxxxx:


"Deadrat" <a@xxxxx> wrote in message
news:sbiaj.33709$Pv2.15968@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Robert Miller" <xyzstargazzr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:5d6b4$476987d9$4b5a1f45$30717@xxxxxxxxxx:


"Deadrat" <a@xxxxx> wrote in message
news:vu44j.28953$Pv2.4307@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Robert Miller" <xyzstargazzr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1a63c$4750c97e$471d0c48$9656@xxxxxxxxxx:

<snip>

ange with which to discharge that debt. Am I missing
something?

A Federal Reserve Note is a promissory note.

A FRN is not a promissory note, since it doesn't say that
you can redeem it for anything. A FRN is legal tender,
which means that creditors must accept it when their debtors
discharge their debts.

So what happened the day the Federal Reserve stopped backing
their Promissory Bank Notes with gold. Did they do as many
banks before them and printed more Notes than they had gold
to back them?

Of course.

Then did
it again when there was not enough silver in the bank vaults
to cover them again?

Of course.

The value of a dollar (i.e., the goods and services you can
exchange for it) relies on the magical power of the pooled
belief in the US government to maintain a orderly society for
commerce. This is not unlike the magical
property that you've attached to silver and gold. But you
can't eat them either.

Gold and especially Silver have many important uses in
manufactureing. For example the silver in you computer keyboard,
or you microwave touch pad. Silver is one of the most important
commodities and used in nearly every manufacturing process.

And so is titanium, but you're not proposing that as a base for
money. The monetary basis for Au and Ag relies on their magical
properties, not on their industrial usefulness.

I don't have a problem with titanium or even paladium. I'm sure
both would do much better than what we currently use. So long as
the metal content is close to the face value.

A dollar is still defined as:
DOLLAR, money. A silver coin of the United States of the
value of one hundred cents, or tenth part of an eagle.
2. It weighs four hundred and twelve and a half grains.
Of one thousand
parts, nine hundred are of pure silver and one hundred of
alloy. Act of January 18, 1837, ss. 8 & 9, 4 Sharsw. Cont. of
Story's L. U. S. 2523, 4; Wright, R. 162.

Your source is Bouvier's Law Dictionary, the 1856 edition. And
it has no applicability.

Just because you don't appreciate it's application does not mean
it is not applicable. The law is the law untill the law is
changed. Right? So when was the legal definition of a dollar
changed? If it has not been changed, it is still the same.

Law dictionaries are not dispositive. Dig up the "Act" of 1837,
check through the law establishing the Federal Reserve, and get
back to me


Did that law say anything about re-defining what a dollar is or is
not?

Probably. I don't know. This is your claim, so the burden of proof
is on you. Law dictionaries are not the law, so you'll have to do
better than that.

So you want me to go off on a wild goose chase and read some
legislation you heard about that may or may not exist. If it does
exist it may or may not add anything of value to this discussion.

I'll tell you what, I'll let you read it, if you can find it. Then
if it has any
bearing on what money is or is not. You can tell me about it. I'll
assume you did not understand it, then I'll look where you tell me I
can find it.

It is *your* claim that a law from 1837 trumps the Federal Reserve system.
Since it's your claim that this law is valid, it's up to you to
substantiate it. That's the way things work. Your evidence is a quote
from a law dictionary. Do you understand why that's not adequate?

Then I'll read it for myself.

There is nothing I can prove to somebody who does not want proof. If
you are not interested in proof, no amount of it will change your
mind.

So give me some proof. Do you have the text of the 1837 law? Does it have
a listing in the United States Code? Has any court decision been based on
it? Does it conflict with modern monetary statutes?

http://landru.i-link-2.net/monques/coinageact.html

The Congress still has the authority over the regulation of the Money
supply.
The Federal Reserve is not a branch of the Federal Government, it is a
privately
owned bank. It's authority is defined by the law, not by their board of
govoners.

Why do you think these questions are inappropriate?

372.25 grains of pure silver

480 grains = 1 troy oz.

480 / 372.25 = .7755

1 Silver $ .7755 oz pure silver

Sept 20 Monex.com Silver @ $13.36 per ounce Spot.
Dec. 19 Monex.com Silver @ $14.12 per ounce Spot.

.7755 oz. = $10.36 in a real silver dollar Sept. 20 2007
.7755 oz = $10.95 in a real silver dollar. Dec. 19, 2007

Notice a trend?

Not from two data points.

You say below that merchants must accept FRNs in exchange
for their goods. They don't. They're free to set whatever
terms they want. If your corner gas station advertises that
they want 10 pounds of potatoes for a gallon of gasoline,
then you'd better have spuds in the trunk when you fill up.

What if they want NORFED's Silver Libertys.

Then you better be lugging around silver if you want to do
business with them.

NOTE OF HAND, contracts. Another name, less technical, for
a promissory note. (q.v.) 2 Bl. Com. 467. Vide Bank note;
Promissory note, Reissuable note.

NORFED's Silver Libertys are money because
they have value even if NORFED is permanately shut down.

I'll repeat here. Money is anything that you can commonly use
as a medium of exchange, i.e., as an intermediary that has no
value other than its exchangeability. Is NORFED's coinage
money? I don't know. I've never tried to use NORFED's coinage
in a commercial transaction.
Legal tender, on the other hand, is a special kind of money,
the
kind that under the law creditors have to accept as payment
from debtors.

Would you say evidence of debt a promissory note and evidence of
wealth (gold & silver coin) are of equal status whenn they are
used as money?

Tell me what you mean by "equal status," and I'll attempt an
answer.

When you have two things that are opposites, it's hard to say they
are the same thing. The fact that you didn't take the bait means
you are not a fool on the issue.

I just didn't understand the bait. A promissory note is evidence of
debt, and money is the medium of exchange that may satisfy a debt.
These two things aren't in opposition; they're different things but
not opposites of each other. What are you getting at here?

This is true in that if I sign a promissory note to you it is evidence
of my debt, and of your wealth. So at the same time I am correct, and
you are correct. Except for the fact you are not intellectually
honest enough to acknowledge that fact.

I've asked you some questions; I've asked you to back up your claims.
I've
been nothing but polite. What does it say about you that you stoop to
insult me?

You play word games, and calling you on them is not an insult anymore than
it's an insult for you to think I didn't under the semantics of your word
game.

If I hold your promissory note, then you're in debt to me. If you can and
will pay your debt, then that is evidence of some wealth on my part.
Neither of these things makes "promissory note" and "money" opposites.

In absolute terms gold and silver are instruments of wealth, and a
promissory
not is an instrument of debt. When the promissory note is defective then it
is
the opposite of money.

Pay perticular attention to section 5 on the two principal qualities
essential to

the validity of a note;



PROMISSORY NOTE, contracts. A written promise to pay a certain
sum of money, at a future time, unconditionally. 7 Watts & S.
264; 2 Humph. R. 143; 10 Wend. 675; Minor, R. 263; 7 Misso. 42;
2 Cowen, 536; 6 N. H. Rep. 364; 7 Vern. 22.
A promissory note differs from a mere acknowledgment of debt,
without any promise to pay, as when the debtor gives his creditor
an I 0 U.
(q.v.) See 2 Yerg. 50; 15 M. & W. 23. But see 2 Humph. 143; 6
Alab. R. 373.
In its form it usually contains a promise to pay, at a time
therein expressed, a sum of money to a certain person therein
named, or to his order, for value received. It is dated and
signed by the maker. It is never under seal.

2. He who makes the promise is called the maker, and he to
whom it is made is the payee. Bayley on Bills, 1; 3 Kent, Com, 46.

3. Although a promissory note, in its original shape, bears no
resemblance to a bill of exchange; yet, when indorsed, it is
exactly similar to one; for then it is an order by the indorser
of the note upon the maker to pay to the indorsee. The indorser
is as it were the drawer; the maker, the acceptor; and the
indorsee, the payee. 4 Burr. 669; 4 T. R. 148; Burr. 1224.

4. Most of the rules applicable to bills of exchange, equally
affect promissory notes. No particular form is requisite to these
instruments; a promise to deliver the money, or to be accountable
for it, or that the payee shall have it, is sufficient. Chit. on
Bills, 53, 54.

5. There are two principal qualities essential to the validity of
a note; first, that it be payable at all events, not dependent on
any contingency; 20 Pick. 132; 22 Pick. 132 nor payable out of any
particular fund. 3 J. J. Marsh. 542; 5 Pike, R. 441; 2 Blackf. 48;
1 Bibb, 503; 1 S. M. 393; 3 J. J. Marsh. 170; 3 Pick. R. 541; 4
Hawks, 102; 5 How. S. C. R. 382.

And, secondly, it is required that it be for the payment of money only;
10 Serg. & Rawle, 94; 4 Watts, R. 400; 11 Verm. R. 268; and not in bank
notes, though it has been held differently in the state of New York. 9
Johns. R. 120; 19 Johns. R. 144.

6. A promissory note payable to order or bearer passes by indorsement,
and although a chose in action, the holder may bring suit on it in his
own name. Although a simple contract, a sufficient consideration is
implied from the nature of the instrument. Vide 5 Com. Dig. 133, n.,
151, 472 Smith on Merc. Law, B. 3, c. 1; 4 B. & Cr. 235 7 D. P. C.
598; 8 D. P. C. 441 1 Car. & Marsh. 16. Vide Bank note; Note; Reissuable
note.





United States Federal Reserve Notes will be worthless the
same day the United States is shut down.

Well, of course. What's your point? You think that the same
day the US is shut down you'll be able to eat Silver Liberties?

I will be able to trade silver coin or bullion for food or
energy unless the government passes a law confiscating all gold
and silver.

The hypothetical here is that it's the day after the US is shut
down. The gov won't be passing any laws on that day.

That's very good. What happens on that day to all the people who
have their life savings evidenced by federal reserve notes in the
bank? It'd be the same as when the Confederacy lost the war and the
people had trunks full of worthless Confederate paper money.

Depending on the situation, you might not be able to rtade bullion
either. But your point is obviously true. So what?

It would be a little
ironic for a government that was formed to protect private
property rights, to
treat the private property of it's citizens as loot.

And your point?

Every government eventually fails, when they forget why they were
formed, and what the duty of a public servant is. To often they
consider themselves the master and the public the servant.

Every government has either failed or hasn't yet failed. Does anyone
dispute that?

When has silver or gold ever failed as a currency? Not since they
were first used in trade have either one been worthless in exchange of
goods or services.

Silver and gold are worthless in commerce under two conditions: 1) there
are no commodities to exchange (e.g., in a famine), and 2) there is so
little social order that exchanges can't be made safely and in good faith.

The fact that someone criminal or government agent would steal the gold or
silver is not proof that it is worthless, but of it's value, and their lack
of respect
for your property rights.

Hence it's safer to put your trust in gold or silver as a store
of value than it is in one government or another not to debase it's
own currency.

Bullion is not a free store of value. You must protect it and assay it.
That said, there are certainly many historical examples in which
governmental legal tender has lost its value while bullion retain its own.

I don't recall anybody making the claim that bullion is a free store of
value.

Governments hate competition! Of the 3 most important
monopolies, Money is the first most important monopoly.

And your point?

I was wondering if you have a point? or if you are pointless.

Even though I asked first, I'll answer you. I'm trying to understand
what you're talking about. You either say things that don't make
sense (FRN = promissory note, debt instruments as the opposite of
money, dictionary definitons of the dollar, etc.) or you say things
that are stone cold obvious (failed governments have worthless
currency, US legal tender is a monopoly).

<shrug>
Maybe it's just me.
</shrug>

I think it's just you. Since these are not complicated issues. With
thousands of years of history to provide examples.

These are extremely complicated issues. You are free to oversimiplify
them
in your own mind. But I'll point to my paragraph above my <shrug>.

If you can convince somebody they can not understand simple economics, then
you have the power to tell them the Emperor wears a beautyful suit of
clothes.
Out of fear of looking foolish they may even go along with you.

Yet anyone can read a very good book that explains the history of modern
economics so that virtually anyone can understand what the Federal Reserve
is
who created it, how they lied to the Congress and the American people, as
well
as their ultimate aims.

The Creature from Jekyll Island, A second look at the Federal Reserve System
by G. Edward Griffin.

Robert



.

Relevant Pages