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


"Deadrat" <a@xxxxx> wrote in message
news:sFmbj.807$se5.431@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Robert Miller" <xyzstargazzr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:3ad79$476dc798$4b5936ba$31184@xxxxxxxxxx:


"Deadrat" <a@xxxxx> wrote in message
news:Q22bj.84329$YL5.79221@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Robert Miller" <xyzstargazzr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:2b572$476c9f36$97d59627$19773@xxxxxxxxxx:


"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:


<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

This is the (original) 1792 coinage act. It's beyond me what
talismanic power you think it has.

The Congress still has the authority over the regulation of the
Money supply.

True.

The Federal Reserve is not a branch of the Federal Government, it
is a privately owned bank.

The Fed is established by law and operated by Presidential appointees
confirmed by the Senate. It's not a "privately owned bank."

You have not read the Federal Reserve Act have you.

It's authority is defined by the law, not by their board of
govoners.

It is regulated by the Federal Government, but has never been audited
even once.

OK. But part of it's authority comes from delegation to it by law.

True, and Congress can take back that authority any time it decides to
do so.

Just as the Congress did with the First and Second Bank's of the
United States.

<snip>

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.

Whoa! Dial down the paranoia just a tad.

What paranoia. Words have many meanings, common and literal.

And meanings in context. The law has its own language, and it's best
not to confuse its meanings with the "common and literal" meanings.
That's why dictionaries are not a good basis for argument.

The
history of the word money is long and colorful history of words people
have forgotten
the meanings of. For example "Cash" did not mean paper money, but
gold or silver coin. As in "Cold hard cash".

Very interesting. But not particularly relevant, no?

If you can't back up your claims, then you can't. No need to go off
on me for pointing it out.

I'm having a discussion, with you. You can't prove anything you say
or provide any proof that what I said is factually challenged.

Generally, if you make a claim, then you must back it up.

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.

I can understand that a defective promissory note might be considered
the opposite of wealth, in that wealth is a positive economic
"force," and the defective note is a loss and therefore negative
economic force. But money is just the medium of exchange.

So what is being exchanged. Goods and services (property & labor) for
a promise to pay in what? If you accept an I.O.U. for your labor.
You have not been paid. Someone can discharge their debt to you with
an I.O.U. and then you can discharge your debt to someone else.

If the Federal debt is ever paid, there will not be any Federal
Reserve Notes in circulation.

FRNs are not promissory notes. They are not evidence of debt. The US
does issue debt instruments. These are called treasury notes and bills.
But those can be paid off (and we were on track to do that in 2000), and
there would still be FRNs.

So we have a monitary system designed to create more debt, but never
pay it off.

Don't you think you should at least learn to spell monetary?

The interest on the debt is the lion share of the debt. However if
silver & gold coin or titanium and paladium coins were in circulation
there would not be any interest owed to the Federal Reserve Bank.

The public debit is about $9 trillion; the money supply is about $1
trillion.

Money would be in circulation, not borrowed into circulation. A
simple concept with great resistence. Why? Because the Federal
Reserve can not charge interest and make a profit on such a system.

For example the Bonds Lincoln floated to fund the reconstruction have
never been redeemed. They still draw interest. Something like $262
has been paid in interest for every $1 lincoln borrowed. Why would
someone cash them in @ 4% interest they pay face value about every 18
years.

1. Reconstruction didn't get started until after the Civil War ended.
Lincoln was already dead.

2. Lincoln was President. Presidents can't float bonds.

3. Please tell me where Reconstruction Bonds are traded. I don't believe
they've never been redeemed.

4. How do you get $262? Please show your work.

Pay perticular attention to section 5 on the two principal
qualities essential to the validity of a note;

It's an unconditional promise to pay a sum of money. A promissory
note for $20 is nominally worth twenty dollars. A defective
promissory note for $20 is nominally worth negative twenty dollars,
in some sense. The defective note might be considered the opposite
(in accounting terms) of the sum of money represented by the note's
face value. But that doesn't make promissory notes (espeicially
non-defective ones) the opposite of money. They're in different
categories.

Why not? The only thing that gives them value is federal law.

What's the antecedent to "them"? Promissory notes? What does this
comment mean? Money is a medium of payment; promissory notes are debt.
They're different things, not oppposite things. Do you mean that
promissory notes and legal tender are opposites?

And nothing below makes a promissory note the opposite of money.
Unless you have your own definition of opposite. Or money.

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.

Notice "it is required that it be for the payment of money only;"

"Money" does not mean with another promissory note, but in gold or
silver coin.

I'm beginning to understand. You think that FRNs are promissory notes
and not money. But you're wrong. FRNs don't promise redemption in
anything, and by law, they're money. Even if you don't like it.

First they gave us the progressive income tax. (1913) They said it would
never
be more than 1 or 2%. This is called taxation by misrepresentation.

Then (1916) they gave us the Federal Reserve, which is neither Federal nor
has
any reserve.

Then (1934) they stole all of our gold coins and gave us federal reserve
notes
instead and promised to redeem them for lawful money.

Then, they gave us (in 1963) , federal reserve notes with no promise to pay
in
"lawful money".

(1965) they gave us copper sandwiches in place of silver coins. But they
still
looked kind of like silver coins.

In 1977, Russell Munk, Asst General Counsel for the U.S. Treasury, admitted
that federal reserve notes are not dollars.

In 1985, the Ron Paul revolution began with the Gold and Silver Bullion
Coin act.

Ron and his fellow Congressmen gave us back honest money. They created a
gold and silver system to challenge the worthless FRN's and its companion in
crime, progressive taxation administered by our friends at the IRS.

Ron Paul gave us back gold and silver coins-honest money in which actual
wealth could be stored and exchanged. The gold coins said on its face $50.
The silver coin said on its face one dollar.

So some American people here in Nevada began using these gold and silver
coins in business.

But the IRS said no to these folks. If you try to actually use these legal
tender
gold and silver coins in business, we will prosecute you. Because this would
destroy our system of progressive taxation coupled with inflation, which is
the
way that we steal the wealth of the American people. Tax the rich! Well,
everyone is in the rich bracket when a frn is only worth 7 cents.

Gold Bullion Coin Act of 1985
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Gold Bullion Coin Act of 1985, Pub. L. No. 99-185, 99 Stat. 1177 (Dec.
17,
1985), codified at 31 U.S.C. § 5112(a)(7) through (a)(10), 31 U.S.C. §
5112(i),
31 U.S.C. § 5116(a)(3), and amending 31 U.S.C. § 5118(d) and 31 U.S.C. §
5132
(a)(1), has helped the American Gold Eagle to quickly become one of the
world's
leaders in gold bullion coin. Produced from gold mined in the United States,
American Eagles are imprinted with their gold content and legal tender
"face" value.

The act was signed by Ronald Reagan in 1985. One requirement is that all
gold used
in minting the coins would be from "newly mined domestic sources".

So here is the most modern law defining "Dollar's" as lawful money i.e. Gold
and
Silver coins. And they are legal tender in the United States.


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.

Of course not. It just makes your claim of the superiority of
bullion suspect. That's all.

In what way?

Under certain conditions (i.e., civil disorder, but not too much civil
disorder), it's better to have bullion. Otherwise, it's a drag.

It is no more difficult to carry a Gold or Silver Certificate than it is to
carry
a Federal Reserve Note. Except for the banker who must carry a supply of
Silver and Gold coins to back the paper. Else a run on the bank will
ultimately
be the result.

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.

In other words, it may or may not be "safer to put your trust in gold
or silver as a store of value." That's all.

It is much safer when you consider that paper money loses value due to
the over production of paper money. As is currently happening now.

The value of bullion fluctuates as well.

How much has bullion fluctuated in the last 100 years? compared to FRN's.
Gold is more volitle because there is not nearly as much gold and it's price
can easily be manipulated. Try to manipulate the price of silver and you
will
find as the Hunt Brother's did that there are unimaginable stockpiles of
silver around the planet, and mines waitting for the right price to be
opened
up on short notice.

There was a moment when Silver spiked to over $50 an ounce, but that was a
tiny blip and it was the speculators that got burned for the most part.

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.

Great. Is this the same guy who's responsible for "A World Without
Cancer: The Story of Vitamin B17" and "Capitalist Conspiracy"?

I'll pass.

Ignorance is bliss.

Then G. Edward Griffin is in hog heaven.

Robert

Why do you believe you are so knowledgeable on the subject? I'd be
surprised
if you know what is the actual cause of "inflation" if you do know what
causes
it I don't believe you'd prove it here.

Robert


.

Relevant Pages