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


"Deadrat" <a@xxxxx> wrote in message
news:TrEbj.34620$Pv2.31830@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Robert Miller" <xyzstargazzr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:18e0c$476ebf36$471f67f9$14161@xxxxxxxxxx:


"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.

You mean Congress' debt is about $9 trillion. the public debt in the form
of credit card and consumer debt is something over $20 trillion dollars.
Then there are the perhaps another $20 trillion dollars in foreign banks
used
primarily for buying and selling oil around the world. The dollar is our
most
important export. It costs us about 4 cents to print $100 FRN and we export
it for $100 worth of oil. But we don't get $100 worth of oil do we? When
we take into account 90 years of inflation we only get about $7 worth of
oil.

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.


So he was already dead. It was his policy and wish to borrow the money. It
really doesn't matter if he was alive or dead when the money was actually
borrowed. The amount of interest paid on those bonds which are still
outstanding is still the same.
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.

I went to a mortgage calculation website $1 @ 4% compounded interest
for 142 years yelds $262

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.

They did promise redemption, but when they print more FRN's than can be
covered by real money. They must change the terms and conditions.

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.

Thanks for your economicopolitical point of view. Now how about
answering my questions and backing up your claims? You can start with
Reconstruction Bonds that supposedly were never redeemed. You can reply
to the evidence I cited from the USC that overrides the 1792 coinage
act. You can tell me in simple terms how a debt instrument and the
means of paying that debt are somehow "opposites."

A debt instrument is proof of debt FRN's are proof of the debt of the
Congress
to the Federal Reserve, a private bank.
Gold and Silver coin are money and are not borrowed into existence. They
are
the opposite of a debt instrument because they were not created from debt.

You can buy bread, milk, and butter with both FRN's and Silver or gold
coins,
but FRN's will lose value over time because of inflation. Silver and gold
coins
will not lose value over time due to inflation


After that, we can get around to the new stuff. You can cite the court
cases in which people were prosecuted for using legal tender in
commercial transactions. Hint: the IRS wouldn't be involved in any
such case. That would be the United States Treasury, probably through
the Secret Service.


I guess you are not as smart as you think you are.

The IRS did try to prosicute some people 5 people with 161 counts agianst
them.
After 4 months in trial the jury returned not one conviction on even one
count.


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.

This is true. Except that under the condition I cited (civil disorder,
but not too much civil disorder), no one you do business with is going
to trust and accept a certificate issued by a non-functioning
government.

The last time that happened people were taking their gold and silver
certificates to the banks, but the government printed more certificates
than they could redeem.

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?

In 1907 god was about $20.66/oz. It's now about $795.25.

When you figure that the dollar is only worth about 4% of it's
purchasing power in 1913 due to inflation that gold would be
worth about $32/oz The same goes for silver. There is about
$14 of silver in the old silver dollars. So one silver dollar can
still buy more than 4 gallons of gas in many parts of the country.


Only when you compare it to FRN's

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 don't. I never claimed to be. *You're* the true believer.

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.

I don't know. *You're* the one who claims to know.

There may be no reason other than the underlying mathematics of the
social forces involved. See my discussion of the power law with the true
believer in the ownership of property being the source of all economic
harm.

Sounds like communist doctrine. Property owners take much better care of
their property and the environment than people with no property ownership
rights.

There'a a lot of data out there. I choose to winnow my sources by
refusing to consider people who push the laetrile cancer-cure scam.

I'm curious what kind of filter you use to winnow you sources. You don't
actually have to read your sources to determine if they are correct or not.
I suspect you judge your sources based on the title or subject as much as
anything else.

I know a woman cured of MS by using sea salt and met a clinical nutritionist
an MD who confirmed that sea salt can cure MS. Of coarse since many MD's
will say it's impossible. It must be impossible.

I am willing to be convinced. But I suspect all you've got is received
knowledge that you haven't bothered to check. Why didn't you find the
USC concerning coinage?

I read it a long time ago, and I've read a great many other papers on the
subject
of silver as money and even silver as the most effective anti-biotics on the
market.




Robert


.