[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Activism See other Activism Articles Title: Was HJR-192 Repealed ? Was HJR-192 Repealed ? An Analysis of the Facts, by: Kevin Hines "Was HJR-192 repealed?" I can't even count the number of times I've had gullible sovereigns asked me this question. They have blindly believed this patriot mythology without thinking it through. That's the problem: sovereigns who are too lazy to do any research or think through a rumor thoroughly before blindly believing anything they hear or read. Stop watching the NFL games on Sunday and start thinking things through!!! First of all, "HJR-192" is the short name for "House Joint Resolution 192", so let's understand what a "resolution" is. A New Year's resolution applies to you, the one who made it, not to your next door neighbor or anyone else. You're the one who "resolved" to lose weight or quit smoking or exercise more, and your neighbor is not obligated to do what you resolved for yourself. "HJR-192" is strictly a resolution that applies only to the members of Congress (who "resolved" it) and to its subjects. It can be modified at anytime by Congress if they so choose, just as you can modify your New Year's resolution if you so choose. However, modifying a Public Law is a little different matter. The law in this instance, per the actual "Statutes at Large" books, is identified as: "Chap. 48, 48 Stat. 112". I went down to the SMU Law Library, found it, and photo-copied it for myself. It contains the very same wording as "HJR-192"; however, one is a resolution and one is a Public Law. Kevin's Rule #4 - "Always do your own homework. Verify everything. Discern fact from error, truth from lies. Never act based on someone else's claims!!" If I refer to "HJR-192", am I not telling the listener or reader that I am a subject of Congress, and that I am a citizen of the UNITED STATES?? Sorry, but that is the last thing I want to say. I can, however, say that the Federal Government has placed insufficient amounts of lawful money in general circulation, i.e., gold and silver coinage, thus, forcing me to "discharge" my debts with commercial paper, i.e., putting them off to a future point in time, and restricting my obligation as a sovereign to "pay" a debt. I refer to the Federal Government's obligation to me as: "Chap. 48, 48 Stat. 112", not "HJR-192". The Federal Government took away my ability to pay a debt with lawful money, but that doesn't make me a subject of Congress or of the Federal Government, and thus, their resolution does not apply to me. However, their obligation to me under their Public Law does apply to me because there is insufficient lawful money in general circulation to meet the needs of the people, which includes me. When the Federal Government took much of our lawful money out of general circulation in 1933, i.e., gold coins, thus leaving an insufficient amount of lawful money in general circulation to meet the needs of the people, i.e., only silver coins remaining, the Congress was required to give the people a remedy. Public Law: "Chap. 48, 48 Stat. 112" is that remedy. It states that the Federal Government will pay my debts, dollar for dollar. Note: It doesn't say that the government will pay for anything I desire to buy (like a car), only that it will pay my legitimate debts. Most, if not all, of the State Constitutions require the State to pay its debts in gold and silver coin. By taking away a State Government's ability to comply with it's Constitutional mandate of paying its debts in gold and silver coin, the Federal Government involuntarily restricted a State Government's ability to function in a de jure capacity. The de jure States went into suspension after the following four acts were committed: (1) the taking of gold coins out of general circulation in 1933, (2) in 1964, the U. S. Mint ceased minting any more silver coins, (3) in 1968, Silver Certificates could no longer be redeemed for silver, and (4) on August 15, 1971, President Nixon closed the Gold Window, thus stopping the redemption of foreign-held dollars for gold. At that point in time, the U. S. Dollar was backed solely by the full faith and credit of the American people, and the States could no longer function in a de jure capacity while in a state of suspension. The States went into suspension because the Federal Government involuntarily forced the State to pay its officers, judges, employees, etc. with something other than gold and silver coin, which was required by the State Constitution. This "something other than gold and silver coin" was nothing more than "fiat" money, or script, back by nothing but the labor of the people. Thus, Constitutionally, the States could no longer function in a de jure capacity because it no longer had the ability to pay its debts in the form mandated by its Constitution, i.e., contract with the people. Since the Federal Government took away the gold coin money in 1933, thus causing the States to suspend operations by preventing them from honoring their obligation to pay their debts in gold and silver coin, then there had to be a remedy. "Chap 48, 48 Stat. 112" is the remedy, not just for the States, but also for the sovereign men and women who created the States. Until gold and silver coinage is reinstated in sufficient quantities for general circulation, that remedy cannot be repealed. Congress may have repealed some parts of "HJR-192", or even all of it, because "HJR-192" is merely a resolution for Congress and its subjects. However, the true remedy is provided to the people by Public Law: "Chap 48, 48 Stat. 112". Until the State Governments come out of suspension, by the Federal Government's placing sufficient quantities of lawful money into general circulation, your remedy, pursuant to "Chap 48, 48 Stat. 112" cannot be repealed and will continue to be there. The remedy of the subjects/citizens found at "HJR-192" might not be there because their remedy is nothing but a resolution, but the remedy of the sovereign found at Public Law: "Chap 48, 48 Stat. 112" will still be there because a sovereign's remedy is Public Law. If, as many uninformed sovereigns claim, the promise that the Federal Government will pay your debts, dollar for dollar, is no longer valid, then these sovereigns have no basis for claiming their remedy by using the 1099-OID process for the refund of out-of pocket funds expended to pay their debts. Either (1) you believe that the Federal Government repealed your remedy, and therefore, there is no 1099-OID refund process available to you, or (2) you believe the Government has an obligation to pay your debts, dollar for dollar, and therefore, the 1099-OID process for a refund is your remedy and you can use it to recover the funds you expended to take care of your debt obligations. You can't believe your remedy has been repealed, and then try to claim your remedy by asking for a refund using the 1099-OID process. Now that you understand the difference between a resolution and a Public Law (and why your remedy was given to you), you may recall how a well-known "patriot attorney" who specializes in tax matters has worked hard to intentionally mislead sovereign men and women into believing that their remedy has been repealed. HOGWASH!!! He's talking about a subject's remedy by resolution, not a sovereign's remedy by Public Law. Please do your homework and think outside the box before disseminating patriot mythology to others, possibly causing them to stumble by your lack of research and knowledge. If you wish to continue arguing this ridiculous allegation without doing your homework, i.e., refusing to spend the time required in studying the monetary system in detail, please do so privately, not on any public forum, so as not to mislead others with such mythology. Poster Comment: "Chap. 48, 48 Stat. 112" is the remedy for the federal government taking away our ability to "pay" our debts. all debts must, therefore, be "discharged". Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 2.
#1. To: BTP Holdings (#0)
Someone must be holding a contest for the most misinformation in the shortest space, because this article is pure nonsense. By the way, that "48 Stat. 112" is the citation to the original H.J.R. 192 in 1933. So you can post one against the other because they're one and the same. In 1933 it became necessary to stop the use of gold coins in order to protect the Constitutional authority given Congress to "coin money, [and] regulate the value thereof" (Art I sec. 8, cl. 5). At that time there were several forms of Congressional authorized currency - gold coins, gold certificates that could be exchanged for gold coins, silver coins, silver certificates, United States Notes, Federal Reserve Notes, and Federal Reserve Bank Notes (some of these haven't been seen, except by collectors, in many years). But, for no particular reason except it seemed fashionable, 'gold clauses', requiring that obligations be paid in gold coins only, were being used in all sorts of contracts. The gold coin clauses were so widespread that it was considered impossible to have them all paid off on the same day because there were not that many gold coins in circulation. Gold coins acquired an additional, ceremonial, price ... essentially they were purchased at face value PLUS this ceremonial premium just so they could be promptly used to make payments according to the gold clauses. Congress had attempted to set the value of the various currencies evenly - a gold dollar was worth the same as a silver dollar and both the same as a United States Note dollar, etc., but this extra viggorish attached to gold coins because of gold clauses created a severe problems and inequities. The Constitution discourages laws impairing contracts, but if contract terms are held to be "against public policy" those terms on unenforceable, so the Congress held the gold clauses to be against public policy, in House Joint Resolution 192. HJR 192 was repeatedly upheld by the US Supreme Court, the only exceptions were contracts promising payment in a certain weight (not dollar amount) in gold. There was no "remedy" opposed to HJR 192; the Resolution provided that existing and future obligations would be paid "dollar for dollar" with any of the other forms of federal currency. Contrary to the original entry, yes, a Joint Resolution has the effect of law. It goes through all the steps of a bill - both Houses must pass it and then the President signs it. A Joint Resolution is used, more often than a Bill, for appropriations and proposing Constitutional Amendments. But in the 1970s, under Nixon, the terms of HJR 192 were dialed back. By now, however, the original 1933 resolution doesn’t appear in the US Code anymore, having been amended out of existence; section 2 (which referred to gold coins that had lost weight because of abrasion) was repealed and replaced in 1935, and hardly anything remains of section 1 -- contracts were allowed to resume calling for payment in gold (and contracts with gold clauses from before June 1933 were allowed to resume collecting in gold) starting on 28 October 1977, under the Public Moneys Investment Act, Public Law 95-147, 91 Stat 1227, Oct. 28, 1977, 31 USC sec 5118; and the only piece of any of HJR 192 that still survives is its innocuous definition of “obligations” which is now part of 31 USC sec 5118(d), the original prohibition of gold clauses having been amended in 31 USC sec 5103. The fact that propagandists are still harping on a piece of legislation, which repeatedly passed muster with the US Supreme Court, but has hardly existed since 1977, may itself be significant. Under a 1982 Act, gold clauses cannot be enforced against the federal government and the federal government will not make payments in gold, 31 USC sec. 5118(b).
There were no gold "dollars" in circulation. There was, however, a 2-1/2 Dollar gold Indian in circulation in the early 1900s. Silver Dollars were made by weight, with there being a certain amount of silver and the rest an alloy metal, but still to be the weight of "one ounce" of silver. I am somewhat familiar with 31 USC 5118 from studying those parts of the Code. But, due to my illness, their actual contents are somewhat of a hazy memory. I do this thing using what is called an "Assignment of Account" in which it has a part that states "in accordance with HJR 192, at par". So, it obviously has some effect on those assignments. ;)
There are no replies to Comment # 2. End Trace Mode for Comment # 2.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||