NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/misc/legal/21995

Text File | 1993-01-03 | 13.8 KB | 278 lines

Newsgroups: misc.legal
Path: sparky!uunet!caen!mtu.edu!pecampbe
From: [e-mail] (Paul Campbell)
Subject: Re: Sorry, we don't accept cash... Huh? (long)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Michigan Technological University
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 03:24:10 GMT
Lines: 266

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bruce James Robrert Linley) writes:
>But here's one for all you people (no Perot pun intended) teetering on the
>the word tender and saying that money is debt and can be refused, etc, etc, ad
>nauseum: What is the 'lowest common denominator' form of money (btw, only the
>treasury can print MONEY. Everything else is 'scrip' or 'tokens') that everyone

The treasury does NOT print money. They are not even able to coin money.

The treasury is an office of the executive branch. The constitution
specifically gave the CONGRESS the power to COIN money (*not* print paper
money), but gave it no power to delegate this authority.

>can accept and agree on (within the US)? Originally, it was gold and sivler

Yes, everything else was token coinage. This coinage could pay any debt
up to the value of $.25 legally. Of course one could accept more if they
are so brave.

>(in the raw, or made into coins), and notes backed up by gold and silver.

States are required to use gold and silver coinage by the Constitution.
The coinage act of 1792 also requires the United States government to
follow suit. Your "notes" are backed up by NOTHING at all.

>and redeemable for metal on demand (They did say this on the bills up to 1964).
>The silver standard ended in 1964 and the gold std. in the mid 1800s (?)

This is an out right lie. We are STILL on the gold and silver standard.
Congress merely decided that if they owed you a debt, you were either
required to accept worthless paper or you're out of luck. The Coinage
Act of 1792 (and the 1900 amendments) has NEVER been repealed. This country
is *still* based upon a standard of gold and silver, even if some con
artists from the old country (The original 12 members of the board of
the Federal Reserve were all mysteriously European bankers, like the
Rothschilde's) have managed to steal away our valuables.

>Note that 1965 was the first year that coins ($.10, $.25, $.50, $1.00) were
>made out of something other than pure silver- the "sandwich" coins. And

"A sucker is born every minute." -- P.T. Barnum

>this, I believe, is the source of all the bickering on this thread. Neverthe-

No. "The terms 'lawful money' or 'lawful money of the United States'
shall be construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States."
--Title 12 USC, Section 152.

Actually, the confusion (bickering as you said) started with Congress
causing it.

What happened was HJR 192, passed on June 5, 1933. It's not law. It's
not a constitutional amendment. It's a resolution to change policy. And
only the people back then who still HAD money carefully squandered it
before the banks got to it.

>less, these green bills we pass around, are they not mandated by law to be
>an acceptable method of payment of any debt within the US regardless of what
>actually backs up the paper (gold, silver, debt, goodwill, air, etc.). Anyway,

No. They can't be. The law CLEARLY mandates that gold and silver coin
are legal tender. For instance, the entire uniform commercial code had to
be made because debt instruments are not substance and you must exchange
substance from both sides of a contract in order for it to be valid in
common law.

>I feel that it's necessary to have some physical item that I can hold in my
>hand and say, "This is a basic form of value that everyone (in the US) accepts
>as payment for ANY debt, and must accept, i.e. cannot refuse, regardless of a
>preferred form of payment, or the conveinence or inconveinence of having to
>accept this method of payment." I believe that the US dollar is STILL this

Correct! This is indeed the case. "United States money is expressed in
dollars..." -- Title 31, USC, Section 5101.

I am ASSUMING that you mean "US dollar" as lawful dollar of the United
States as you said. If you are referring to that funny green IOUnothing's
that the banks issue, then you should "know and understand the law" as
you are ASSUMED to know when you go into court.

March 14, 1900. Chap. 41. -- An Act to Define and fix the standard
of value, to maintain the parity of all forms of money issued or
coined by the United States, to refund the public debt, and for other
purposes.

 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, That the dollar consisting of
twenty-five and eight-tenths grains of gold nine-tenths fine, as
established by section thirty-five hundred and eleven of the Revised
Statutes of the United States, shall be the standard unit of value,
and all forms of money issued or coined by the United States shall be
maintained at a parity of value with this standard, and it shall be
the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to maintain such parity.

>item. Those who say it is not, please tell me what is, in your opinion.

I didn't do it. The Congress did.

So did Justice Mahoney:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The infamous Credit River Money Opinion.

Notes: This extremely famous opinion and attached memorandum were
written by the Honorable Martin V. Mahoney, of Credit River,
Minnesota. The Court's judement was entered December 1968, only
months after the Federal Reserve "notes" became irredeemable. His
ruling was that nothing in the law gives the Federal Reserve
Corporation banks the right to CREATE money out of thin air. The
Bank filed a timely Notice of Appeal after losing in Mahoney's
Court and deposited two of their Federal Reserve "notes" with the
appropriate court clerk. The statute required a "$2.00" deposit.
Mahoney refused to accept the "notes" or consequently allow the
appeal. He did ask the bank to appear and show why the ruling
should not be reversed. The bank dropped the case and gave up
it's claim to 14,000 units of Federal Reserve "notes". Shortly
after, Mahoney was found shot in the head allegedly by his own
hand.

             The Credit River Money Opinion

State of Minnesota                 In Justice Court
County of Scott                    Township of Credit River
                                   Martin V. Mahoney, Justice

First National Bank of Montgomery
                    Plaintiff,

vs.                                          Judgement and Decree

Jerome Daly         Defendant.

     The above entitled action came on before the Court and a
Jury of 12 on December 7, 1968 at 10:00 a.m. Plaintiff appeared
by its President Lawrence V. Morgan and was represented by its
Counsel Theodore R. Mellby. Defendant appeared on his own behalf.
     A Jury of Talesmen were called impaneled and sworn to try
the issues in this Case. Lawrence V. Morgan was the only witness
called for Plaintiff and Defendant testified as the only witness
in his own behalf.
     Plaintiff brought this as a Common Law action for the
recovery of the possession of Lot 19, Fairview Beach Scott
County, Minn. Plaintiff claimed title to the Real Property in
question by foreclosure of a Note and Mortgage Deed dated May 8,
1964 which Plaintiff claimed was in default at the time
foreclosure proceedings were started.
     Defendant appeared and answered that the Plaintiff created
the money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry as
the consideration for the Note and Mortgage of May 8, 1964 and
alleged failure of consideration for the Mortgage Deed and
alleged that the Sheriff's sale passed no title to plaintiff.
     The issues tried to the Jury were whether there was a lawful
consideration and whether Defendant had waived his rights to
complain about the consideration having paid on the Note for
almost 3 years.
     Mr. Morgan admitted that all of the money or credit which
was used as a consideration was created upon their books that
this was standard banking practice exercised by their bank in
combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, another
private Bank, further that he knew of no United States Statute or
Law that gave the Plaintiff the authority to do this. Plaintiff
further claimed that Defendant by using the ledger book created
credit and by paying on the Note and Mortgage waived any right to
complain about the Consideration and that Defendant was estopped
from doing so.
     At 12:15 on December 7, 1968 the Jury returned a unanimous
verdict for the Defendant.
     Now therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me
pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, the Northwest
Ordinance of 1787, the Constitution of the United States and the
Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota not inconsistent
therewith:
     IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
     1. That Plaintiff is not entitled to recover the possession
of Lot 19, Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minnesota according to
the Plat thereof on file in the Register of Deeds office.
     2. That because of failure of a lawful consideration the
Note and Mortgage dated May 8, 1964 are null and void.
     3. That the Sheriff's sale of the above described premises
held on June 26, 1967 is null and void, of no effect.
     4. That Plaintiff has no right, title or interest in said
premises or lien thereon, as is above described.
     5. That any privision in the Minnesota Constitution and any
Minnesota Statute limiting the Jurisdiction of this Court is
repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and to the
Bill of Rights of the Minnesota Constitution and is null and void
and that this court has Jurisdiction to render complete Justice
in this Cause.
     6. That Defendant is awarded costs in the sum of $75.00 and
execution is hereby issued therefore.
     7. A 10 day stay is granted.
     8. The following memorandum and any supplemental memorandum
made and filed by this Court in support of this Judgement is
hereby made a part hereof by reference.

                                   BY THE COURT
                                   MARTIN V. MAHONEY
                                   Justice of the Peace
Dated December 9, 1968             Credit River Township
                                   Scott County, Minnesota


                         MEMORANDUM
     The issues in this case were simple. There was no material
dispute on the facts for the Jury to resolve.
     Plaintiff admitted that in combination with the Federal
Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes
because of their interlocking activity and practices and both
being Banking institutions incorporated under the Laws of the
United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same
Bank did created the entire $14,000.00 in money or credit upon
its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the
Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the
Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into
existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no
United States Law or Statute existed which gave hm the right to
do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to
support the Note. See Anheuser-Busch Brewing Co. v. Emma Mason,
44 Minn. 318, 46 N.W. 558. The Jury found there was no lawful
consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value
out of nothing.
     Even if Defendant could be charged with waiver or estoppel
as a matter of Law this is no defense to the Plaintiff. The Law
leaves wrongdoers where it finds them. See sections 50, 51, and
52 of Am. Jr. 2d "Actions" on page 584--"no action will lie to
recover on a claim based upon, or in any manner depending upon, a
fraudulent illegal, or immoral transaction or contract to which
Plaintiff was a party."
     Plaintiff's act of credit credit is not authorized by the
Constitution and Laws of the United States, is unconstitutional
and void, and is not a lawful consideration in the eyes of the
Law to support any thing or upon which any lawful rights can be
built.
     Nothing in the Constitution of the United States limits the
Jurisdiction of this Court which is one of original Jurisdiction
with right of trial by Jury guaranteed. This is a Common Law
Action. Minnesota cannot limit or impair the power of this Court
to render Complete Justice between the parties. Any provisions in
the Constitution and laws of Minnesota which attempt to do so is
repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and void. No
question as to the Jurisdiction of this Court was raised by
either party at the trial. Both parties were given complete
liberty to submit any and all facts and law to the Jury, at least
in so far as they saw fit.
     No complaint was made by Plaintiff that Plaintiff did not
receive a fair trial. From the admissions made by Mr. Morgan the
path of duty was made direct and clear for the Jury. Their
Verdict could not reasonably have been otherwise. Justice was
rendered completely and without denial, promptly and without
delay, freely and without purchase, conformable to the laws in
this Court on December 7, 1968.

                                   BY THE COURT
                                   MARTIN V. MAHONEY
                                   Justice of the Peace
Dated December 9, 1968             Credit River Township
                                   Scott County, Minnesota

Note: It has never been doubted that a Note given on a
Consideration which is prohibited by law is void. It has been
determined, independent of Acts of Congress, that sailing under
the license of an enemy is illegal. The emission of Bills of
Credit upon the books of these private Corporations for the
purposes of private gain is not warranted by the Constitution of
the United States and is unlawful. See Craig v. Mo. 4 Peters
Reports 912. This Court can tread only that path which is marked
out by duty.                                           M.V.M