Is The National Debt A PRIVATE Issue?

[palani]

http://usrarecurrency.com/WebPgFl/40985/Final1862$1Fr16Sn40985.jpg

You might ask yourself the meaning of the words printed on the back of the paper money issued by the U.S. in 1862

THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE EXCEPT DUTIES ON IMPORTS AND INTEREST ON THE PUBLIC DEBT; AND IS RECEIVABLE IN PAYMENT OF ALL LOANS MADE TO THE UNITED STATES.

In case you missed it the note cannot even be used to make payments on the interest on the public debt. Now who would be paying the interest on the public debt other than the public? So if the note cannot be used to make a payment on the interest then the public must not view interest to be a public obligation. This begs the question 'IS THE INTEREST ON THE NATIONAL DEBT A PRIVATE OBLIGATION?' CAN THE NATIONAL DEBT ONLY BE PAID WITH PRIVATE MONEY RATHER THAN PUBLIC FUNDS?

Another question ... Is the economy PRIVATE or PUBLIC if there is only privately issued FRNs fueling it?

[Hatha Sunahara]

I would argue that the language on the back of the note deals with the same issue that HJR 193 dealt with some 70 years later. Here is what HJR 192 says:


House Joint Resolution 192

JOINT RESOLUTION TO SUSPEND THE GOLD STANDARD AND ABROGATE THE GOLD CLAUSE

JUNE 5, 1933

H.J.R. 192 73rd Congress 1st Session

Joint resolution to assure uniform value to the coins and currencies of the United States.
Whereas the holding of or dealing in gold affect the public interest, and therefore subject to proper regulation and restriction; and
Whereas the existing emergency has disclosed that provisions of obligations which purport to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency of the United States, or in an amount of money of the United States measured thereby, obstruct the power of the Congress to regulate the value of money of the United States, and are inconsistent with the declared policy of the Congress to maintain at all times the equal power of every dollar, coined or issued by the United States, in the markets and in payment of debts.
Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled.
That (a) every provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount of money of the United States measured thereby, is declared to be against public policy; and no such provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation hereafter incurred. Every obligation, heretofore or hereafter incurred, whether or not any such provisions is contained therein or made with respect thereto, shall be discharged upon payment, dollar for dollar, in any such coin or currency which at the time is legal tender for public and private debts. Any such provision contained in any law authorizing obligations to be issued by or under authority of the United States, is hereby repealed, but the repeal of any such provision shall not invalidate any other provision or authority contained in such law.
(b) As used in the resolution, the term "obligation" means an obligation (including every obligation of and to the United States, excepting currency) payable in money of the United States; and the term "coin or currency" means coin or currency of the United States, including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations.
SEC. 2. The last sentence of paragraph (1) of subsection (b) of section 43 of the Act entitled "An Act to relieve the existing national economic emergency by increasing agricultural purchasing power, to raise revenue for extraordinary expenses incurred by reason of such emergency, to provide emergency relief with respect to agricultural indebtedness, to provide for the orderly liquidation of joint-stock land banks, and for other purposes", approved May 12, 1933, is amended to read as follows:
"All coins and currencies of the United States (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations)hereunto and hereafter coined or issued, shall be legal tender for all debts, for public and private, public charges, taxes, duties, and dues, except gold coins, when below the standard weight and limit of tolerance provided by law for the single piece, shall be legal tender only at valuation in proportion to their actual weight." Approved June 5,1933, 4:30 p.m.



Our current FRNs tell us in fine print, 'This note is legal tender for all debts public and private' That begs the question if 'legal tender' is actually money. The government might say it is (and in 1862, it said so and listed some exceptions), but it is only money if people accept it. If the government doesn't accept it (for even the most specific use) as money, then the only way it could be money is if people accept it for all other uses. The constitution says nothing but gold and silver can be issued as money. When the government took gold out od circulation in 1933, there was no way to repay any debts with the FRNs being issued because they themselves were debt obligations. So, congress passed HJR 192 making it possible to DISCHARGE debt with legal tender which itself is debt, because actual debt can never be Repaid with debt based money. It wasn't necessary to pass some public policy pronouncement such as HJR 192 in 1862 because gold and silver were still legal tender in the United States. I just wonder if one could exchange twenty (or however much an ounce of gold was worth) of these notes for an ounce of gold.


Hatha

[palani]

I just wonder if one could exchange twenty (or however much an ounce of gold was worth) of these notes for an ounce of gold.

I have an 1862 $5 note. This was issued with the understanding that it could be exchanged for 1/4 oz of gold at the Treasury in New York. The debtor might make an offer to adjust the terms of a contract and this is what I view Roosevelts 1933 policy statement.

The note still exists though and the original terms have not been modified in any way.

[palani]

The thing about this huge debt is everyone knows that it cannot be repaid. If it is public debt then the public is on the hook for extinguishing it but the public won't be able to do that without passing their seed and their seeds seed through the fires of Moloch for the next umpteen generations. But on the other hand if the national debt is private debt then who is obligated to repay it with interest? If the debt actually is private then those who signed up to repay it are those that go around with FRNs in their pocket or who value their estates in terms of FRNs (Bill Gates comes to mind, Ted Turner, Warren Buffett, etc). In other words the only way you can be assured of staying away from the obligation of repayment and the obligation of Obamacare as well (since Obamacare is nothing more than a means for the federal government to cash flow their private enterprise) is to avoid FRNs like the plague, herpies and Vd which is precisely the same effect these notes are going to have on you.

[gunny highway]

I'd assume that it's private debt. The Fed and the various sections of government are all incorporated entities which, to my knowledge are not publicly traded. So any transaction btwn these entities is a private transaction. However, with the lawyers between them and us, I wouldn't be surprised if we've somehow been footed with the bill. Social Security comes to mind. I've always thought that since FRNs are a fiction, and all of the debt associated with them is a fiction then we could just disregard any "obligations" we had to service this debt.

[Hatha Sunahara]

I like the analogy of the plantation. If a plantation owner incurs debts that he cannot repay, and declares bankruptcy, do the creditors have the recourse of making the slaves repay that debt?

Or the employee analogy. If a business you work for declares bankruptcy, can its creditors force the employees to repay the debt?

I know that in 1933, when the US government declared bankruptcy, its creditors took ownership of the national parks and all the birth certificates of the 'citizens' as if they were chattel or livestock.

I read somewhere that not too long ago, Obama had a meeting with Xi Jinping--the Premier of China, and there is speculation that what was discussed was the securitization of the US debt held as Treasury bonds by the Chinese, and that Obama told Jinping that the government would use eminent domain to seize privately held real estate which would revert to the Chinese bondholders in the event of a US debt default.

There is no question in my mind that the unpayable US debt is regarded by the government as an obligation of the people of the United States, and that our corrupt judiciary will uphold that claim. The slaves will be obligated to pay off the debts of their masters.

Also, the fact that all government entities at all levels are incorporated under unknown ownership for the benefit of unknown beneficiaries, and have assumed the 'right' to tax people living in their 'service territory' will be extended to tax people, or confiscate wealth to repay the obligations of these government entities when those obligations become due. There is an implicit assumption that like the big banks, all government entities are too big to fail, or too important to fail.

We have some major corruption in our thinking. What ever happened to the convention of declaring bankruptcy when you cannot pay your debts? Did it get absorbed into some Talmudic reasoning that goyim who are chattel have no expectation of relief from unpayable debt, while the chosen ones are creditors forever?

Also, I want to know, from Palani's claim that if I hold or use FRNs I am in deep doo doo. If I have an FRN, do I have money (own something) or do I have debt (Owe something)? I know that if I have nothing, I will have to prove it--prove a negative. So, I think, regardless of whether I use FRN's or own them or not, somebody will make an enforceable claim against me. I don't expect the corruption in the system to abate until the system has totally collapsed, and I expect it to be immediately rebuilt incorporating the same level of corruption it had before the collapse. The system will not change. It will just be 'rebooted'.


Hatha

[Ares]

The National Debt is only an issue for those who are 14th Amendment citizens. When you align yourself with the status of a U.S. citizen by taking part in the "benefits" thereof. You voluntarily become a slave. The Constitution removed Involuntary Servitude (13th Amendment). However VOLUNTARY servitude is completely legal. Getting back to the 14th Amendment, as an aligned U.S. citizen you are no longer protected under the Constitution. If you read that amendment closely, you'll see that you are granted "privileges and immunities" No where in that amendment are you granted rights.

The government created that citizenship, and hence you have no right to question the master on how your labor is spent.

Since the bankruptcy of 1933 there isn't even a common law court in existence that I am aware of. They are all basically military tribunals masquerading as courts administering "public policy" instead of Public Law.

Why they can "legislate" from the bench so to speak. They are not bound by public law, because you go in admitting you're a slave with all the proof in decades of paperwork and accepted benefits to prove it.

[palani]

Since the bankruptcy of 1933 there isn't even a common law court in existence that I am aware of. They are all basically military tribunals masquerading as courts administering "public policy" instead of Public Law.

And that is why I disregard statutes. 7th trump and all his interpretations and machinations mean nothing when you come to the understanding that the system is entirely operating in EQUITY and not LAW. With EQUITY when you accept a benefit you are expected to make payment for that benefit. In other words the meaning of statute law is irrelevant and all you or anyone has to do is accept the benefit of doing your commercial transactions in FRNs for there to be a benefit attached. The social security link is a red herring. Certainly social security was invented to control the generation(s) that followed the great depression and this system has done an absolutely wonderful job of doing that.

There are alternatives to handling FRNs. Investigate how to do it and never worry about them again.

If there is only EQUITY and no LAW then the meaning of words have no impact whatsoever. There is merely the implied contract associated with using a benefit.