Gold clause contracts

[Bradley in DC]

In the spirit of us taking back the Republic and doing it ourselves, I thought I would share a way for people to move beyond the Federal Reserve System for private contracts. I am also a landlord (and looking to rent out a room at the moment if anyone is looking in DC--the campaign is hiring!) and use a gold clause in my rental agreements:

"Landlord shall have the right to require rent payments to be made in cash, money order, by cashier's/certified check or in gold coin of the United States of or equal to the standard of weight and fineness existing on the date of this contract."

More info here:

http://www.mises.org/books/goldpeace.pdf

http://www.amazon.com/Gold-Clause-What-How-Profitably/dp/0916728269

 

[freelance]

Bradley, I look forward to reading the PDF when I have a minute.

Could you tell me something in the meantime? Suppose that you "require" gold coin--is that FACE VALUE of the coin?

 

[Bradley in DC]

Bradley, I look forward to reading the PDF when I have a minute.

Could you tell me something in the meantime? Suppose that you "require" gold coin--is that FACE VALUE of the coin?

The requirement of the contract would be spelled out in the contract, but no, you don't want to do that. The requirements are by weight--if gold buys twice as many dollars, then they would have to pay double the weight in gold. For example, if the rent in US dollars is worth 10 ounces on the date of the contract, and I invoke the gold clause, and the gold price in dollars is now different, they still have to pay me 10 ounces of gold.

 

[freelance]

That was about half tongue-in-cheek, but I still wondered. Thanks. Same idea, just not as lucrative. LOL!

 

[Bradley in DC]

That was about half tongue-in-cheek, but I still wondered. Thanks. Same idea, just not as lucrative. LOL!

No worries. The pdf is one of Dr. Paul's book. This is a small part of gold contracts. Googling the term brings up a lot of info, especially FRD's scandalous behavior!

 

[Douglass Bartley]

Bradley

Bradley: are you perchance a member of Off-Topic. I've been having trouble explaining Dr. Paul's hard asset position there and how it would work

 

[David Merrill]

wasted heat

The only fair method of doing this is setting the rent in FRNs and then converting to the Spot value for that day, which requires a conversion fee because the gold dealer has to make some profit. I have tried similar things and it is only inefficient at best. If you are setting a rent by weight, then the rent will fluctuate as the price of gold in FRNs fluctuates.

Gold contracts were outlawed in 1933 by HJR-192 and we see that being allowed to purchase back gold later is nothing more than admission FDR could steal it to begin with.

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_FR_Bulletin_March_1933.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_TWA_Collections.jpg

The notion of lawful money being metallic coin is outdated since 1861. Courts rule that way because it is true. Fiat currency is justified by emergency and we have been in one since March 28, 1861 - and we will continue to be in one until any state or confederation of states can secede from the Union. Sorry to hit you with such a painful reality check but one best adhere to the Supreme Court's interpretation of how Congress defines lawful money.

In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money.

and

United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.

By non-endorsing FRNs you are accepting US notes in the form of FRNs. The law says you are entitled to redeem your paychecks in lawful money:

http://goldismoney.info/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=26637&d=1176137303

They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_public_money_case_1.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_public_money_case_2.jpg

Since people have been redeeming lawful money the Congress has jacked up the frivolous filing penalty from $500 to $5000. And the memorandum issued expressly and only addresses gold and silver coin, like in this rental agreement subject here. You are in error to define lawful money in metals. That is not even what the Constitution says because that is on a state level for states, like the Colonies that wished to stamp coins. The world is so much smaller now. On a national level Congress is able to define money - and even "fix" the value of it according to the Constitution. That is what the Supreme Court is saying:

In the exercise of that power Congress has declared...

So pay attention to the new guidelines on assessing the $5K frivolous filing fine:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-07-30.pdf

Frivolous Positions


(11) Federal Reserve Notes are not taxable income when paid to a taxpayer because they are not gold or silver and may not be redeemed for gold or silver.

(12) In a transaction using gold and silver coins, the value of the coins is excluded from income or the amount realized in the transaction is the face value of the coins and not their fair market value for purposes of determining taxable income.

The only thing in the IRS arsenal against you redeeming lawful money is the exact same error described in the subject of this thread. At the end of the memo:

Returns or submissions that contain positions not listed above, which on their face have no basis for validity in existing law, or which have been deemed frivolous in a published opinion of the United States Tax Court or other court of competent jurisdiction, may be determined to reflect a desire to delay or impede the administration of Federal tax laws and thereby subject to the $5,000 penalty.

Herein I have shown you the law; Title 12 U.S.C. §411 and shown you a court case saying the man was entitled to redeem his Federal Reserve notes in lawful money - albeit not in gold and silver coin.



Regards,

David Merrill.

 

[Bradley in DC]

Bradley: are you perchance a member of Off-Topic. I've been having trouble explaining Dr. Paul's hard asset position there and how it would work

No.

 

[Bradley in DC]

The only fair method of doing this is setting the rent in FRNs and then converting to the Spot value for that day, which requires a conversion fee because the gold dealer has to make some profit. I have tried similar things and it is only inefficient at best. If you are setting a rent by weight, then the rent will fluctuate as the price of gold in FRNs fluctuates.

Gold contracts were outlawed in 1933 by HJR-192 and we see that being allowed to purchase back gold later is nothing more than admission FDR could steal it to begin with.

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_FR_Bulletin_March_1933.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_TWA_Collections.jpg

The notion of lawful money being metallic coin is outdated since 1861. Courts rule that way because it is true. Fiat currency is justified by emergency and we have been in one since March 28, 1861 - and we will continue to be in one until any state or confederation of states can secede from the Union. Sorry to hit you with such a painful reality check but one best adhere to the Supreme Court's interpretation of how Congress defines lawful money.

By non-endorsing FRNs you are accepting US notes in the form of FRNs. The law says you are entitled to redeem your paychecks in lawful money:

http://goldismoney.info/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=26637&d=1176137303

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_public_money_case_1.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_public_money_case_2.jpg

Since people have been redeeming lawful money the Congress has jacked up the frivolous filing penalty from $500 to $5000. And the memorandum issued expressly and only addresses gold and silver coin, like in this rental agreement subject here. You are in error to define lawful money in metals. That is not even what the Constitution says because that is on a state level for states, like the Colonies that wished to stamp coins. The world is so much smaller now. On a national level Congress is able to define money - and even "fix" the value of it according to the Constitution. That is what the Supreme Court is saying:



So pay attention to the new guidelines on assessing the $5K frivolous filing fine:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-07-30.pdf



The only thing in the IRS arsenal against you redeeming lawful money is the exact same error described in the subject of this thread. At the end of the memo:



Herein I have shown you the law; Title 12 U.S.C. §411 and shown you a court case saying the man was entitled to redeem his Federal Reserve notes in lawful money - albeit not in gold and silver coin.



Regards,

David Merrill.

Hi David,

Refreshing to have this kind of a discussion--I'm sure no other candidates are inspiring this level of debate!

Gold clauses in contracts were re-legalized in the mid-1970s after the Smithsonian Agreement broke down (thank Jesse Helms, Ron Paul, and others for that). The inefficiencies are entirely on the tenant side, fees and all, if the clauses are worded properly. Landlord-tenant contracts do not involve the IRS, nor is the IRS involved with landlord-tenant contracts. The notion of lawful money or not, and we disagree some there, is not relevant to landlord-tenant contracts either. There are differences among state court cases, but these are explained in the book I linked to in the original post.

 

[fsk]

When were gold clauses re-legalized? I thought that people were allowed to own gold. The prohibition on gold clauses was not, as far as I can tell, repealed.

In other words, if you put a gold clause in a lease, and your tenant challenges it in court, the court may not rule that the gold clause is valid.

 

[jonahtrainer]

When were gold clauses re-legalized? I thought that people were allowed to own gold. The prohibition on gold clauses was not, as far as I can tell, repealed.

In other words, if you put a gold clause in a lease, and your tenant challenges it in court, the court may not rule that the gold clause is valid.

I doubt you would get very far with a 'gold contract' although I would like such a case.

So, you would raise the same issue of economic substantive due process that the Court shied away from because FDR threatened to 'pack' the Court. The Court has stayed away from that topic for 70 years but there have been some recent cases addressing the specter.

If the 'right to money' (PM me for a paper I wrote on this in graduate school) is to vest with The People instead of with the Government then there is a lot more that needs to happen than Ron Paul winning the Presidency. He will need the backing of the House and Senate and be able to threaten the Supreme Court. The proper role of the judiciary was never decided and hotly debated by the Founding Fathers.

However, TPTB had the Presidential amendment instituted for that very purpose of a President who could threaten the Court. The whole fight for freedom is about where the right to money vests (I wrote another paper on this in graduate school).

Paper money supplanted hard money because it is more efficient. For anything to really happen The People will need to choose a new more efficient form of money such as credit/debit cards or GoldMoney.com (Digital gold currencies can advance freedom). We already see the movement towards a cashless society in Europe by 2010. The worst nightmare for freedom would be a cashless fiat money system.

Because of the Internet the battle for freedom is about to go into overdrive. We are barely beginning to see the effects of the Internet. What exciting times to live in!

 

[Bradley in DC]

When were gold clauses re-legalized? I thought that people were allowed to own gold. The prohibition on gold clauses was not, as far as I can tell, repealed.

In other words, if you put a gold clause in a lease, and your tenant challenges it in court, the court may not rule that the gold clause is valid.

After Nixon closed the gold window and 1971 and the subsequent Smithsonian Agreement (predictably) broke down in 1973, there was no justification to prohibit monetary gold--and gold clauses in contracts. Monetary gold ownership was re-legalized first, followed by gold clauses. The gold clause was relegalized by Section 463 of the U.S. Code in October 1977.

 

[David Merrill]

When were gold clauses re-legalized? I thought that people were allowed to own gold. The prohibition on gold clauses was not, as far as I can tell, repealed.

In other words, if you put a gold clause in a lease, and your tenant challenges it in court, the court may not rule that the gold clause is valid.

Ergo a dispositive assertion.

Hi David,

Refreshing to have this kind of a discussion--I'm sure no other candidates are inspiring this level of debate!

Gold clauses in contracts were re-legalized in the mid-1970s after the Smithsonian Agreement broke down (thank Jesse Helms, Ron Paul, and others for that). The inefficiencies are entirely on the tenant side, fees and all, if the clauses are worded properly. Landlord-tenant contracts do not involve the IRS, nor is the IRS involved with landlord-tenant contracts. The notion of lawful money or not, and we disagree some there, is not relevant to landlord-tenant contracts either. There are differences among state court cases, but these are explained in the book I linked to in the original post.

For over a decade I have been studying how lies can be fashioned into truth and slipped onto the board like chess pieces, with their little fabricated simulations of legality. It is a non-positive assertion about the breaking down of the "Smithsonian Agreement". Positive law cannot form around a broken agreement.

After Nixon closed the gold window and 1971 and the subsequent Smithsonian Agreement (predictably) broke down in 1973, there was no justification to prohibit monetary gold--and gold clauses in contracts. Monetary gold ownership was re-legalized first, followed by gold clauses. The gold clause was relegalized by Section 463 of the U.S. Code in October 1977.

However there probably was a Smithsonian Agreement and §463 exists somewhere in the US Code, so please tell us which Title too. The main objective to legalizing gold clauses should be studied because the IMF would have done that for a reason. The answer I am driving at is the positive action that created the illusions in law that we could now go buy back our own gold...

Quoting UnderSecretary Katz in late 1975:

www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/SeizeGold.jpg

The above quote from the State Department Bulletin is basically a preamble to the Secret Jamaica Rambouillet Accord. During the Amendments to the Bretton Woods Agreements the French and Americans (Merovingians) went into a private negotiation and announced to the world we would no longer be exchanging the US dollar on a fixed exchange rate (gold) but would convert to a floating exchange rate (Special Drawing Rights - SDRs). There may have been mention of the Smithsonian Agreement breaking down and I do not remember it.

UN member nations (IMF/World Bank) began giving all their gold into a Fund. Based on the contributions allegedly the five exemplary nations would form a fictional currency basket called SDRs - Paper Gold. Note how this binding (government bonds) amplifies the debt of any contributing nation. The original gold clause...

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2187rank.html

See the US at the bottom ranking - going to SDRs in 1975/76 while China at the top converted to SDRs in 2005:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html

In July 2005, China revalued its currency by 2.1% against the US dollar and moved to an exchange rate system that references a basket of currencies.

Since law and equity were blended in the American court systems in 1938, the gold clauses holding up in court are simply a matter of process - Notice and Grace. The attorney (banker en banc) at the bench (en banc) hired in equity can simply review how and when the tenant was properly notified about the agreement and the gold clause. However since it is admitted that the inefficiencies are tilted to the landlord's benefit - I not only suggest the members here do not do business with Bradley by renting his place; I suggest that if you do, you would have the upper hand in any dispute in equity.

Bradley mentioned things that I mentioned that have nothing to do with the gold clauses today. Untrue. These things build upon foundation. The 1917 Trading with the Enemy Act was revised in 1933 to make the US citizen the enemy as if the German national of 1917.

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_FR_Bulletin_March_1933.jpg

And if you are thinking FDR was joking around:

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_FDRs_inaugural_declaration.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_TWA_Collections.jpg

And if you think that happened way back then, I assert that way back then is foundation for today's applications of law:

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_PL94-412.jpg
http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_PL94-412_stipulation.jpg

Notice that Title 12 U.S.C. §95 is still in full force and effect. Read at the very end of the Act linked.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00000095----000-.html
http://goldismoney.info/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=26637&d=1176137303

§ 95. Emergency limitations and restrictions on business of members of Federal reserve system; designation of legal holiday for national banking associations; exceptions; “State” defined

And we note that this is for members of the Federal reserve system...

Do you endorse your paychecks? Do you sign the back in endorsement? Then you are a shareholder because Federal Reserve Bank notes, the formal stock certificates, were retired in 1945 (Bretton Woods) and replaced for that function by Federal Reserve notes.

http://www.friesian.com/notes.htm

Note the wording in this important case long after 1945:

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_public_money_case_1.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_public_money_case_2.jpg

...holder of a $50 Federal Reserve Bank Note, while entitled to redeem his note, ...

"Federal Reserve bank notes."

Should you take a moment to even consider Title 12 U.S.C. §411 you see that this remedy applies to banks. However in the case linked the gentleman is entitled to redeem his stock certificates. According to the Supreme Court, owning stock certificates in the Fed is what qualifies one to be a bank! The FRNs in your pocket make you a bank and any silliness about gold clauses is bunk because you have to negotiate the gold in FRNs!



Regards,

David Merrill.

________________________________________________

P.S. noting the dates:


http://goldismoney.info/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=30494&d=1183899294
http://goldismoney.info/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=30495&d=1183899806
http://goldismoney.info/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=30496&d=1183899936

The legal tender is offered and after three days if the alleged creditor will not redeem the legal tender, the debt is waived. This stands on principles found in Trebilcock v. Wilson about the gold clause and US notes. Therefore any gold clause in court is shaky at best and until we get a believable link to this Smithsonian Agreement and the US code mentioned without a Title, I will wait and see what Bradley has to say on that.

 

[taotree]

Notice that Title 12 U.S.C. §95 is still in full force and effect. Read at the very end of the Act linked.

I'm not sure what you were linking to being pertinent to the gold issue. My understanding is the pertinent section is:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/s...scode12/usc_sec_12_00000095---a000-notes.html

And you can see that it appears those items have been removed by executive order. Of course, is there anything to stop a president from signing another executive order to put it back in place?


I recently read this article:

http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_03/holloway013003.html

It paints an ugly picture and I would welcome if anyone can provide me with information that we don't stand just an executive order away from another 1933 confiscation.

Also, when people talk about gold clauses, it seems its like an addon. Like the OP that talked about how much rent was in USD and then added something about payment in gold after that.

Does it apply when the entire agreement says nothing about money at all and is only described in terms of gold?

For example, if I wrote a contract that said:

"I will give you 100 bushels of wheat right now and you will give me 30 grams of gold per month for the next three months."

Would the "gold clause" stuff still apply to such a situation?

 

[Pericles]

While researching a business venture, ran across this case on the validity of gold clauses in contracts:

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0322p-06.pdf

"Either way, in light of this ruling, the parties now know one of the effects of the 1982 assignment. By March 31, 2011, S&R will decide whether it wishes to exercise its option to renew the lease. In the interim, the case needs to be remanded to the district court. Because the court found that the gold clause was not enforceable under the 1933 statute, it did not reach the question of the gold clause’s effect on the rent owed under the lease. Because we conclude that the clause is enforceable, we thus remand the case to the district court to interpret the clause, to determine the obligation it imposes on S&R and to address any other defenses the district court has not yet had an opportunity to address in the first instance, including S&R’s estoppel-by-deed and waiver defenses."

 

[Zippyjuan]

Bumping a seven year old thread?

 

[Pericles]

Bumping a seven year old thread?

It came up on researching the topic, and the court case post dates the last post - so provides additional information. The topic has not been discussed recently, and maybe a revival is in order.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Bumping a seven year old thread?

YOU, of all people, are questioning logistics? You consistently attempt to post 2nd in a thread to discourage the widest audience of new members and visitors. Practically EVERY post of yours is purposely and acutely contrary to liberty.