STUPIDITY AND GREED, AND HOW THE U.S.A. WENT BROKE

STUPIDITY AND GREED, AND HOW THE U.S. OF A. WENT BROKE!

Posted By: watcher51445 [Send E-Mail]
Date: Sunday, 5-Jun-2011 18:58:22

HOW THE U.S. of A. went broke!

Puting it in simple every day langage: "Too damn many greedy, stupid, know nothings, don't give a damn individuals who could care less if their fellow Representatives i.e. Congressmen/women and Senators, State or Federal know their rump from a hole in the ground!

As an "for instance"; What is wrong with this picture? and I quote hopefully minus the clerical mistakes (I make enough on my own without someone else helping me):
snip: Fed Lawyer Alvarez: The Federal Reserve Does NOT Own Any Gold at All Thats right. The Fed owns NO gold. Zero, zip, ziltch.

Snip:

What appears to have happened under the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 [ http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/MoneyBanking/Money/LegHistory/48Stat337-344.pdf ] is the Treasury seized the Feds gold, taking full ownership and claim to its proceeds. The Treasury as an aside transferred a sum of special 1934 series gold certificates to the Fed amounting to the statutory value of gold ($20.67 per ounce) times the quantity of gold transfered from the Fed to the Treasury. The official gold price was later revalued to $35 an ounce, an effective devaluation of the currency, but the quantity of gold certificates issued to the Fed was not amended to reflect revaluation until the passing of the Par Value Modification Act of 1972. Under this act, gold was revalued again, this time to $38 an oz, and the Feds gold certificate account was credited upwards by $822 million worth of certificates to reflect the change in the gold price from $35 to $38. The gold was revalued one last time in 1973 to $42.22 and again the Federal Reserve was credited with more gold certificates, $1.157 billion to be exact, to account for this. After everything, the Federal Reserve was left with $11.16 billion dollars worth of gold certificates.

So what exactly are the gold certificates the Fed holds? For one, the Feds gold certificates are unlike previous gold certificate issues, and are not publicly trade-able. They are also not direct claims to gold, but rather reflect claims only to US issued currency or coin held by the Treasury. The Fed can take claim to this currency on demand, and their certificates are an accounted for liability of the Treasury as listed in Note 19. Treasurys Other Liabilities. In addition, if the Treasury is unable to satisfy a demand by the Fed for the funds, the Fed is able to gain access to the gold, since the gold stands as collateral for the gold certificates issued by the Treasury. This fact is taken from this statement in Note 2, from the Treasuryfs balance sheet:

Gold totaling $11.1 billion as of September 30, 2010, and 2009, was pledged as collateral for gold certificates issued and authorized to the FRBs by the Secretary of the Treasury.g

Given that the Fed has an indirect claim to the Treasuryfs gold, it is questionable what line of reasoning the Feds general counsel was using when stating so broadly that the Fed has gno interest in the gold that is owned by the treasury. OK you smart TREASURY people..! Whats wrong with that which you did'nt know enough about how the LAW worked!

=====================================================================================

The Bretton Woods Agreement/IMF/Gatt finalized in 1947 set the PAR VALUE OF GOLD SET AT $28.00 PER FINE TROY OUNCE when setting up the WORLD BANK. That $20.67 per ounce per fine troy ounce was the agreed upon amount to make each Nation "equal" in Monetary Transactions/Exchang. They left the back door open for TRADING GOLD on the LONDON EXCHANGE and WALL STREET who traded on "SECOND LONDON."

The official gold price was later revalued to $35 an ounce, an effective devaluation of the currency, but the quantity of gold certificates issued to the Fed was not amended to reflect revaluation until the passing of the Par Value Modification Act of 1972.

1972. A BIT OF A PROBLEM regarding the Vice President of the United States involving SPIRO AGNEW and his financial dealings with IRAN through GREECE. Shortly after the "discovery of the Financial Problems" SPIRO WAS NO LONGER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.of A.

The financial industry (under Nixons Administration) needed to discuss this GOLD PROBLEM with CHOU EN LI (SIC). Not even the president of the United States could get into China at that time. Admission required an invitation from Chinas' leader.

To obtain that invitation a CALL was made to Russell Herrmann aka HERMAN at his home in the middle of the night by THE WHITE HOUSE for Russell to obtain an Invitation for president Nixon from China to go to china. Grandpa LI of the LI Banking Family obtained that invitation for president Nixon.

We've tracked how far back the presidents of the U.S. of A. have been working with China.. Not as far back as the BOGUS OITC has led everyone to believe was "back to GEORGE WASHINGTON'S time"..

It was the BRETTON WOODS AGREEMENT IMF/GATT need for the WORLD BANK to increase the PAR VALUE on GOLD/AU from which the need arose for Nixon to go to China.

Under the Par Value Modification Act of 1972. Under this act, gold was revalued again, this time to $38 an oz, and the Fedfs gold certificate account was credited upwards by $822 million worth of certificates to reflect the change in the gold price from $35 to $38. The gold was revalued one last time in 1973 to $42.22 and again the Federal Reserve was credited with more gold certificates, $1.157 billion to be exact, to account for this. After everything, the Federal Reserve was left with $11.16 billion dollars worth of gold certificates.

HERE IS WHERE THE "IDIOTS" TOOK OVER.

Where the United States TREASURY was locked down in 1973 at $42.22 per fine troy ounce, at home and abroad, the TRADING HOUSES of WALL STREET, LONDON STOCK EXCHANGE, FOREX were trading on an OPEN PRICE which is currently above $1,200. No INCREASE in TREASURY GOLD; Treasury Gold still locked at 1973 "lock".

This is getting pretty danged bad when people are being killed and Nations are at war over COUNTERFEIT "U.S. DEBT OBLIGATIONS" i.e. C.D.O'S.

But! What about those Gold and Silver Certificates? Hmmm!? Gold Certificates

Gold Certificates were authorized by the Currency Act of March 3, 1863 and were issued in series from 1865 to 1934. The earlier Gold Certificates, due to their higher face values, were not intended for general circulation, but were used almost exclusively in interbank channels to settle gold accounts.

70 years after being authorized, Gold Certificates met their demise by the Gold Reserve Act of 1933. On December 28, 1933 the Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., issued an order forbidding the holding of Gold Certificates and required their surrender. Banks were ordered to turn in all stocks of gold certificates as well as the general public. A provision had been made for collectors allowing them to retain their collection of gold coins, but this provision did not include Gold Certificates. Finally, 31 years later on April 24, 1964, the Secretary of the Treasury, C. Douglas Dillon, issued regulations removing all restrictions on the acquisition or holding of Gold Certificates which were issued by the US Government prior to January 30, 1934. This covered notes up to Series 1928 only.

1934. One year later after the Gold Reserve Act of 1933;
1935. Five Cases appealed from various courts, involving the validity of the Joint Resolution of June 5, 1933, repudiating the clause in private and public contracts. One such case was [John N. Perry v. The United States. 294 U.S. 330 ]

U.S. Supreme Court PERRY v. UNITED STATES, 294 U.S. 330 (1935) . 294 U.S. 330
PERRY v. UNITED STATES. No. 532. Argued Jan. 10, 11, 1935. Decided Feb. 18, 1935. [294 U.S. 330, 333] Mr. John M. Perry, of New York City, for Perry.

quote

"The Binding Quality of the Obligation. The question is necessarily presented whether the Joint Resolution of June 5, 1933, 48 Stat. 113 (31 USCA 462, 463), is a valid enactment so far as it applies to the obligations of the United States. The resolution declared that provisions requiring 'payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency' were 'against public policy,' and provided that 'every obligation, heretofore or hereafter incurred, whether or not any such provision is contained therein,' shall be discharged 'upon payment, dollar for dollar, in any coin or currency which at the time of payment is legal tender for public and private debts.' This enactment was expressly extended to obligations of the United States and provisions for payment in gold, 'contained in any law authorizing obligations to be issued by or under authority of the United States,' were repealed. 1 Section 1(a), 31 USCA 463(a). [294 U.S. 330, 350] There is no question as to the power of the Congress to regulate the value of money: that is, to establish a monetary system and thus to determine the currency of the country. The question is whether the Congress can use that power so as to invalidate the terms of the obligations which the government has theretofore issued in the exercise of the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States. In attempted justification of the Joint Resolution in relation to the outstanding bonds of the United States, the government argues that 'earlier Congresses could not validly restrict the 73rd Congress from exercising its constitutional powers to regulate the value of money, borrow money, or regulate foreign and interstate commerce'; and, from this premise, the government seems to deduce the proposition that when, with adequate authority, the government borrows money and pledges the credit of the United States, it is free to ignore that pledge and alter the terms of its obligations in case a later Congress finds their fulfillment inconvenient. The government's contention thus raises a question of far greater importance than the particular claim of the plaintiff. On that reasoning, if the terms of the government's bond as to the standard of payment can be repudiated, it inevitably follows that the obligation as to the amount to be paid may also be repudiated. The contention necessarily imports that the Congress can disregard the obligations of the government at its discretion, and that, when the government borrows money, the credit of the United States is an illusory pledge.

We do not so read the Constitution. There is a clear distinction between the power of the Congress to control or interdict the contracts of private parties when they interfere with the exercise of its constitutional authority [294 U.S. 330, 351] and the power of the Congress to alter or repudiate the substance of its own engagements when it has borrowed money under the authority which the Constitution confers. In authorizing the Congress to borrow money, the Constitution empowers the Congress to fix the amount to be borrowed and the terms of payment. By virtue of the power to borrow money 'on the credit of the United States,' the Congress is authorized to pledge that credit as an assurance of payment as stipulated, as the highest assurance the government can give, its plighted faith. To say that the Congress may withdraw or ignore that pledge is to assume that the Constitution contemplates a vain promise; a pledge having no other sanction than the pleasure and convenience of the pledgor. This Court has given no sanction to such a conception of the obligations of our government. "

quote

The binding quality of the obligations of the government was considered in the Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U.S. 700, 718 , 719 S.. The question before the Court in those cases was whether certain action was warranted by a reservation to the Congress of the right to amend the charter of a railroad company. While the particular action was sustained under this right of amendment, the Court took occasion to state emphatically the obligatory character of the contracts of the United States. The Court said: 'The United States are as much bound by their contracts as are individuals. If they repudiate their obligations, it is as much repudiation, with all the wrong and reproach that term implies, as it would be if the repudiator had been a State or a municipality or a citizen.' 2 [294 U.S. 330, 352] When the United States, with constitutional authority, makes contracts, it has rights and incurs responsibilities similar to those of individuals who are parties to such instruments. There is no difference, said the Court in United States v. Bank of the Metropolis, 15 Pet. 377, 392, except that the United States cannot be sued without its consent. See, also, The Floyd Acceptances, 7 Wall. 666, 675; Cooke v. United States, 91 U.S. 389 , 396. In Lynch v. United States, 292 U.S. 571, 580 , 54 S.Ct. 840, 844, with respect to an attempted abrogation by the Act of March 20, 1933, 17, 48 Stat. 8, 11 (38 USCA 717), of certain outstanding war risk insurance policies, which were contracts of the United States, the Court quoted with approval the statement in the Sinking Fund Cases, supra, and said: 'Punctilious fulfillment of contractual obligations is essential to the maintenance of the credit of public as well as private debtors. No doubt there was in March, 1933, great need of economy. In the administration of all government business economy had become urgent because of lessened revenues and the heavy obligations to be issued in the hope of relieving widespread distress. Congress was free to reduce gratuities deemed excessive. But Congress was without power to reduce expenditures by abrogating contractual obligations of the United States. To abrogate contracts, in the attempt to lessen government expenditure, would [294 U.S. 330, 353] be not the practice of economy, but an act of repudiation.'

The argument in favor of the Joint Resolution, as applied to government bonds, is in substance that the government cannot by contract restrict the exercise of a sovereign power. But the right to make binding obligations is a competence attaching to sovereignty. 3 In the United States, sovereignty resides in the people who act through the organs established by the Constitution. Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, 471; Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 Dall. 54, 93; McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 404, 405; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 , 6 S.Ct. 1064. The Congress as the instrumentality of sovereignty is endowed with certain powers to be exerted on behalf of the people in the manner and with the effect the Constitution ordains. The Congress cannot invoke the sovereign power of the people to override their will as thus declared. The powers conferred upon the Congress are harmonious. The Constitution gives to the Congress the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States, an unqualified power, a power vital to the government, upon which in an extremity its very life may depend. The binding quality of the promise of the United States is of the essence of the credit which is so pledged. Having this power to authorize the issue of definite obligations for the payment of money borrowed, the Congress has not been vested with authority to alter or destroy those obli- [294 U.S. 330, 354] gations. The fact that the United States may not be sued without its consent is a matter of procedure which does not affect the legal and binding character of its contracts. While the Congress is under no duty to provide remedies through the courts, the contractual obligation still exists, and, despite infirmities of procedure, remains binding upon the conscience of the sovereign. Lynch v. United States, supra, pages 580, 582, of 292 U.S. 54 S.Ct. 840.

The Fourteenth Amendment, in its fourth section, explicitly declares: 'The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law , ... shall not be questioned.' While this provision was undoubtedly inspired by the desire to put beyond question the obligations of the government issued during the Civil War, its language indicates a broader connotation. We regard it as confirmatory of a fundamental principle which applies as well to the government bonds in question, and to others duly authorized by the Congress, as to those issued before the amendment was adopted. Nor can we perceive any reason for not considering the expression 'the validity of the public debt' as embracing whatever concerns the integrity of the public obligations.

We conclude that the Joint Resolution of June 5, 1933, in so far as it attempted to override the obligation created by the bond in suit, went beyond the congressional power. end quote

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=294&page=330

(FRAUDS by our U.S. CONGRESS were made Gold Case discovery by THE PECORA INVESTIGATION of Members of the U.S. House and Senate making over 500% profits in the Rail Road Bonds, Congress passed a LAW making it illegal to own those GOLD BEARING Rail Road Bonds. )

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=206217
NEW: THE "U.S. TREASURY or FEDERAL RESERVE or J.P. MORGAN" DO NOT OWN BONUS 3392 or 181 EITHER! (views: 1)
watcher51445 -- Sunday, 5-Jun-2011 12:12:07