Did you know that it is unlawful for government to take your necessary essentials to pay off the debt, this is why debtors prisons are unlawful:
In the United States, debtors' prisons have been largely abolished. The practice of imprisoning individuals who are unable to pay off their debts was deemed unconstitutional and against public policy. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that incarcerating individuals for non-payment of debts without determining their ability to pay violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
This principle was established in the case of Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983). In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that a sentencing court may not revoke probation and imprison a defendant for failure to pay a fine and restitution unless the court first determines that the defendant was somehow responsible for his failure to pay. If the defendant does not have the ability to pay, imprisoning them solely for non-payment is unconstitutional.
As expressed in the June 5, 1933 act, otherwise known as, "AN ACT TO ASSURE THE UNIFORM VALUE OF THE COINS AND CURRENCIES OF THE UNITED STATES".
"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... 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 shall be contained in or made with respect to any obligation hereafter incurred. Every obligation, heretofore or hereafter incurred, whether or not any such provision is contained therein or made with respect thereto, 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.
The United States dollar is the world default currency, tax credits are dollars and they are equal to a dollar in other words, tax credits are "DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR"! The United States Congress and General assembly on March 9, 1933 stated that the "NEW MONEY", is "the gold" that backs Federal Reserve notes, and are used to exchange for Federal Reserve notes. They identified this new money as, notes, drafts, bills of exchange, bankers acceptances and trade acceptances along with government contractual obligations. The law is this way, treaties of the United States, statutes, acts of Congress, the Constitution for the United States of America's Bill of Rights, the Congressional record evidencing the intent of Congress to enact such laws in accordance with the legislative process. It is the United States Congress under their capacity and authority to regulate commerce, who has stated that the "NEW MONEY", would mean any note and/or any of the aforementioned, thus constituting LAW and/or LAWFUL MONEY and/or LEGAL TENDER. In legal tender is recognized as good for the payment of all debts both public and private!
We are here to help you, let us become one of your partners in resolving the associated debt, the limited power of attorney creates such a relationship between the parties, and with your permission, we will take it from there!
For current ""AMCF", or "AMARALEGION" AND 4th Amendment Collateral Acquisition SECURE PROGRAM" clients only!
Let's clarify the intent of Congress with respect to the Emergency Banking Relief Act (EBRA) and the Gold Repeal Act in the context of payments and obligations:
Emergency Banking Relief Act (EBRA) - March 9, 1933:
The primary intent behind the EBRA was to stabilize the banking system during the Great Depression. Congress recognized that the banking system was in crisis, with numerous banks on the brink of insolvency, and they aimed to restore public confidence in the financial system. One key provision of EBRA was the redefinition of a new form of money in the United States.
The EBRA established this new form of money to consist of "notes, drafts, bills of exchange, bankers' acceptances, and trade acceptances." The intent behind this provision was to create a more liquid and flexible form of currency that could be readily used to discharge debts. In essence, Congress sought to infuse the economy with a new type of currency that would facilitate economic transactions and help stabilize the financial system.
The key objective was to ensure that this new money would be widely accepted in lieu of the existing forms of currency, which were experiencing a crisis of confidence. By making these new instruments equivalent to a particular kind of coin or currency of the United States, Congress aimed to encourage their acceptance and use in transactions. This move was intended to help address the economic turmoil by providing a more reliable medium of exchange.
Gold Repeal Joint Resolution of 1933 - June 5, 1933:
The Gold Repeal Act, on the other hand, was designed to address the issue of contracts specifying payments in gold or gold-backed currency, as well as any other obligations that required payments "in any particular kind of coin or currency." Congress sought to alleviate the constraints posed by these contractual obligations during a period of economic crisis.
The intent of Congress with the Gold Repeal Act was to render such contract clauses unenforceable. By annulling the gold clause and allowing payments to be made in the new money created under the EBRA (i.e., notes, drafts, bills of exchange, bankers' acceptances, and trade acceptances), Congress aimed to relieve the financial burden on debtors and promote economic recovery. This was especially important during the Great Depression when deflationary pressures and a lack of liquidity were contributing to the economic downturn.
In summary, the intent of Congress regarding these two acts was to address the economic emergency of the Great Depression. EBRA established a new form of money to enhance liquidity and facilitate economic transactions, while the Gold Repeal Act nullified certain contractual obligations requiring payments in specific forms of currency, thereby enabling debtors to make payments in the new money, which was considered equivalent to a particular kind of coin or currency of the United States. These legislative actions were taken to promote financial stability, economic recovery, and the overall well-being of the nation during a time of crisis.
When interpreting statute, Congress often places the phrase "and for other purposes" that is often ignored by many. Take for instance, the creation of the "NEW MONEY", that is found in the Congressional record of March 9, 1933. It was clearly explained in that session of how the "New Money Was to Be Used", or, what was the "purpose" for "the new money". The NEW MONEY was to be used as gold and security for FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES, and was to be at par with FEDERAL RESERVE BANK NOTES which was replaced by FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES. For the same purposes as FEDERAL RESERVE BANKNOTES which were then known as "NATIONAL BANKNOTES". It was congressional intent that, "ANY NOTES, or Any Drafts, or ANY BILL OF EXCHANGE, or ANY BANKERS ACCEPTANCE/TRADE ACCEPTANCE", were to be worth 100 cents on the dollar, because it was backed by the credit of the nation. Since Congress identified this as the "NEW MONEY", it is deemed in law as legal tender. Also note: "The New Money Will Be Worth 100 Cents on the Dollar Because It Is Backed by the Credit of the Nation' ", because this was the stated intent of Congress, this "NEW MONEY", was legal tender, good for the payment of all debts as backed by the repeal of the gold clause, redefining what the term "gold" meant "henceforth, heretofore", as stipulated by the joint session of Congress on June 5, 1933!
How is it possible for this to be the situation in the United States, and for Federal Reserve banks and/or member banks and/or national banks and/or credit unions, to demand payment in a coin or currency of the United States or in a form or particular kind of money of the United States measured thereby, when such is against public policy as declared by Congress on June 5, 1933?
The answer, it is not legally possible for such to happen. It is against the law, as public policy is law of the United States!
California State Auto. Ass'n Inter-Ins. Bureau v. Maloney, 341 U.S. 105 (1951):
In this case, the Supreme Court acknowledged that contracts which contravene public policy are generally void. The decision underscored the importance of public policy in determining the legality and enforceability of contracts.
These cases illustrate the principle that public policy is indeed considered a fundamental part of the law in the United States and is crucial in shaping legal decisions and interpretations.
Friedman v. Tappan Development Corporation, 22 A.D.2d 780 (1964):
In this case, the court held that an agreement to pay a debt in a specific kind of currency could be invalidated if it was found to be against public policy. The court emphasized that public policy considerations are paramount in determining the enforceability of contractual terms.
Jones v. Star Credit Corporation, 59 Misc. 2d 689 (1969):
In this case, the court ruled that contracts which are oppressive, unconscionable, or against public policy are unenforceable. While this case did not involve a specific currency demand, it reinforces the principle that agreements violating public policy can be voided.
Pace Allied Corp. v. Hewes, 409 N.E.2d 43 (N.Y. 1980):
In this New York Court of Appeals case, the court held that contracts requiring payment in a specific currency were enforceable. However, the case highlighted that public policy could limit the enforceability of such contracts in certain circumstances. This decision demonstrates the nuanced approach courts take when considering public policy in contractual obligations.
Please review each of the points made within this page, the associated references and the associated links for complete and thorough understanding of what the law is!.
Every road that is paved is done so through the sweat and tears of either the individuals looking to travel the road, or upon the backs of others. This will be a fight, but "documentation is everything". Meaning that, not only will we document payment having been satisfied, but we will do so in a way that does not permit for the refusal of the payment of the debt, then we will notify all of the appropriate parties of the associated debt offset and or discharge.
In the annals of U.S. economic history, March 9, 1933, stands as a cornerstone moment. On this date, the U.S. Congress, with remarkable foresight, redefined the nation's financial landscape through the enactment of the Emergency Banking Act. This transformative legislation, as outlined in the Federal Reserve Act, Title IV, Section 401, Subsection 18, Paragraph 6, and Subsection 403, Paragraph (o), fundamentally reshaped the concept of currency.
The Congressional Record of March 9, 1933, illuminates this significant event. Congress, cognizant of the economic challenges gripping the nation, took decisive action. The Act delineated the parameters of the "NEW GOLD," a term encompassing "government obligations, any notes, drafts, bills of exchange, bankers acceptances, and trade acceptances." These financial instruments, backed by the full faith and credit of the United States, became the bedrock of the reimagined monetary system.
Crucially, these instruments were declared at par with Federal Reserve notes and national banknotes. The legislation mandated their acceptance in all member banks, national banks, and at the United States Treasury. This parity underscored Congress's intent: these instruments were not just legal tender but were, in fact, a direct representation of the economic strength of the nation.
The Act, fortified by the Federal Reserve Act's amendments, established their worth at 100 cents on the dollar. This valuation was not based on traditional gold reserves but on the unshakable credit of the United States. This revolutionary shift in valuation was codified in the "Act to Assure the Uniform Value of the Coins and Currencies of the United States," enacted on June 5, 1933. It symbolized the birth of a new era where the nation's economic stability was synonymous with the intrinsic value of these instruments.
This legislative vision ushered in an era of unprecedented economic diversification. The new understanding of "dollar for dollar" redefined the nation's economic discourse. These instruments, meticulously detailed in the Congressional Record and codified in the Federal Reserve Act, represented not just a change in policy but a fundamental shift in the nation's economic identity.
In conclusion, the events of March 9, 1933, immortalized in the Congressional Record and fortified by the Federal Reserve Act's amendments, represent a watershed moment in American economic history. The meticulous crafting of legislation and the precise delineation of these financial instruments demonstrated Congress's commitment to a robust, stable, and resilient economy. The "NEW GOLD" was not just a legal construct; it was a testament to the nation's unwavering resolve in the face of economic adversity, a testament that continues to resonate through the corridors of economic policy even today..
That is precisely what a contract does, it creates a partnership, a business relationship.