Bottom line. People lost their gold, and the gold clauses in their contracts were violated. And in 1935 (two years later) the Supreme Court did NOTHING about it. As for the 1913 Federal Reserve Act - it was worded to sound nice. but it was (in reality) a charter for fraud. Fraud on a massive scale.
I agree with your bottom-line assessment, of course, but I must point out that there is a huge difference between people actually "losing" their gold through no fault of their and them effectually giving it away because they were conned out of it (under threat of 10-year prison terms and $10,000 fines, in this case, of course) and didn't take the time needed to expose what you and I both agree was massive fraud.
And, that difference involves the legitimacy of government being able to compel a given action, because of legitimate government authority, or, in this case, using a false color of law trick to induce people into action that was contrary to their interests.
This newsletter issue and especially my books (such as Monetary Laws of the United States, Dollars and nonCents, Understanding Federal Tyranny, etc.) show HOW all these actions you mention were indeed "Fraud on a massive scale," in your words.
Thankfully, fully exposing fraudulent action to the bright light of day is the rightful remedy to fraud, which is why I have worked 30+ years on this matter, to work exposing these necessarily-fraudulent federal actions to the bright light of day, so we can restore not only honest money, but legitimate federal action across the board.
I believe we cannot get sucked into looking only at the bottom line. Instead, we must learn HOW the scoundrels pulled off their massive swindle, so we can re-orient federal powers back in line with the spirit of the Constitution.
I hope you consider reading some of my books (all in the public domain, and freely available electronically, at www.PatriotCorps.org), which go into the matter, in far greater detail.
Threats of ten years in prison sounds more like forced than conned. I agree with you that the government was breaking the Constitution and the Common Law - but if the courts refuse to enforce the laws AGAINST the government, then all is lost.
More accurately, it was a full-on con-job, backed with [real] threats of force.
However, when one does NOT argue the correct points in Court, do not expect any judge to supersede your own faulty arguments, and rule for you what you and your attorney didn't have the foresight to argue properly.
We still have Laisse Faire court system, whether or not one likes it.
We MUST bring up the proper points in court, or we WILL lose. The buck stops with us. It is up to us to expose their fraud.
Bottom line. People lost their gold, and the gold clauses in their contracts were violated. And in 1935 (two years later) the Supreme Court did NOTHING about it. As for the 1913 Federal Reserve Act - it was worded to sound nice. but it was (in reality) a charter for fraud. Fraud on a massive scale.
Paul;
Thanks for taking the time to comment.
I agree with your bottom-line assessment, of course, but I must point out that there is a huge difference between people actually "losing" their gold through no fault of their and them effectually giving it away because they were conned out of it (under threat of 10-year prison terms and $10,000 fines, in this case, of course) and didn't take the time needed to expose what you and I both agree was massive fraud.
And, that difference involves the legitimacy of government being able to compel a given action, because of legitimate government authority, or, in this case, using a false color of law trick to induce people into action that was contrary to their interests.
This newsletter issue and especially my books (such as Monetary Laws of the United States, Dollars and nonCents, Understanding Federal Tyranny, etc.) show HOW all these actions you mention were indeed "Fraud on a massive scale," in your words.
Thankfully, fully exposing fraudulent action to the bright light of day is the rightful remedy to fraud, which is why I have worked 30+ years on this matter, to work exposing these necessarily-fraudulent federal actions to the bright light of day, so we can restore not only honest money, but legitimate federal action across the board.
I believe we cannot get sucked into looking only at the bottom line. Instead, we must learn HOW the scoundrels pulled off their massive swindle, so we can re-orient federal powers back in line with the spirit of the Constitution.
I hope you consider reading some of my books (all in the public domain, and freely available electronically, at www.PatriotCorps.org), which go into the matter, in far greater detail.
Threats of ten years in prison sounds more like forced than conned. I agree with you that the government was breaking the Constitution and the Common Law - but if the courts refuse to enforce the laws AGAINST the government, then all is lost.
More accurately, it was a full-on con-job, backed with [real] threats of force.
However, when one does NOT argue the correct points in Court, do not expect any judge to supersede your own faulty arguments, and rule for you what you and your attorney didn't have the foresight to argue properly.
We still have Laisse Faire court system, whether or not one likes it.
We MUST bring up the proper points in court, or we WILL lose. The buck stops with us. It is up to us to expose their fraud.
When a conman starts using physical violence (say ten year prison terms) he is not a conman any more - he is a thug, indeed a rabid dog.