View RSS Feed

enjerth

$80 Million Heist

Rate this Entry
Judge Says 10 Rare Gold Coins Worth $80 Million Belong to Uncle Sam

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/judge...3#.ULOs-Ias9Sk

The coin is a thing of the realm. It doesn't belong to the head, although the head utilizes it. The coin belongs to the body. It comes from the body, as the body is what produces and defines it's value. Governments may think they can regulate value, but that notion is based on the absurdity that the body belongs to the head.

This is a republic. The government belongs to the body, as well as what the government is charged with.

E Pluribus Unum. Assurance of trust, unity and strength. To refuse taking this coin is, legally speaking, refusal of debt.

The coin does not belong to the government. Money never does. The metal was borrowed from the public, stamped in trust, and circulated as a standard weight and measure for conducting business. The government abuses of this trust have led to this entanglement, but Israel Swift and his family have no clear part in the blame.

How the coin ended up in circulation is the question the government raises, without evidence. Possession is apparetly 9/10ths of the law, except when dealing with the people who get to make up law.

What if the alleged "US mint cashier", who presumably stole the coins, had offered them to Israel Swift as payment of debt? The coin dealer who ended up possessing would not be able to legally refuse taking them, right? At least not without absolving the debt that this cashier owed.

How does Mr Swift share the blame in the theft of these coins? Look to your own, Uncle Sam.

Apparently, in accordance with the Universal Standard Operating Procedures for Tyrannical Governmental Bodies, the burden of mistakes made by government employees is not shouldered by the government, but stacked on the back of the nearest commoner they can manage to shift blame to.

So, let's summarize.

The question is a matter of debt. The debt is assumed, based on an executive order from 1933 that was revoked 28 years ago, but without evidence of any illegal action on the part of Mr Swift. The debt was denominated in $20 gold coins.



If there is a debt that must be paid, legal tender is payable for all, public and private. Thank you, Supreme Court.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede.../240/case.html

How much was the debt? Well, it was not only legal tender, but by executive order, they priced these coins for them to be turned in to the government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102

$20.67 per coin was their irrefusable offer. Oh, and being that the executive order has been reversed, wouldn't the continued attempt to seize coins based on that executive order be considered a kind of "ex post facto" application of law?

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11825

Revoked!

Section 2. The revocation, in whole or in part, of such prior Executive orders relating to regulation on the acquisition of, holding of, or other transactions in gold shall not affect any act completed, or any right accruing or accrued, or any suit or proceeding finished or started in any civil or criminal cause prior to the revocation, but all such liabilities, penalties, and forfeitures under the Executive orders shall continue and may be enforced in the same manner as if the revocation had not been made.
However, new suits or proceedings relating to the acquisition of, holding of, or other transactions in gold...may not be enforced as if the revocation had not been made. Any continued claim to the coin based on this law is illegal.

Someone MAY owe the treasury $206.70 over these coins, having been stolen from the treasury. However, I don't think it's Mr Swift, or is family, can be implicated reasonably.

Accept the paper substitute you foisted on us, at the price you offered us. It never belonged to you anyways, Uncle Sam. You just borrowed it from us. Please, withdraw your greedy fingers.

Now the difference between what was stolen ($200) and what it's worth now (around $17,500 in bullion) is just a reflection of how much of our savings the government has destroyed since then. They should have no right to that value.


Finally,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations

If the government can raise a 78 year old case, without evidence, and win, who and what on this good green earth is safe from their grasp?

Updated 11-26-2012 at 02:41 PM by enjerth

Categories
Uncategorized

Comments

  1. enjerth's Avatar
    Does the fact that the Executive Order, which specified a government price of $20.67 per coin, having been revoked, dispel that odd $0.67 cents? It's just $20 now, face value.

    Legal tender was stolen, and that's all that it is now, legally speaking.
    Updated 11-26-2012 at 02:17 PM by enjerth
  2. enjerth's Avatar
    Oh yeah, I forgot to mention.

    I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

    But I think I might have stayed at a Holiday Inn-Express one night.