Larry Becraft on HJR 192 and the fictitious national bankruptcy
Bob Hurt
Larry Becraft debunks patriot myths on the national bankruptcy.
Bob Hurt
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Becraft
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 8:16 PM
To: Bob Hurt
Subject: HJR 192 and the fictitious national bankruptcy
Bob,
The money issue is perhaps one of the most important to confront our society, and to understand just the legal aspects of it requires a considerable amount of study. To fully understand this issue and participate in the legal debate about it, one must have a working knowledge of economics as well as law. THE best legal treatise on this issue is Edwin Vieira’s Pieces of Eight, a 1600+ page, two volume work with thousands of footnotes. If you wish to read something less imposing that is posted on the Net, the money issue brief I drafted is posted here:
http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/MONEYbrief.html
Since this is one of the most important issues, lots of people are interested in it, but regrettably are unwilling to devote the time necessary to understand it. There are distinct periods in the legal history of this issue: the pre-Civil War era, the post-Civil War era, the 1913 era when the FRS was created, the Great Depression era, and then the events subsequent thereto. Those who have engaged in the essential study of this issue thus become conversant with these important facts and legal changes and can intelligently discuss the issue. But, those who haven’t engaged in this study are pre-disposed to believe every fairy tale they hear, even tho such has no factual or legal proof. The popular patriot beliefs about HJR 192 falls into this category of unfounded beliefs. Let me give you a rough explanation of the error regarding this popular but baseless argument.
At the time this country was founded, the Piece of Eight, a Spanish minted silver dollar, was the prevalent currency. The word dollar as appears in Atr. 1, §9 and the 7th Amendment to the US Const means this coin. The 1792 Coinage Act scientifically defined “dollar” in this constitutional sense: 371.25 grains of pure silver. From a patriot viewpoint, I believe that ALL patriots should accept this as the definition of “dollar” and make this argument the basis for our objections to the current monetary system that has been established to defraud the American people.
There were minor legislative adjustments to the monetary system prior to the War of Northern Aggression. But, a student of the money issue must also understand the various decisions of the Supremes regarding the “changes” in monetary law that happened during this period regarding legal tender and the validity of both Northern and Southern paper “money”. Furthermore, one must understand the “crime of 1874" that created the “trade dollar”, and comprehend that this was the first assault of the banking system on our specie based monetary system: bank paper and credit are always at war with a specie-based monetary system. After this assault, there was also the assault of the late 1890s that claimed the creation of a “gold standard”. To fully understand these events requires a good working knowledge of what was happening internationally regarding the international medium of exchange.
In the 1920s, the constitutional dollar was still that established via the 1792 Coinage Act, but a “gold standard” facade had been superimposed thereon. From economic history, it is quite obvious that the banking industry was planning at that time another assault on specie: it expanded credit during the roaring ‘20s, then contracted it. In the early ‘30s, the constitutional silver dollar was still the constitutional monetary standard, but there was also that additional unit of the gold standard, the gold coin. All HJR 192 did was legally stop the operation of the “gold standard” in effect at that time. While paying gold debts was the subject of HJR 192, it did nothing to the constitutional standard, the silver dollar. After HJR 192, dollar debts could still be paid via constitutional coin. But, the legal effect of HJR 192 ended in 1977.
But if you wish to learn about the reasons for the enactment of HJR 192, may I suggest you consider that old investigative technique, “follow the money.” There were lots of obligations to pay gold debts in existence in the early 1930s: private corporations, BANKS and many other types of debtors. Preventing the payment of gold obligations clearly favored the debtors of those obligations, to the detriment of their creditors. It was these gold obligation debtors who were the primary beneficiaries of HJR 192. The historical evidence shows that there were at least twice as many private gold debtors as there were public, govt gold debtors. Thus the primary beneficiaries of this legislation were the private gold debtors, and may I suggest, altho I cannot offered definitive evidence, that a large number of these beneficiaries were banks. If anything, HJR 192 was just another example of the political power in this country favoring the “friends of paper money and credit.”
A more recent example of Congress favoring the banking/credit industry in this country was last year’s bailout. We know that Congress dispensed about 350 billion bux within months of the bailout, but may I ask why in the hell did “Hanky Panky” Paulsen get 200 million of this amount? Others have offered observations and comments about the bailout, especially concerning Goldman Sachs, and I strongly encourage you to read these articles:
The Great American Bubble Machine (7 parts)
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29127316/the_great_american_bubble_machine
The Big Takeover (9 parts)
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/26793903/the_big_takeover.
The Dirty Dozen
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/26868968/the_dirty_dozen
What amazes me is that wild stories about HJR 192 are accepted by ordinary Americans who clearly know nothing about the legal and factual background for this issue. Having no knowledge about this issue, they accept these wild stories, while those with a background and understanding of both the relevant legal and factual events of this period do not. Gurus like Roger Elvick have promoted the idea that HJR 192 “stole all our credit”, and based on this thesis, he has concocted an argument that is best described as the “legal” justification for stealing cars. Further, this Elvick argument became an important aspect of his 1099-OID argument, on which people have been filing claims for tax refunds that have absolutely no legal basis. My protests of “don’t do that” were ignored and lots of people followed this bad “guru” advice. Please take notice that DoJ is gearing up to prosecute lots of people who were 1099-OID advocates.
Edwin has certainly read all of the debates of HJR 192 that are published in the Congressional Record and I have read probably most of them. Neither of us has reached the conclusion that HJR 192 was a declaration of national bankruptcy. Edwin’s analysis of HJR 192 appears in his Pieces of Eight, and I shortly discuss it in the above money issue brief. If you wish to put some spin on HJR 192, then I suggest that it was simply one of the steps of the banking industry in its war against specie. By creating credit and convincing people to use it as a medium of exchange, the bankers reap tremendous benefits. HJR 192 thus represents one event where Congress was convinced that if it eventually created a fiat monetary system, it would reap benefits identical to those of the bankers. Surely, what Beardsley Ruml openly stated in 1946 was quietly mentioned to fed officials during the consideration of HJR 192.
To contend that there was some secret national bankruptcy hidden behind HJR 192 requires some sort of proof, which you admit does not exist. Why ignore facts, but believe something that cannot be proven?
Larry