Bill of Exchange 'Evidenced' as Currency by 31 USC 5118, 12 USC 412, UCC 3 601, 3 603, 3 311, and HJR 192 of 1933 (public law 73 10)

Bill of Exchange ‘Evidenced’ as “Currency” by 31 USC 5118, 12 USC 412, UCC 3-601, 3-603, 3-311, and HJR 192 of 1933 (public law 73-10)

Bills of Exchange as Currency

A bill of exchange is a negotiable instrument where one party orders another to pay a specific amount of money to a third party. Think of it as a formal IOU that functions in commerce as money because it represents value and discharges obligations.

Legal Foundations Proving It Is Currency

  1. House Joint Resolution 192 (HJR 192) (1933)
    The U.S. government eliminated the use of gold as money and replaced it with debt instruments, stating:

    “Every provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby, is declared to be against public policy.”

    This means all debts must now be discharged with paper money or debt instruments such as bills of exchange, promissory notes, or other negotiable instruments.

  2. 31 USC 5118:
    Confirms that gold clauses in contracts are void, and all payments must be made using Federal Reserve Notes or debt instruments.
  3. 12 USC 412:
    States that Federal Reserve Notes are backed by debt instruments, including promissory notes and bills of exchange, legally making them currency.

UCC Provisions That Prove Bills of Exchange Act as Payment

The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) supports the idea that bills of exchange discharge debt obligations—just like cash:

  • UCC 3-603 (Tender of Payment):

    “(b) If tender of payment of an obligation to pay an instrument is made and refused, there is discharge, to the extent of the amount of the tender.”

    Meaning: If you present a bill of exchange as payment and the other party refuses it, the debt is discharged as if it were paid in full.

  • UCC 3-311 (Accord and Satisfaction):

    “If a person against whom a claim is asserted proves that (i) that person in good faith tendered an instrument to the claimant as full satisfaction of the claim, and (ii) the claimant obtained payment of the instrument…the claim is discharged.”

    Meaning: Offering a bill of exchange in good faith to settle a debt discharges the debt, regardless of whether it was accepted.

  • UCC 3-601 (Discharge of Obligation):

    “The obligation of a party to pay the instrument is discharged as stated in this Article or by an act or agreement with the party which would discharge an obligation to pay money under a simple contract.”

    Meaning: Providing a bill of exchange or other negotiable instrument fulfills the legal obligation to pay.

Unequivocal Conclusion

A bill of exchange is currency because:

  • It satisfies debt obligations in commerce.
  • Federal statutes (31 USC 5118, 12 USC 412) equate debt instruments with currency.
  • HJR 192 confirms that gold-backed payments were eliminated and replaced with debt-based instruments.
  • UCC Articles 3-603, 3-311, and 3-601 explicitly state that offering a bill of exchange discharges debt, even if refused.

 

Based on proper interpretation and in accordance with statues, public policy, and codes, refusal of a bill of exchange legally equals payment in full, cementing it as a valid form of currency.

Leave your vote

283911 points
More

Don’t Stop Here

More To Explore

Fraud Upon the Court and Judicial Complicity: Judge Marquez Aids RICO Conspirators and Attempts to Punish "the People"

Fraud Upon the Court and Judicial Complicity: Judge Marquez Aids RICO Conspirators and Attempts to Punish “the People”

A federal RICO action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California unveils a calculated scheme orchestrated by attorneys Barry Lee O’Connor and John Bailey, in concert with MARINAJ PROPERTIES and the Doumit family. The Verified Complaint lays out a detailed pattern of racketeering involving simulated legal proceedings, fraudulent conveyance, and theft of trust assets through a void and defective Trustee’s Deed. Despite perfected title claims and unrebutted affidavits establishing lawful ownership, Judge Rachel A. Marquez has enabled the misconduct by shielding culpable parties and targeting the rightful beneficiaries asserting their rights. The suit cites violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962 (RICO), 241 (conspiracy against rights), and 1341 (mail fraud), along with California Civil Code §§ 1709 (fraud) and 3346 (treble damages for wrongful injury to property). This case exemplifies judicial corruption—where bar-protected insiders act with impunity while private Americans are silenced. The court’s response will reveal whether justice, equity, and due process remain alive in California.

How the UCC is Codified in EVERY State: A State-by-State Codification of the UCC and Core Commercial Law Principles

How the UCC is Codified in EVERY State: A State-by-State Codification of the UCC and Core Commercial Law Principles

UCC §§ 1-103, 3-104, 3-601, and 3-603 operate as the foundation of lawful commercial remedy across all 50 states. Section 1-103 ensures equity, common law, and the Law Merchant remain enforceable alongside UCC processes. Section 3-104 defines what qualifies as a negotiable instrument—an essential element in debt discharge. Section 3-601 codifies the principle that all obligations can be discharged by contract, agreement, or valid performance. Section 3-603 delivers the lethal commercial strike: once lawful tender is made—even if refused—the obligation is discharged as a matter of law. These statutes, codified in every U.S. jurisdiction, are the legal artillery that allow secured parties and private trusts to assert control, tender discharge, and permanently terminate fraudulent or unperfected claims. Use them with precision—or be used by those who will.

20410479 329d 40a2 8d4d 492022986bb5

Void Means Void: When Judges Act Without Jurisdiction, Their Orders Are Legal Nullities

When a court acts without lawful jurisdiction—whether through improper removal, lack of subject matter or personal authority, or constitutional violations—its orders are void ab initio and carry no legal force. This article explains how judges who continue to issue rulings after losing jurisdiction are not merely mistaken—they are acting under color of law and are subject to direct civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Backed by black-letter case law and statutory authority, this piece dismantles the myth of absolute judicial immunity and affirms a fundamental truth in law: jurisdiction is everything. When it’s gone, so is the court’s power to act.

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.

error: Content is protected !!