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

Judges Can Be Sued: Public Servants, Oaths, and Liability Under the Clearfield Doctrine AND 42 U.S.C. 1983

Judges Can Be Sued: Public Servants, Oaths, and Liability Under the Clearfield Doctrine AND 42 U.S.C. 1983

Judges are not immune when they operate outside lawful jurisdiction, conspire under color of law, or engage in commercial enforcement without consent. Under the Clearfield Doctrine, they become corporate actors subject to liability like any private party. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 enables civil rights lawsuits against them individually, while 18 U.S.C. §§ 241–242 provides for criminal penalties for conspiracy and deprivation of rights. Through tort law, UCC, and case law like Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844 (9th Cir. 1980), and Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984), judges can face personal and injunctive accountability.

FEDERAL EXPOSURE AND COMMERCIAL COLLAPSE: The Reckless Legal Simulation and RICO Fraud of Naji Doumit, Marinaj Properties LLC, and Their Counsel John Bailey of BAILEY LEGAL GROUP in Riverside County, California

FEDERAL EXPOSURE AND COMMERCIAL COLLAPSE: The Reckless Legal Simulation and RICO Fraud of Naji Doumit, Marinaj Properties LLC, and Their Counsel John Bailey of BAILEY LEGAL GROUP in Riverside County, California

A devastating legal and commercial collapse is underway for Naji Doumit, Marinaj Properties LLC, and their counsel following a Verified Response that dismantles their fraudulent Cross-Complaint. With unrebutted affidavits, perfected UCC filings, and binding conditional acceptance, the Plaintiffs have closed the commercial record and exposed the Defendants to over $100 million in liability. Unauthorized use of protected trademarks like KEVIN WALKER™ and DONNABELLE MORTEL™ now carries $1 million per-use penalties. The Cross-Complaint stands in dishonor, their legal position is void, and federal enforcement is imminent. There is no path to relief—only escalating consequences.

RIVERSIDE COUNTY RICO CHARGES and BOND CLAIM AND COLLAPSE: VERIFIED CLAIMS, CRIMINAL FRAUD, AND $1 TRILLION LIEN ENFORCEMENT IN MOTION FOR ALL BONDS

RIVERSIDE COUNTY RICO CHARGES and BOND CLAIM AND COLLAPSE: VERIFIED CLAIMS, CRIMINAL FRAUD, AND $1 TRILLION LIEN ENFORCEMENT IN MOTION FOR ALL BONDS

Riverside County officials, deputies, and unlicensed “commissioners” are now in verified default, dishonor, and commercial liability for unrebutted RICO, fraud, and color-of-law crimes. Kevin: Realworldfare has removed case MISW2501134 to federal court, triggering lien enforcement and formal demand for disclosure of liability bonds. Evidence includes unrebutted affidavits, a $1 trillion commercial lien, and documented bond fraud by inactive attorneys Jeremiah Raxter and Charles Rogers. Federal claims include kidnapping, extortion, impersonation, and deprivation of rights under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241–242, 1961–1964. Brady-listed deputies remain under active investigation. If justice is not delivered, top national officials will be named in new federal actions for willful neglect and complicity.

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 !!