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

What a California Court Commissioner Really Is and how Charles Rogers Jeremiah Raxter are Engaged in RICO and Felonies in Riverside California 1 1

Riverside, California: What a California Court Commissioner Really Is and how Fraudulent “Commissioner” Charles Rogers, Jeremiah Raxter are Engaged in RICO and Felonies

Charles Rogers (Bar #64530) and Jeremiah D. Raxter (Bar #276811) are engaged in an ongoing scheme of judicial fraud and racketeering in Riverside County, California. Both individuals are inactive members of the California State Bar and have no lawful authority to act as judges or commissioners. Their acts — including issuing bench warrants, signing orders, and presiding over court matters — are void ab initio and constitute federal felonies under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, and 1962. Their actions represent a criminal enterprise under color of law, demanding immediate investigation, disbarment, and prosecution. Public notice is hereby given that all their proceedings are fraudulent and without legal force.

Criminal RICO Syndicate in Riverside County, California: How Lawyers Posing as “Judges,” Clerks, and Deputies Form an Ongoing Enterprise of Fraud, Obstruction, and Human Rights Violations — 42 USC 1984, 18 USC 241-242, RICO, Extortion and more

Organized Judicial Racketeering in Southern California: How Attorneys Masquerading as Judges Collude with Clerks and Sheriffs to Perpetrate Fraud, Extortion, and Civil Rights Violations Under Color of Law

This exposé reveals a coordinated RICO enterprise operating within Riverside County’s justice system, naming Sheriff Chad Bianco, DA Michael Hestrin, Commissioner Tamara L. Wagner, and others for systemic fraud, extortion, and deprivation of rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It further exposes U.S. District Judge Jesus G. Bernal for judicial obstruction and record concealment, constituting willful interference in violation of federal due process. Backed by an active federal RICO lawsuit under 18 U.S.C. § 1962 before Judge Wesley Hsu, the article outlines a pattern of racketeering, forged instruments, false filings, and unlawful evictions. Officials including Pam Bondi, Rob Bonta, Kash Patel, and the FBI have been formally notified but remain silent. This is not isolated misconduct—it is organized crime under color of law. The piece stands as both public notice and evidentiary documentation for further federal action.

RICO-Fueled Courtroom Corruption in Riverside: Attorney Tamara L. Wagner Implicated for Fraud and Abuse of Office

RICO-Fueled Courtroom Corruption in Riverside: Attorney Tamara L. Wagner Implicated for Fraud and Abuse of Office

Tamara L. Wagner (CA Bar #188613), a licensed attorney acting as a judicial officer in Riverside County, is now at the center of a federal removal action citing judicial fraud, civil rights violations, and RICO conspiracy. Defendants allege she is unlawfully practicing law from the bench without constitutional authority, advancing proceedings in open dishonor. Verified affidavits, UCC filings, and summary judgment demands were ignored, leading to claims of railroading and systemic court corruption. The case, removed under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1443, and 1446, is now pending in federal court.

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 !!