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

PHH Mortgage Corporation's Motion to Dismiss in Kevin Walker Estate, et al. v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al. is a glaring example of procedural misconduct, constitutional violations, and a deliberate attempt to obstruct justice. The Plaintiffs have conditionally accepted PHH Mortgage’s non-compliant filing, thereby tendering a binding counteroffer that PHH must now rebut. PHH’s continued silence and failure to rebut the conditional acceptance further compounds their non-performance and dishonor. Additionally, the Defendants’ filing violates multiple-defendant court rules, misrepresents the law, displays incompetence and a war against the Constitution, and constitutes blatant obstruction of justice.

KEVIN WALKER ESTATE’S Conditional Acceptance Exposes PHH Mortgage’s Motion as Procedurally Defective, Deceitful and Dishonest, Unconstitutional, and Legally Void

PHH Mortgage Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss in Kevin Walker Estate, et al. v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al. is a glaring example of procedural misconduct, constitutional violations, and a deliberate attempt to obstruct justice. The Plaintiffs have conditionally accepted PHH Mortgage’s non-compliant filing, thereby tendering a binding counteroffer that PHH must now rebut. PHH’s continued silence and failure to rebut the conditional acceptance further compounds their non-performance and dishonor. Additionally, the Defendants’ filing, prepared by Neil J. Cooper of HOUSER LLP, violates multiple-defendant court rules, misrepresents the law, displays incompetence and a war against the Constitution, and constitutes blatant obstruction of justice.

Further exacerbating this obstruction, critical documents remain missing from the court docket and record, preventing a full and fair adjudication of the Plaintiffs’ claims. This deliberate suppression of filings by the court and Defendants undermines due process, conceals key evidence, and constitutes judicial misconduct. The failure to properly record and acknowledge Plaintiffs’ filings further demonstrates systematic efforts to manipulate the proceedings in PHH Mortgage’s favor, reinforcing the need for immediate judicial correction, sanctions, and enforcement of Plaintiffs’ default judgment demands.

DOJ Dismantles Unconstitutional Barriers Protecting Corrupt Administrative Judges

DOJ Dismantles Unconstitutional Barriers Protecting Corrupt Administrative “Judges”

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has concluded that restrictions on the removal of Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) are unconstitutional, referencing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris notified Senate President Pro Tempore Charles Grassley that the DOJ will no longer defend these protections in court. DOJ Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle emphasized that unelected ALJs have wielded excessive authority without accountability for too long and must be answerable to the President and the American people.

Judicial Misconduct in Riverside, California: Defendant PHH Mortgage's ("loan servicer") Baseless Motion and the Court’s Obstruction of Justice

Judicial Misconduct in Riverside, California: Defendant PHH Mortgage’s (“loan servicer”) Baseless Motion and the Court’s Obstruction of Justice

PHH Mortgage’s Motion to Dismiss in Kevin Walker Estate, et al. v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al. exemplifies judicial overreach, procedural abuse, and a blatant disregard for constitutional rights. The motion falsely asserts that a trust cannot be represented by an attorney-in-fact, denying individuals their right to self-representation and claiming that only "attorneys at law" can act in court. This contradicts established legal principles, including the American Bar Association’s recognition of power of attorney as a legitimate instrument granting broad authority. Additionally, the court has obstructed the record by refusing to file Plaintiffs’ documents, prompting a writ of mandamus to expose the Riverside Federal Court’s misconduct. This case underscores a broader pattern of legal corruption, defamation, and deprivation of rights under the color of law.

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 !!