legal tender vs tender of payment

LEGAL TENDER and/or TENDER OF PAYMENT ? Which Works?

Did the fraudulent Car Dealership, Mortgage Company, or Utility Company tell you?

The concept of “legal tender” in the United States is primarily defined by 31 U.S.C. § 5103, which states that United States coins and currency, including Federal Reserve notes, are “legal tender” for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. 

Complementary to this, 12 U.S.C. § 411 clarifies that Federal Reserve notes are obligations of the United States and are redeemable in “lawful money.” Further regulations are found in 12 U.S.C. § 418, which outlines the denominations and collateral requirements for Federal Reserve notes, and 31 U.S.C. § 5112, which specifies the minting and issuance of coins. The prohibition against the use of gold clauses in contracts is detailed in 31 U.S.C. § 5118, ensuring that only U.S. legal tender can be used to settle debts. Additionally, 31 U.S.C. § 5120 standardizes the melting and refining of bullion to maintain the quality of U.S. coinage. Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution restricts States from making anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts. House Joint Resolution 192 of 1933 (Public Law 73-10) suspended the gold standard, making U.S. currency no longer redeemable in gold. 

Under these”legal” frameworks, payments can be “tendered” in various forms, including banker’s acceptances, bills of exchange, checks (public or private), money orders (public or private), as well as through private bankers and “banks” as defined by 31 U.S.C. § 5312. This diverse set of instruments ensures flexibility and comprehensiveness in the U.S. monetary system.

While the United States Code does not explicitly state that bills of exchange are legal tender, these instruments are recognized as valid forms of payment under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The UCC governs “negotiable instruments,” including bills of exchange, and ensures their enforceability in commercial transactions, though they do not have the status of “legal tender.”  However, these instruments are valid “tender of payment.” The UCC provides a standardized framework for the use of these instruments, facilitating their use in various financial transactions “within” the United States.

 

31 U.S. Code § 5312 – Definitions and application

(2)financial institution” means—

(A) an insured bank (as defined in section 3(h) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(h)));

(B) a commercial bank or trust company;

(C) a private banker;

(H) a broker or dealer in securities or commodities;

(I) an investment banker or investment company;J)a currency exchange, or a business engaged in the exchange of currency, funds, or value that substitutes for currency or funds;

(K) an issuer, redeemer, or cashier of travelers’ checks, checks, money orders, or similar instruments;

(L) an operator of a credit card system;

(M) an insurance company;

(N) a dealer in precious metals, stones, or jewels;

(O) a pawnbroker;

(P) a loan or finance company;

(Q) a travel agency;

(T) a business engaged in vehicle sales, including automobile, airplane, and boat sales;

(U) persons involved in real estate closings and settlements;

(V) the United States Postal Service;

(W) an agency of the United States Government or of a State or local government carrying out a duty or power of a business described in this paragraph;

 

EVERY MAN OR WOMAN IS A PRIVATE BANKER, WITH A STRAW MAN/ENS LEGIS/TRUST.

 

LEGAL TENDER and:or TENDER OF PAYMENT ? Which Works?

Leave your vote

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 !!