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

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 !!