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

Fraud, Color of Law, and RICO Violations by Attorney Monika Vermani (Bar #355080) Exposed in Riverside County, California

Fraud, Color of Law, and RICO Violations by Attorney Monika Vermani (Bar #355080) Exposed in Riverside County, California

Attorney Monika Vermani (CA Bar #355080) has been formally named in a high-level commercial fraud and racketeering operation involving Riverside County’s unlawful prosecution of a secured private trust estate. Verified affidavits, unrebutted notices, and perfected UCC filings establish that Vermani is proceeding without lawful jurisdiction, operating under color of law, and aiding in the unauthorized securitization and monetization of private estate assets. The record demands $100 million in damages, immediate dismissal with prejudice, and criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, and 1961–1968 (RICO). This case exposes a systemic pattern of commercial fraud, identity theft, and administrative conspiracy masquerading as routine judicial process.

Attorney Monika Vermani (CA Bar #355080) has been formally named in a high-level commercial fraud and racketeering operation involving Riverside County’s unlawful prosecution of a secured private trust estate. Verified affidavits, unrebutted notices, and perfected UCC filings establish that Vermani is proceeding without lawful jurisdiction, operating under color of law, and aiding in the unauthorized securitization and monetization of private estate assets. The record demands $100 million in damages, immediate dismissal with prejudice, and criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, and 1961–1968 (RICO). This case exposes a systemic pattern of commercial fraud, identity theft, and administrative conspiracy masquerading as routine judicial process.

252Is a U.S. Citizen an Authorized Representative of the United States?

Is a U.S. Citizen an Authorized Representative of the United States?

A U.S. citizen does not possess agency on behalf of the United States government unless expressly appointed by statute, contract, or lawful delegation. Mere citizenship does not establish authority to act for or represent the federal government in any legal or commercial capacity. In reality, the U.S. citizen is the governed and regulated party—operating under federal jurisdiction, not within it. Only properly delegated agents—such as public officers, attorneys, or fiduciaries acting under written authority—may speak or act on behalf of the United States. Recognizing this separation is essential in all matters involving legal standing, jurisdiction, and commercial equity.

2How to Convene a 12 Panel Grand Jury Citizen Authority vs. State Monopoly

How to Convene a 12-Panel Grand Jury: Citizen Authority vs. State Monopoly

Learn how private citizens can lawfully initiate grand jury investigations through both statutory and common law means. This article explains the difference between court-convened grand juries and citizen-led panels formed under First Amendment and natural law authority. From submitting affidavits to the U.S. Attorney under 18 U.S.C. § 3332(a), to organizing lawful assemblies that issue true bills, the guide walks through each step. It empowers those facing systemic fraud, corruption, or due process violations with a lawful path to remedy. Grand juries are not just for prosecutors—they are a tool for the people.

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 !!