:Law-History:

Dr. List's letters:

Professor List represented the society of German merchants and manufacturers for the purpose of obtaining a German system of national economy. His plans of reform proving obnoxious to the government, he was accused of high treason and thrown in prison, and was subsequently exiled from Germany. He settled in Pennsylvania and studied and lectured on the doctrines of political economy. During his attention to that subject, he voluntarily addressed a series of letters which were published in the National Gazette. Professor List was also a member of the George Rapp Harmony Society. In his first letter he tells us what he means by the term "National Economy."

"National Economy" teaches by what means a certain nation, in her particular situation, may direct and regulate the economy of individuals, and restrict the economy of mankind, either to prevent foreign restrictions and foreign powers within herself, . . .without restricting the economy of individuals and the economy of mankind more than the welfare of the people permits."

It is common knowledge that we have a "National Economy" today that directs and regulates the economy of individuals, and that of mankind, and that this economy is controlled and regulated by the Federal Reserve System.

In 1842, prior to the Civil War, in the case of Swift v. Tyson, the Supreme Court held that there was a general Federal common law (i.e., at that time, access to substantive common law existed at the federal level).

Swift v. Tyson, 16 Peters 1 (1842)

Limited Liability Act, 1851

On March 3, 1851, the Congress of the United States enacted the Limited Liability Act, (codified at 46 USC 181-189), as amended in 1875, 1877, 1935, 1936, and the Act of 1884 cover the entire subject of limitations. The Purpose of this act was to limit the liability for the payment of debts of persons who were ship owners involved in maritime commerce, as a result of U.S. Supreme Court decision: "The New Jersey Steam Navigation Co. vs. the Merchants Bank, 6 Howard 42, (1848)." In the case, the court ruled that under the Common Law, ship owners were liable for the acts of their ship masters. In other words, if a party were to ship goods on board a ship and something happened to the goods such as being destroyed or damaged by the perils of the sea, the ship owner was responsible to the owner of the goods.

The ship owner must pay to the owner of the goods the amount the goods were worth. If the ship owner didn't pay the debt, the owner of the goods could sue the ship owner and collect. If the ship owner failed to pay, the creditor could then file a lien on the ship which was called a maritime lien which does not require possession of the object. This Act specifically gives limited liability on shipments of "bills of any bank or public body." America was founded upon Maritime or Admiralty Law because shipping was the only means of commerce at the founding of the country.

The Congress decided in 1851 that, as a result of this case, persons would no longer be drawn into ownership of ships because of the risk and liability involved.

After the Limited Liability Act was enacted [1889], the US Supreme Court in Butler vs. Boston & Savannah Steamship Co., 130 US 527, ruled: "But it is enough to say that the rule of limited responsibility is now our maritime rule. It is the rule by which through the Act of Congress we have announced that we propose to administer justice in maritime cases."

"The rule of limited liability prescribed by the Act of 1851 is nothing more than the old maritime rule administered in courts of admiralty in all countries except England from time immemorial and if this were not so, the subject matter itself is one that belongs to the department of Maritime Law."

Tontine Insurance, 1868

In order to evade the usury laws which had prevented the growth of a funded system of national insurance, governments had frequently resorted to the issue of annuities and child endowments as a means of raising funds. The tontine was a somewhat later development, having been put into operation in France during the year 1689. It took its name from that of its originator, Lorenzo Tonti, a Neopolitan by birth, who was attracted to Paris by the regime of Mazarin. In its original form the tontine was a loan, "In which the premium was never to be repaid, but the entire interest on the loan was to be divided each year among the survivors or the original subscribers."

The chief characteristic, and trademark, of tontine is that the pool of assets is divided among the survivors, at the options of those subscribers who dropped out, or did not survive until the time for distribution had arrived. It was a wagering policy, just like that of the George Rapp Society. The Equitable Life Insurance Company, in 1868, introduced the deferred dividend system, which was really an application of the tontine principle. The most serious flaw in the deferred dividend system was the inability of the insured to compel an accounting. The general rule is that the policy holder is not entitled to compel the company to account for dividends. Nor can the policyholder "compel the distribution of the surplus fund in other manner or at any time, or in any other amounts than that provided for in the contract."

As stated in the report of the Armstrong Committee, "the plan of deferring dividends for long periods. . . has undoubtedly facilitated large accumulations, providing apparently abundant means for doubtful uses on the one hand, while concealing on the other the burden imposed upon the policy holders. . ." According to George L. Armhein, Instructor in Insurance at the University of Pennsylvania, ". . . deferred dividends were prohibited by law in the legislation (Pa.) of 1906 and subsequent years. Thus came to an end a system which in 1898 had superseded to a very large extent that of annual dividends, and which in 1915 seemed antiquated."

According to Mr. Armhein, it was outlawed in 1906, but didn't seem "antiquated" until 1915. John K. Tarbox, The commissioner of Insurance the State of Massachusetts had this to say about tontine in his annual report: "The false idea of life insurance as investment begat the equally false conception of life insurance as a bet, and the latter gave birth to the modern tontine, which is a wager."

". . .In the tontine the forfeitures go to enrich the individual survivors of the special class of policy holders who enter the compact, constituting a company liability instead of a company asset, for the protection of its policy obligations. . . The stake played for, rather than the game itself, constitutes the chief offense. Our law condemns, forbids, and makes void the contract of forfeiture." "As was truly testified before the committee of the New York Assembly, in 1877, . . . the tontine policy is taken for purposes of investment by a set of men who would not insure their lives at all. The inducement to the investment is. . .the expected profits from forfeitures. . ."

"Aside from the moral quality of the matter, concerning which I waive controversy, the considerations which the public aspect seems to me principally to invite are these; First, whether it is prudent to make of our insurance companies great banking establishments, . . .and, second, whether an institution organized as the life insurance system was, for a benevolent and unselfish use, shall be combined with enterprises of selfish speculation as the tontine undeniably is." I am strongly persuaded of the implicitly and positive danger of magnifying the banking feature of life insurance institutions, to accommodate modern plans of tontine speculation and endowment investment.

John Tarbox was clearly saying that, at that time, there were modern plans to make insurance companies (specifically, tontine insurance companies) great banking institutions.

The tontine had been declared unlawful in several states and these people knew that they had to do something to protect their money. They brought over the son of one of the big banking families from Europe, Paul Warburg, from the House of Warburg, which dates back to the Hanseatic League of merchants.

And, it was Paul Warburg who sold the American public on creating a Federal Reserve Bank, so that there wouldn't be any more panics and depressions, that they would be able to even out the economy by control of the money supply. It was the opposite of the British surrender at Yorktown. Giving control of our credit and money supply to a private banking organization, by the name of the Federal Reserve, was the surrender of our independence.

Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act on December 23, 1913 wherein it made Federal Reserve Notes debt obligations to the United States, and authorized the Federal Reserve to be the issuers of these debt obligations. The Federal Reserve Act also stipulated that the interest on the debt (to the Federal Reserve as a maritime lender to the United States) was to be paid in gold. No provision was made in the Act for paying off the principle. There was also a proviso that the people had 20 years to challenge the Act . . . [ther is no statute of limiatations on fraud)

Under the law of Nations, an action on Quo Warranto can be brought within 20 years. Quo Warranto, in this case, would be an action in the Court of Admiralty demanding "By whose Authority", and proof of the authority by which the Act was implemented.

"Public policy" is part and parcel of the Law of Nations. The Act was never challenged in a court of proper jurisdiction (admiralty), probably because anyone who wanted, or tried, to challenge it didn't know how.
On June 20, 1932, in the midst of the Great Depression, Congressman Louis T. McFadden addressed the House of Representatives on this subject. Representative McFadden had previously served as president of the First National Bank, Canton, Pa.; and later he served as chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency. Following are selected excerpts from his address: "Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government Institutions. They are not government institutions. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers;" "They should not have foisted that kind of currency, namely an asset currency, on the United States Government. They should not have made the government liable on the private debts of individuals and corporations and, least of all on the private debts of foreigners."

"The Federal Reserve Notes, therefore, in form have some of the qualities of government paper money, but, in substance, are almost purely asset currency possessing a government guaranty against which contingency the government has made no provision whatever." "Mr. Chairman, there is nothing like the Federal Reserve pool of confiscated bank deposits in the world. It is a public trough of American wealth. . ." "I see no reason why the American taxpayers should be hewers of wood and drawers of water for the European and Asiatic customers of the Federal Reserve Banks."
"Is not it high time that we had an audit of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks [it pays no tax and has never been publicly audited to this day] and an examination of all our governments bonds and securities and public monies instead of allowing the corrupt and dishonest Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks to speculate with those securities and this cash in the notorious open discount market of New York City?" "Every effort has been made by the Federal Reserve Board to conceal its power but the truth is the Federal Reserve Board has usurped the Government of the United States." "Mr. Chairman, when the Federal Reserve Act was passed, the people of the United States did not perceive that a world system was being set up here that the United States was to be lowered to the position of a coolie country. . . and was to supply financial power to an international superstate - a superstate controlled by international bankers and international industrialists acting together to enslave the World for their own pleasure."
Congressman Wright Patman, of the House Banking and Currency Committee said in 1952: "In fact there has never been an independent audit of either of the 12 banks of the Federal Reserve Board that has been filed with the Congress where a Member would have an opportunity to inspect it. The General Accounting Office does not have jurisdiction over the Federal Reserve."

The accountability of the Federal Reserve is not in the contract, the Federal Reserve Act, just as it was not in the contract of the George Rapp Society or tontine insurance policies. The Federal Reserve Act provides for accountability of "member banks," but, by definition, in the Act itself, the Federal Reserve banks are not "member banks" and, therefore are exempt from accountability by contract.

Congressman McFadden and Congressman Patman, both experts in banking and finance, did not understand this. How many senators and representatives that signed the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, do you suppose, understood what they were signing? Not only with respect to this issue, but others that have been raised from time to time?
What about the numerous attempts to audit Fort Knox? The Federal Reserve Act stipulates that gold owned by the Federal Reserve may be stored in storage facilities of the United States. If Congress cannot compel an accounting for Fort Knox, who owns the gold? [There is none left]

Is the Federal Reserve a maritime lender, or is it an insurance underwriter, to United States? Some additional information from an Essay on Maritime Loans, may help us decide this question: "The contract of maritime loan approaches more nearly to that of Insurance. There is a strong analogy between them. In their effects they are construed on the same principles." "In one contract, the lender bears the sea risks, in the other, the underwriter." "In the one, the maritime interest is the price of the peril; and this term corresponds with the premium which is paid on the other."

It is immaterial under Maritime Law whether the Federal Reserve is a maritime lender or an insurance underwriter to the United States. In either case the lender, or underwriter, bears the risks and the maritime laws compelling performance in paying the interest, or premium, are one and the same. In either case, assets can be hypothecated as security for the price of the peril.

Speaking of risk, let's see what risk the Federal Reserve is incurring as lender, or underwriter, to the United States in exchange for United States Securities: Mariner Eccles, former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, held the following exchange with Congressman Patman before the House Banking and Currency Committee on September 30, 1941:

Congressman Patman: "Mr. Eccles, how did you get the money to buy those two billions of government securities?"
Mr. Eccles: "We created it."
Patman: "Out of what?"
Mr. Eccles: "Out of the right to issue credit money."

In a publication of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago: "Two Faces of Debt," we read: "Currency is so widely accepted as a medium of exchange that most people do not think of it as debt."

In the Chicago bank publication entitled "Modern Money Mechanics," we find: "Neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities. Intrinsically, a dollar bill is just a piece of paper. Deposits are merely book entries. Coins do have some intrinsic value as metal, but for less than their face amount." "What, then makes these instruments -- checks, paper money, and coins -- acceptable at face value in payment of all debts and for other monetary uses? Mainly, it is the confidence people have that they will be able to exchange such money for real goods and services whenever they choose to do so." "Confidence in these forms of money also seems to be tied in some way to the fact that assets exist on the books of the government and the banks equal to the amount of the money outstanding, even though most of these assets are no more than pieces of paper (such as customer's promissory notes), and it is well understood that money is not redeemable in them."

Modern Money Mechanics publication from Chicago, once again: "Deposits are merely book entries. . . demand deposits are liabilities of commercial banks. The banks stand ready to convert such deposits into currency or transfer their ownership at the request of depositors."

From the Federal Reserve bank of St. Louis Review: "But what induces the non-banking public to accept liabilities of private, profit-making institutions such as banks?" "The decrease in purchasing power incurred by holders of money due to inflation imparts gains to the insurers of money. . ." "The gains which accrue to issuers of money are derived from the difference between the costs of issuing money and the initial purchasing power of new money in circulation. Such gains are called 'seigniorage'. If the goods and services for which the issuer exchanges money have a market value greater than that of resources used to produce the money, then the issurer receives a net gain."

From a book entitles "The Federal Reserve System - Its Purposes and Functions," published by the Federal Reserve Board in 1939: "Federal Reserve Bank Credit resembles bank credit in general, but under the law it has a limited and special use - as a source of member bank reserve funds. It is itself a form of money authorized for special purposes, convertible into other forms of money, convertible therefrom, and readily controllable as to amount. Federal Reserve Bank credit, therefore, as already stated, does not consist of funds that the Reserve authorities "get" somewhere in order to lend, but constitutes funds that they are empowered to create."

In his notes entitled "A Primer on Money," Congressman Patman tells that upon hearing that Federal Reserve Banks hold a large amount of cash, he went to two of its regional banks. He asked to see their bonds. He was led into vaults and shown great piles of government bonds upon which the people are taxed for interest Mr. Patman then asked to see their cash. The bank officials seemed confused. When Mr. Patman repeated the request, they showed him some ledgers and bank checks.

Mr. Patman warns us to remember that: "The cash, in truth, does not exist and never has existed. What we call `cash reserves' are simply bookkeeping credits entered upon the ledgers of the Federal Reserve Banks. These credits are created by the Federal Reserve Banks and then passed along through the banking system."

So, by the testimony of the Federal Reserve itself, we see: 1. It creates money out of thin air - at no cost or risk to the Federal Reserve System - from its right to issue credit, granted in the Federal Reserve Act. 2. It gains from the inflation it creates and manages. 3. Money is not redeemable in its liabilities. 4.Demand deposits are liabilities of banks. 5. Federal Reserve Notes are liabilities of Federal Reserve. 6. Its gains, as issuers of credit money, are the difference between the cost of creating that credit (essentially nothing) and the initial purchasing power when the new money is put into circulation.

In the book "THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM - Its Purpose and Functions," S. W. Adams, uses the Federal Reserve's own published figures to give us an example of how lucrative this no risk scheme is to the Federal Reserve: The paupers (The Federal Reserve System) with assets of only $52 billion with no productive know-how, with no productions of goods, and fewer than 100,000 stockholders, loaned the rich men (U.S.) with a trillion in productive capacity and know-how with well over $600 billion in assets and 170 million stockholders, including the aforesaid 100,000 bank stockholders, $250 billion to fight World War II.

Can you conceive of a billionaire saying to a banker, "I am transferring my personal bank account to your account. You may spend it as you please; provided as often as I ask for money, you will let me have it. Of course, I will give you my note for cash I receive, and try to rustle from my children enough money to pay you interest on the borrowed money." That is what Congress did in 1913 when it passed the Federal Reserve Act.

To fight World War II, we gave the bankers of the United States $250 billion in US Bonds that we might use the Nation's credit. By using the reserve multiplier, this gave them $1 trillion 250 billion bank credit. Credits are to the bank(st)ers what your deposits are to you. They can lend them, or use them to buy investments.

The bankers came out of World War II $1,500 billion richer, and the United States Government came out $250 billion in debt to the bankers. By their own testimony, the Federal Reserve, as a maritime lender or insurer, not only has no risk (i.e., nothing to lose in the maritime venture for profit), but can gain on a scale that is almost inconceivable, just like the tontine insurance schemes, and just like the George Rapp Harmony Society.

The significance of this will become very apparent when we apply the law to the fact. These same people who were given control of our public money system, for the ostensible purpose of evening out the economy, using Professor List's formula for a "National Economy", caused a recession in 1921 and precipitated the crash of `29 by increasing the member bank reserve requirements from 15% to 20% thereby forcing a huge liquidity squeeze. This set the stage for 1933 by bankrupting the treasuries of the States and Federal governments. They could no longer pay their debts at law to the Federal Reserve. Drastic measures were necessary; we had a "National Emergency" on our hands.

In March of 1933, President Roosevelt had Congress pass an Emergency Measures Act. The text used in this act was the "Trading With The Enemies Act" of 1917 which revoked the constitutional rights of Germans and allies of Germany living in the USA. These people were forbidden to carry on trade with Germany and were subject to fines and/or imprisonment for showing any anti-USA sentiment. The Emergency Powers Act of 1933 eliminated section five of the Trading With The Enemies Act. This section exempted US citizens from the act. Thus the Citizens of the United States were put on status as enemies of the United States.

This allowed the President to rule by decree (executive order) as under marshall rule. On April 5, 1933, President Roosevelt issued an executive order calling for the return of all gold in private hiding to the Federal Reserve by May 1 under the pain of ten years imprisonment and $10,000 fine. Hoarders were hunted and prosecuted, Attorney General Cummings declared: "I have no patience with people who follow a course that in war time would class them as slackers. If I have to make an example of some people, I'll do it cheerfully."

On May 12, 1933, the California Assembly and Senate adopted Assembly Joint Resolution No. 26. This resolution stated in part: "Whereas, it would appear that, with proper use and control of modern means of production and distribution, it would be possible for practically all persons to have and enjoy a fair share of material goods in return for services; and whereas, such use, control and appropriate economic planning are not feasible except through the direction and supervision of a single, centralized agency and the removal of certain constitutional limitations; now, therefore be it resolved by the Assembly and Senate, jointly, that the Legislature of the State of California hereby memorializes the Congress to propose an amendment to the constitution of the United States reading substantially as follows:

"The Congress and the several states, by its authority and under its control, may regulate or provide for the regulation of hours of work, compensation for work, the production of commodities and the rendition of services, in such manner as shall be necessary and proper to foster orderly production and equitable distribution, to provide ruminative work for the maximum number of persons, to promote adequate compensation for work performed, and to safeguard the economic stability and welfare of the nation;' "resolved, that the Legislature of California respectfully urges that, pending the submission and adoption of such amendment, the Congress provide for such economic planning and regulation as may be necessary and proper under present economic conditions and legally possible under the existing provisions of the Constitution;

And be it further Resolved, that the chief clerk of the Assembly is hereby instructed forthwith to transmit copies of this resolution to the President of the United States, and to the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and each of the senators and representatives from California in the Congress of the United States." May 12, 1933."

This act declared that when the state treasury department could no longer "pay" its debts and was jeopardizing its depositors and creditors, the secretary of banking would be designated as receiver for the treasury and he was to file a certificate of possession in Dauphin County's Prothonotary's Office in Harrisburg, the state Capitol. As receiver for the State treasury and all its offices (meaning all the county treasurers), William D. Gordon, Secretary of Banking, was granted the authority by Act III to appoint a fiduciary to manage all the financial matters of the State. He also had the power to assign as security for loan contracts from the Federal Government, all property in the state, real and personal, resources and many other assets as insurance to the Federal Reserve.

House Joint Resolution 192 (1933)

20 years after enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, on June 5, 1933, Congress enacted HJR-192 to suspend the gold standard and to abrogate the gold clause. This resolution declared that "Whereas the holding or dealing in gold affect the public interest, and are therefore subject to proper regulation and restriction; and whereas the existing emergency has disclosed that provisions of obligations which purport to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency. . . are inconsistent with the declared policy of congress. . . in the payment of debts.

Editor's Note: HJR 192 was suspended during the 1970's and recinded during the 1980's.

This resolution declared that any obligation requiring "payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in money policy; and . . . Every obligation heretofore or hereafter incurred, shall be discharged upon payment, dollar for dollar, in any coin or currency which at the time of payment is legal tender for public and private debts."
A farm control bill around the same time period had attached to it a clause making Federal Reserve notes legal tender. In 1937, the Supreme Court struck down the Farm Control Act, thus carrying with it the legal tender status of Federal Reserve notes. Prior to 1933, Federal Reserve notes were used for inter-bank transfers. Around 1945, Congress passed a bill which called for the withdrawl of Federal Reserve notes from public circulation; but, they are still with us. . . *NOTE that the words do not talk about "payment" of debt, but clearly states that "Every Obligation . . . Shall be discharged."
In the case of Stanek v. White, 172 Minn. 390, 215 H.W. 784, the court explained the legal distinction between the words "payment" and "discharge": "There is a distinction between a `debt discharged' and a `debt paid.' When discharged the debt still exists though divested of its character as a legal obligation during the operation of the discharge. Something of the original vitality of the debt continues to exist, which may be transferred, even though the transferee takes it subject to its disability incident to the discharge. The fact that it carries something which may be a consideration for a new promise to pay, so as to make an otherwise worthless promise a legal obligation, makes it the subject of transfer by assignment."
Thus, it is clear that, as a result of HJR 192 and from that day forward (June 5, 1933), no one has been able to pay a debt. The only thing they can do is tender in transfer of debts, and the debt is perpetual. The suspension of the gold standard, and prohibition against paying debts, removed the substance for our Common Law to operate on, and created a void, as far as the law is concerned. This substance was replaced with a "Public National Credit" system where debt is money (The Federal Reserve calls it "monetized debt") over which the only jurisdiction at is Admiralty and Maritime.
HJR-192 was implemented immediately. The day after President Roosevelt signed the resolution the treasury offered the public new government securities, minus the traditional "payable in gold" clause. Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, proscribes the States making any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debt -- but, this Article does not contain an absolute prohibition against the States making something else a tender in transfer of debt.
HJR-192 prohibits payment of debt and substitutes, in its place, a discharge of an obligation -- thereby not only subverting, but totally bypassing the "absolute prohibition" so carefully engineered into the Constitution. There is, now, nothing for this Article to operate on, just as there is nothing for Common Law to operate on. Perpetual debt, bills, notes, cheques and credits fall within a totally different jurisdiction than contemplated by Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 -- and that jurisdiction belongs exclusively to the Law of Admiralty and Maritime. Now, it is easy to see how "bills" as plenty as oak leaves, "polluted the laws after the War For Independence, as described by Peletiah Webster". This is how we lost access to substantive Common Law -- the very law the Minute Men fought to regain.
HJR-192 places every person who deals in the public national credit in the legal position of a merchant, and the only jurisdiction over any controversy involving this subject matter is Admiralty and Maritime. Obviously, if we cannot pay our debts at law, we are also benefiting from limited liability under the Limited Liability Act when we use this credit-- and, that is marine insurance!
The definitions of "liability" and "insure" will help convince us of this fact -- in analyzing these definitions, keep in mind the distinction between "payment" and "discharge". Liability: The word is a broad term. Ithas been defined to mean: all character of debts and obligations. . . any kind of debt or liability, either absolute or contingent, express or implied . . . condition which creates a duty to perform an act immediately or in the future . . . duty to pay money or to perform some other service . . . the state of being bound or obligated in law or justice to do, pay, or make good something. "Insure: "To engage to indemnify a person against pecuniary loss from specified perils or possible liability".
QUESTION #1: Who do you suppose took possession of the treasury of the State of Pa. on June 5, 1933, -- the moment HJR-192 made it impossible for the State of Pennsylvania to pay its debts?
QUESTION #2: Land titles being allodial in Pennsylvania, what was the State Assembly's authority and jurisdiction to pledge these allodiums to the Federal Reserve as security for loan contracts from the Federal Government?
QUESTION #3: If the individual citizens of Pennsylvania were indeed "sovereign" under the Common Law -- What was the authority and jurisdiction of the State Assembly to pledge their labor to the Federal Reserve pool?
Clearly, the alleged authority and jurisdiction is the so-called public policy declared by Congress. We will return to this subject later on.
If all the assets of the United States have been hypothecated to the Federal Reserve "pool" as security for the maritime loan and insurance underwriting policy, then that raises a couple of questions: QUESTION #1: If the United States "dies" (or is merged) under a One World government, who gets the pool? QUESTION #2: If the Federal Reserve "dies" by way of getting its charter rescinded, who gets the pool?
The answers can be found in the Federal Reserve Act itself: "Should a Federal Reserve bank be dissolved or go into liquidation, any surplus remaining, after the payment of all debts, dividend requirements as hereinbefore provided, and the par value of the stock, shall be paid to and become the property of the United States and shall be similarly applied".
31 USC 315B provided that: "No gold shall after January 30, 1934, be coined, and no gold coin shall after January 30, 1934, be paid out or delivered by the United States; provided however, that coinage may continue to be executed by the mints of the United States for foreign countries". This exception was necessary because foreign countries, being recognized or sovereign, could not be held to the internal public policy of the United States. HJR-192 was binding only upon those individuals who were beneficiaries of public policy; that being the privilege of limited liability for payment of debt arising out of participation in the Federal Reserve Public Credit System.
HJR-192 automatically extended the privilege to renege on debts to every person using the Federal Reserve banking system; however, never forget that when you operate on a privilege, you have to respect the ruler of the giver of that privilege. Furthermore, in the case of Great Falls Mfg. Co. v. Attorney General, 124 U.S. 581, the court said: "The court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits."
Thus, if you avail yourself of any benefits of the public credit system you waive the right to challenge the validity of any statute pertaining to, and conferring "benefits" of this system on the basis of constitutionality.