AMARA-LEGION






Welcome to the family, here at Amera-Legion we ask that you let us do the legwork and create an "Administrative Record" for your needs...

            It has become apparent that there are many who have claimed that a party is indebted to them, having proof of the indebtedness, as well as documentation showing that the other party had knowledge of the indebtedness, but have been unable to obtain redress. We have created a program whereby we will assist our clients in validating the outstanding debt and recording it to the proper agencies so as to obtain the proper common-law right of offset.

What is the common-law right of offset? United States Department of Justice explains it this way:
SETOFF AND RECOUPMENT IN BANKRUPTCY
"The right of setoff ... allows entities that owe each other money to apply their mutual debts against each other, thereby avoiding 'the absurdity of making A pay B when B owes A.'" Citizens Bank of Maryland v. Strumpf, 116 S. Ct. 286, 289 (1995) (quoting Studley v. Boylston Nat'l Bank, 229 U.S. 523, 528 (1913)). Setoff "occupie[s] a favored position in our history of jurisprudence," Bohack Corp. v. Borden, Inc., 599 F.2d 1160, 1164 (2d Cir. 1979), with which courts should interfere "only under the most compelling circumstances." In re Utica Floor Maint., Inc., 441 B.R. 941, 944 (N.D.N.Y. 1984). "The rule allowing setoff ... is not one that courts are free to ignore when they think application would be unjust." In re Applied Logic Corp., 576 F.2d 952 (2d Cir. 1978). To the contrary, "the justification for permitting setoff is based on notions of fairness," In re IML Freight, Inc., 65 B.R. 788, 791-92 (Bankr. D. Utah 1986), and "[t]he primacy of setoffs is essential to the equitable treatment of creditors. ... Absent a setoff, a creditor ... is in the worst of both worlds: it must pay its debt to the debtor in full, but is only entitled to receive a tiny fraction of the money the debtor owes it. It was to avoid this unfairness that setoffs were allowed in bankruptcy in the first place." In re DeLaurentiis Entertainment Group, Inc., 963 F.2d 1269, 1277 (9th Cir. 1992). https://www.justice.gov/jm/civil-resource-manual-65-setoff-and-recoupment-bankruptcy

The understanding is not complicated, it is rather quite simple, if party "A" and party "B" have a dispute, whereby each of the parties are claiming the other owes a debt, and party "A" provides proof of the outstanding agreement while at the same time party "B" also provides proof of the outstanding agreement, common law dictates that the 2 debts must be offset or setoff against the other, and the remaining balance is the accounting that remains, to be resolved. So, if party "A" owes $10 and party "B" owes $15, then party "B" is due $5 as a result of the offset. Under the current law, if party "B" cannot collect on the debt it may choose to offset the debt by canceling the debt, filing a 1099C and receiving a tax credit for the amount debt discharged by the offset.

I. SETOFF AND RECOUPMENT GENERALLY

A. Setoff is an equitable right of a creditor to deduct a debt it owes to the debtor from a claim it has against the debtor arising out of a separate transaction. Recoupment differs in that the opposing claims must arise from the same transaction. 4 Lawrence P. King, Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 553.03 (15th ed. 1991).   

In order for you to fully understand what this organization does, and what it aims to assist you in accomplishing, you will need to understand the following information. Please, click ----->here..... You will see a Supreme Court case whereby the Supreme Court appears to contradict the statute and statutory interpretation in an attempt to explain what Congress meant in the resolution 'to uniform the value of the coins and currencies of the United States". What they failed intentionally to highlight, is that as of May 12, 1933 in the act by that very name, Congress never assigned to the currency a valuation, only authorize the treasury to print in denominations of "$1, $2, $5, $10, $20, $50, $100, $1000, & $10,000- never once did Congress place a valuation equating a dollar to be 1% of $100, and $2 to be 2% of $100, and I hundred dollars to be 1% of $10,000- do you see how if Congress had equated a value to each dollar, they could not call a penny a penny dollar and/or a nickel, dime, quarter, or a silver dollar, a dollar. Remember, this was to make uniform and/or PROVIDE FOR THE Equal power of every dollar! 




A "guild·er"-
Noun: Guilders
the basic monetary unit of the Netherlands (until the introduction of the euro), equal to 100 cents.
HISTORICAL
a gold or silver coin formerly used in the Netherlands, Germany, and Austria.

"...obstruct the power of the Congress to regulate the value of the money
of the United States, and are inconsistent with the declared policy of
the Congress to maintain at all times the equal power of every dollar...'


At the very end of the act, Congress speaks specifically to the valuation of gold and its weight, which it specifically and intentionally did not do respecting the new money and/or legal tender in the form of Federal Reserve Notes and other US currencies.

"....A coin dollar is worth no more for the purposes of tender in payment of an ordinary debt than a note dollar. The law has not made the note a standard of value any more than coin. It is true that in the market, as an article of merchandise, one is of greater value than the other, but as money -- that is to say, as a medium of exchange -- the law knows no difference between them. ."

Your RIGHTS as a Creditor Creating a Validation
RECORD Proving a Debt Dollar 4 Dollar ($ 4 $)
what is it?

Providing documentation [R]especting your rights as a creditor:

In 1933 the UNITED States Congress identified their intent to utilize the "people of the nation" Property('s ) and Homes as collateral for the money('s) issued to the banks. In compensation for this, "the People of the nation" (a protected class), were required to offset their purchase or acquisition via bills of exchange or, drafts or, notes or, bankers acceptances or, trade acceptances- see congressional record for the March 9, 1933 act p. 83 paragraphs 1 and 2 for clarification.

Invoicing

We provide proof, documentation and other evidences verifying, validating and/or substantiating the debt claimed. Keep in mind, since 1933 no one may demand that a party owing a debt pay in any coin or currencies of the United States whether legal tender are not. The June 5, 1933 resolution enacted by Congress confirmed the equal power of every single dollar and/or coin of the United States. This is not our understanding; this is the exact wording of the statute and the intent of Congress as specified in the congressional record.

Proof of [S]ervice

After notifying the party-debtor of the outstanding debt claim, we provide proof of service of all communications including an outline of what was served upon the party, and we also communicate with other necessary agencies so as to properly document the debt claim. Note we will withhold certain documents to assure the integrity of the process, as many have attempted to duplicate and or mimic the process...

With no hassle and no argument...

THE AMERICAN DISCHARGE PROJECT
As part of the new Deal initiated on March 6, 1933 with presidential proclamation 2039 and enacted into law by Congress in March 9, 1933, the official public policy of the United States Government is that all debts in the United States are government obligations and as such are to be discharged upon payment, meaning dollar for dollar.

  • "Under the new law the money is issued to the banks in return for government obligations, bills of exchange, drafts, notes, trade acceptances, and bankers acceptances. The money will be worth 100 cents on the dollar, because it is backed by the credit of the nation. It will represent a mortgage on all the homes, and other property of all the people of the nation." Congressional Record, March 9, 1933 on HR 1491 p. 83.
  •  
  • Gold Reserve Act of 1934
  • January 30, 1934
  • Signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in January 1934, the Act was the culmination of Roosevelt’s controversial gold program. Among other things, the Act transferred ownership of all monetary gold in the United States to the US Treasury and prohibited the Treasury and financial institutions from redeeming dollars for gold.
Read More From
the Congressional Record "Right of offset" is a Common LAW RIGHT Presidential Proclamation 2039 Gold Reserve Act of 1934
Special Offer

The Limited Power of Attorney Agreement is necessary by Law for us to Communicate on your Behalf and must be completed at the time of purchase or we will not be able to move forward and that will delay the results of processing you claim.

Other organizations charge $1000's for the same service but offering less features and not the same outcome.

$580 was  $3890
Service Request LINK

What services are provided?

Notification to all parties

The law is clear, no one involved in any contractual obligation, May demand payment from another party in the form of any currency of the United States, that such conduct is a violation of public policy and Congressional authority to regulate the currencies of the United States and their value..

For instance, notice this language of the United States Congress in general assembly: "the money shall be worth 100 cents on the dollar because it is backed by the credit of the nation. It will represent a mortgage on all the homes and all of the property of the people of the nation." This let's you know that it was the intent of the Congress for this newly created class of persons "the People of the nation" to be the shareholders and/or creditors for the United States and its currency. It is these shareholders that had securities created representing their lease of their property to the government for public use in exchange for just compensation in the form of monthly dividends. We must also recognize that in the United States no one may be deprived of any property by the government for public use (and the use of the homes and other property of all of the people of the nation certainly does constitute "for public use" when taken into context, that such use represents the credit of the nation which is used to support, backup, holdup, valuate the newly created moneys'. Again you can find this information in the congressional record of March 9, 1933 page 83, obtain a pdf copy clicking on this and the link below

Learn More >
Tender of payment initiating offset

The statute clearly identifies that an individual who is deemed liable for a debt, where a creditor is demanding payment, has the right to discharge that debt in any coin or currency of the United States. In fact it is a violation of public policy to deny a person the right to tender payment for a debt in either a BILL OF EXCHANGE, A DRAFT, A NOTE, AND BANKERS ACCEPTANCES, AND/OR A TRADE ACCEPTANCE according to the United States Congress in their intent in enacting the March 9, 1933 act, which has not been repealed.

When we take into consideration the congressional record which specifically states:

"...The gold that is given up by the people in the present crisis should be given to the government. It should be used to issue additional money upon which the people will not have to pay interest while it is in circulation."

we find As indicated by Congress that,  the people are the creditors, the money is the exchange given to the government who by the very same act of Congress has stated "... The money will be issued to the banks in return (exchange) for government obligations..." In this instance, Congress identifies government obligations for the exchange and medium of equal value and power, as "bills of exchange, drafts, notes, trade acceptances, and bankers acceptances..." (Click on this link and go to page 83 on the top left-hand corner review the first 3 paragraphs which will provide you the original intentions of Congress and the agreement respecting the creditor's position of "the people in the nation").

Learn More >
Proof of service notification, to credit bureaus:

Please note that with the limited power of attorney, you grant us the privilege of presenting a bill of exchange which is legal tender in the United States for the payment of debts, it is a coin and/or currency and/or a medium of exchange cognizable by the laws of the United States in the 1866 bill of exchange act which is recognized by the United States Congress. A Money order is an acceptable form of legal tender in the United States, do not take our word for it, notice what the courts say:

Ada Enterprises, Inc. v. Thompson
132 N.W.2d 244 (Wis. 1965)Cited 6 times
…"The judgment itself may, under proper circumstances, provide for the medium in which it is to be paid. But, subject to such a provision, it is ordinarily payable only in lawful money the same as any other legal obligations, that is, in whatever is legal tender at the time, and place where payment is made, unless plaintiff authorizes or accepts payment in some other medium or manner."…

Many people have come to realize that all contractual agreements have to be equal and fair, that if one party has  reserve the right to change the terms of the agreement after providing notice to the other party of their intent to change the terms of the agreement, then the other party under equal protection and application of laws has the exact same right to notify the opposing party of their intent to change the terms of the agreement. If that agreements change in terms includes an arbitration clause, and the other party does not timely opt-out the agreement may be held valid even if it is not signed by the other party-
1. Gay v. Manchester Mgmt., LLC
Civil Action No. 3:18-CV-1378-D (N.D. Tex. Oct. 22, 2018)Cited 3 times
…the Agreement. Instead, she argues that the absence of Manchester's signature on the physical Agreement would allow Manchester to avoid arbitration as if the Agreement did contain such language. Texas courts have held, however, that when one party signs an arbitration agreement, the agreement is binding on both parties if the other "accept[s] by [its] acts, conduct, or acquiescence in the terms of the contract." Hearthshire Braeswood Plaza Ltd. P'ship v. Bill Kelly Co., 849 S.W.2d 380, 392 (Tex. App. 1993, writ denied). 

Learn More >

****STOP!!! - read before proceeding

We highly recommend that you read the other sections of this website as the information will prove not only beneficial but very helpful...
And we apologize to everyone who attempted to use the previous form that we had on our webpage, because of technical difficulties we are now using Jot form for the completion of the engagement agreement, we thank you for your patience,

we also thank you for the opportunity of being of service to you.
There is information available for those who have arbitration agreements and the services offered for the arbitration award of up to $10 million, being processed by this organization. Please click on the link and read through the information in its entirety for a better understanding...

To obtain our services please click on the link below

Order info
and
Engagement agreement

Frequently asked questions:

01

I have an arbitration award that I cannot get confirmed, what can I do?

The FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT does not require confirmation of an award for the award to be valid and enforceable.

In the United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit in the case of In re Robinson v. Champaign Landmark, Inc., 326 F.3d 767 (2003), reviewed a decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division involving a grain contract between a producer and its creditor. Reviewing the arbitration provision in the grain contract, a state court ordered the parties to arbitration. The arbitration panel awarded Landmark $219,272 plus interest. Robinson did not seek to vacate the award and Landmark did not seek to confirm the award.

Robinson later filed for bankruptcy. Landmark filed a claim to recover based on the arbitration award. Robinson filed an objection to the claim based on matters that were resolved in arbitration. Basically, Robinson attempted to challenge the arbitration decision in bankruptcy court.

Landmark asserted res judicata and claimed the award was automatically confirmed where Robinson failed to file a motion to vacate the award within the prescribed timeframe. Robinson argued that since Landmark failed to confirm the award, the award was not a final judgment and therefore res judicata did not apply. The bankruptcy court ruled that “arbitration awards, even those that have not been confirmed by a court, are entitled to preclusive effect.”

The Sixth Circuit Court agreed with the bankruptcy court. Relying on precedent, the Sixth Circuit held that a party subject to a valid arbitration provision in its contract who has not moved to vacate or modify the award may not “transform what would ordinarily constitute an impermissible collateral attack into a proper independent direct action.” In other words, if the party did not avail itself of the statutory opportunity to attack an award, it may not attack the effect of the award in a later action. The court stated this rule of law applied to the bankruptcy court as well. The rationale is that the parties had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues in arbitration; and, under the Federal Arbitration Act, where there is no timely motion to vacate, federal courts must confirm arbitration awards.

02

I have a bank loan that I have asked and to date they have failed to provide an accounting under the Uniform Commercial Code article 9 section 210, an authenticated record of accounting as required by statute is mandated, what can I do and how can you help me?


That is a very detailed question, the first thing you need to know is that under the U.C.C., article 9 deals specifically with contractual agreements and under those agreements the parties have certain responsibilities. One of these responsibilities is that the parties must keep accurate ledgers of the accounting- "Indeed, common sense dictates that banks regularly keep records of their customers' transactions..." If you have tendered payment in accordance with the act "To insure uniform value to the coins and currencies of the United States," you have the right of offset, and we will help you document the accounting which is required in all transactions, please visit this link for better understanding...

03

I know that I am one "of the people in the nation," a federally protected class, and that it is based upon my leasing my properties to the United States to back the currencies of the United States i.e. "under the new law the money is issued to the bank... which will be worth 100 cents on the dollar because it is backed by the credit of the nation... [The Credit] which represents a mortgage on all the homes and all the other property of the people in the nation...' Does the law recognize my right of offset?


First, a party must understand that Congress has stated its intent in enacting the joint resolution of June 5, 1933, in that path Congress pleaded within their record that their intent was for the money to be issued to the banks in exchange for government obligations. That the money would be worth 100 cents on the dollar because it is backed by the credit of the nation, so one must ask, what are government obligations? And what are we to imply by the reference credit of the nation?

Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution says:

"Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;To borrow Money on the credit of the United States..."

Congress never have the authority to make money, it is presumed they were granted the authority when the very same article of the Constitution specify that:

"Section 10. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts..."

"...Coin Money...make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts..."

There appears to be a problem, did not Congress expressly state that government obligations were to be, notes, drafts, bills of exchange, acceptances, trade acceptances? And as has been noted, the banks do not issue notes, the banks do not issue trade acceptances and/or bills of exchange, this has traditionally been the people, so the credit of the nation, which backs the money that the banks are lending to people, comes from the people, of which the "people in the nation", supply in order for the treasury to issue the monies to the banks in the first place. According to the United States Congress any monies and/or credits being lent by any financial institution is the right from the people, essentially the people are borrowing from themselves, do not take the word of this website, read for yourself p. 83 of the congressional record to see exactly what they stated their intent was and how there was supposed to be no interest associated with the monies given to the people. That's right the money was to be given to the people to pay the banks.

04

Do I need to back my commercial instruments with any type of security?


Congress has expressed that commercial instruments {bills of exchange, promissory Notes, Drafts, etc...} "of the people in the nation" are already by their properties and their homes, which is why they are referred to as being insured as government obligations, we take special notice of the congressional record and how they state what their intent was:

"Under the new law government obligations, is not backed by the credit of the nation. It does not represent a mortgage on all the homes, and other property of all the people of the nation."? Senate Document No. 43, 73rd Congress, 1st Session, Congressional Record, March 9, 1933 on HR 1491 p. 83.

Now, if Federal Reserve notes according to the United States Congress “represent a mortgage on all the homes, and other property of all the people of the nation.", What was the original purchase for according to the United States, “the new deal associated with the new law”, was for a “GOVERNMENT OBLIGATIONS”, is this not so? (Please note that these are legal questions, for which each person is deemed to know the law, and since Banking business is Commercial, there should be no issues in answering the questions as presented in the context in which they are presented).

That Obligations of the United States  shall be redeemed at the Treasury Department of the United States or at any Federal Reserve bank? 12 U.S. Code § 411 - Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption (Dec. 23, 1913, ch. 6, § 16 (par.), 38 Stat. 265; Jan. 30, 1934, ch. 6, § 2(b)(1), 48 Stat. 337; Aug. 23, 1935, ch. 614, title II, § 203(a), 49 Stat. 704.) 

05

Service CERTIFICATE

an administrative record is necessary to prove one's claim:

"…order was not supported by substantial evidence and that the order was arbitrary and capricious. As to substantial evidence, because we agree with the department that no hearing is or was required, no administrative record is or was developed. Absent an administrative record, no substantial evidence review is required or even possible. However, as State Farm Lloyds recognizes, even without an administrative record, judicial review may still be possible on other grounds: "Even if State Farm Lloyds were not entitled to a hearing, the District Court's reversal of the Supervision Order…" Texas Dept. v. State Farm, 260 S.W.3d 233 (Tex. App. 2008).

There has to be a documentary record, our job is the complete record inclusive of affidavits, certificates of service, and proof of governmental acceptance of such filing. If we cannot provide the record, if a record is blocked and/or denied, we will specify the record so that our client will be able to support such information.

Points of Reference

First Level of understandingSecond course
THE PEOPLE
It is a legal term, and not in English phrase!
https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element		When Congress utilized the phrase
"the people in the nation" they were referring
to all of the people, residents, nonresidents, d
omicile, non-domicile because they spoke of all
the property in the Nation.
NEVER AMENDEDAmending the Constitution it is not a simple task,
Article 1 of the Constitution has not been amended
so as to repeal or amend the Gold Clause
so far as the record indicates.		A two thirds majority, and yet with the gold repeal act,
no mention of an amendment to the Constitution which is required by law. 
A RECORD
OF ACCOUNTING		The Uniform Commercial Code is a code and not the law
however, because it is accepted by Congress
for governing commercial agreements, and for the presumption
the Congress has the right to regulate commerce private or public
the code is acceptable in enforcing agreements.		Article 9 section 210 of the Uniform Commercial Code says that
"upon request for a record of accounting"
an alleged creditor only has 14 days to supply, why is that?
Because the alleged creditor is said to be the keeper of the financial record
or collective entity, and must have the these records readily available
upon request.
An invalid debt
can be discharged		UNDER THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION'S PRACTICES ACT, many believed that they
only have 30-days to dispute a debt from a debt collector. Normally, that would be true,
however, if the debt is invalid and procured by means of fraud and/or other unlawful
activities, it can be challenged at any time. Remember, the ability to collect a debt is
jurisdictional, and jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even when a party appeals
to the Court!		Most do not understand, that challenging a debt,
is likened to filing a counter-claim,
and when a party alleges a debt against you or
you against them, either has the right to challenge the debt.
However, there is a caveat, if a party had knowledge,
and failed to act upon that knowledge, they are said to have
waived their right to complain.
What do the courts have to say?

Frankly, it is not clear to this Court how the Plaintiff finds support for his claims in the United States’ suspension of the gold standard. His argument in this regard is vague and, at times, less than coherent. To some extent, it appears the Plaintiff hopes to advance a watered-down version of claims other plaintiffs have unsuccessfully attempted via Public Law 73-10, such as 

9 the “vapor money” theory, “unlawful money” theory, or “redemption” theory. See McLaughlin v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 726 F. Supp. 2d 201 (D. Conn. 2010) (discussing these theories in depth and collecting cases that “universally and emphatically” reject them). Such claims are “equal parts revisionist legal history and conspiracy theory,” Bryant [v. Washington Mut. Bank, 524 F. Supp. 2d 753, 758 (W.D. Va. 2007)], and share a common thread in their use by plaintiffs seeking to avoid debt repayment. These theories appear to all somehow rely on various supposed consequences flowing from the 1933 suspension of the gold standard. For example, one tenant of “redemption” theory suggests that the United States has been bankrupt since suspending the gold standard in 1933, and that, as a result, the dollar is nonredeemable. Citizens thus became creditors for a bankrupt system, and the Federal Reserve Note became a debt note with no intrinsic value—or so the story goes. McLaughlin, 726 F. Supp. 2d at 211. Another variation suggests that when an individual executes a promissory note in favor of a bank, he has actually provided the bank “money.” The bank then deposits this “money” into its own account, lists it as an asset on its ledger, and lends it back to individual. Through bookkeeping procedures, the bank has supposedly created money even though it does not actually have gold-backed funds available to lend, and the note is thus void from the outset. See, e.g., Rudd v. KeyBank, N.A., 2006 WL 212096 (S.D. Ohio). …. Courts have widely rejected arguments seeking relief pursuant to theories based on Public Law 73–10. See McLaughlin, 726 F. Supp. 2d at 214 (collecting cases)…. Click on the following lien to see what this particular magistrate have to say, and read on to understand what's not being discussed and should have been recognized by the court.  LINK -
Congressional intent out-ways
STATUTORY interpretation

"...Bonds are obligations "payable in money of the United States," within the meaning of the Joint Resolution of June 5, 1933."

U.S. Supreme Court
Guaranty Trust Co. v. Henwood, 307 U.S. 247 (1939)
Guaranty Trust Co. v. Henwood
No. 384
Argued February 8, 9, 1939
Decided May 22, 1939*

Held:
1. In determining the nature of the obligation, bonds and mortgages must be construed together. P. 307 U. S. 253.
2. The bonds and mortgage are domestic obligations, to be interpreted and enforced according to the law of this country. P. 307 U. S. 254.
3. The bonds are obligations "payable in money of the United States," within the meaning of the Joint Resolution of June 5, 1933, and, under that Resolution, are payable dollar for dollar in present legal tender. P. 307 U. S. 256.
Page 307 U. S. 248
The promises of payment, with interest, in alternative currencies were not in barter for commodities. Interest is not paid on commodities, but on monetary obligations. These promises are not separate and independent contracts or obligations, but parts of one and the same monetary obligation of the debtor. P. 307 U. S. 255.
4. The proposition that the obligation was never payable in United States money because the option to receive payment in dollars had never been exercised is rejected. P. 307 U. S. 256.
5. The proposition that the Resolution, if construed to forbid enforcement of the option to demand payment in guilders, nullifies contractual rights in violation of the Fifth Amendment is rejected. P. 307 U. S. 258.
Domestic contracts between private parties cannot create vested rights restricting the exercise of a power of Congress.
98 F.2d 160, 179, affirmed.
Certiorari, 305 U.S. 588, 594, to review decrees of the court below which affirmed orders of the District Court fixing allowances to holders of railroad bonds in a reorganization case.
Page 307 U. S. 249
7:13 AM
Page 307 U. S. 256
promises in alternative currencies were not separate and independent contracts or obligations, but were parts of one and the same monetary obligation of the debtor.
The point is made, however, that this obligation of the railroad was never payable in United States money, because the option to receive payment in dollars has has never been exercised. Conceding that one meaning of "payable" is "capable of being paid," petitioners nevertheless urge that the use of this meaning should not be attributed to Congress, but that, instead, we must narrow and restrict "payable" to mean an absolute and unconditional obligation. But the railroad, since the day its bonds were issued, was under obligation to hold itself prepared to pay United States money -- or any one of the optional currencies. And, on the date the Resolution went into effect, no election had been made, so that the railroad was at that time still under obligation to pay dollars. If, prior to election by the holders, the railroad was under no obligation to pay United States money, it was likewise under no obligation to pay any money, United States or otherwise, although it then had outstanding a $100,000,000 mortgage on all of its properties. Neither in logic nor law can it be said that the railroad's promise, secured by a $100,000,000 mortgage, to pay in any one of five currencies was not an obligation payable in any currency until express election of payment in a particular currency was made. Legal rights and obligations came into existence when the contracts for purchase of the bonds were completed. Since the words "obligation[s] . . . payable in money of the United States" are clearly broad enough to require inclusion of these multiple currency obligations, there is no justification here for restricting the meaning of these words of the Resolution. Consideration of the evils aimed at leaves no doubt but that such restriction would do violence to the intention of the Congress.
The report of the Senate Committee on the Resolution opens with words revealing its purpose. It is there stated
Page 307 U. S. 257
that
"Certain questions of interpretation have arisen with respect to the legislation empowering the President to prevent the withdrawal and hoarding of gold and the provision of the Thomas amendment [Footnote 6] making all coins and currencies legal tender for all debts. Additional and immediate legislation is necessary to remove the disturbing effect of this uncertainty and to insure the success of the policy by closing possible legal loopholes and removing inconsistencies. [Footnote 7]"
(Italics supplied.) The comprehensive language of the Resolution was intended -- as, by its terms, it did -- to close "legal loopholes" contributing to
"dislocation of the domestic economy which would be caused by such a disparity of conditions in which, it is insisted, those debtors under gold clauses should be required to pay $1.69 in currency while respectively receiving their taxes, rates, charges, and prices on the basis of $1 of that currency. [Footnote 8]"
(a) every provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the obligee a right to require payments in ... a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in money of the United States .... is declared to be against public policy; and no such provision shall be contained in .... any obligation hereafter incurred. Every obligation ... shall be discharged upon payment, dollar for dollar, in any coin or currency..."

The above referenced case site is as follows: Stokes v. Santander- Case No. 2:18cv50-MHT-WC

The court claimed that Mr. Stokes did not have the right to issue payment in a coin or currency which is deemed within the financial laws of the United States, as legal tender for the payment of debts. This is precisely what Stokes did when he mentioned the June 5 act of 1933, which specifically says that a party has the right to discharge a debt and any coin and/or currency of the United States which is at the time is legal tender for the payment of debts. Did not Congress specifically state the following in their records regarding their intent?
"The ownership of all property is in the state; individual so-called 'ownership' is only by virtue of the government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user…” Senate Document No. 43, 73rd Congress, 1st Session,

"Under the new law the money is issued to the banks in return for government obligations, bills of exchange, drafts, notes, trade acceptances, and bankers acceptances. The money will be worth 100 cents on the dollar, because it is backed by the credit of the nation. It will represent a mortgage on all the homes, and other property of all the people of the nation." Congressional Record, March 9, 1933 on HR 1491 p. 83.

It should also be noted that a money order is deemed a bill of exchange and/or a bankers acceptances which according to the intent of Congress can be used to offset the debt alleged by any obligee demanding payment for an obligation and a particular kind of coin or currency, which violates public policy.

We also further note the following, the aforementioned court site notes a phrase known as "vapor money," there is no such statute and/or law authorizing such vapor money, there has been no one making a claim as to vapor money. This appears to be a phrase coined by the court and attached to many individuals who were applying the statute as written by Congress in line with congressional intent.

Please take notice of what the magistrate for the Court said next: "E. State Law Claims Plaintiff has alleged the state law claims of constructive fraud and slander. Doc. 12 ¶¶ 21, 44. Because the undersigned is recommending dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal claims, it is further recommended that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and that they be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate
Judge that this action be dismissed prior to service of process because Plaintiff’s federal claims are either frivolous or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, warranting dismissal with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii), and because the state law claims are due to be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)."

So, as you can see the Magistrate says that the plaintiff Mr. Stokes failed to state a claim whereby relief can be granted, then he intentionally documents "state law claims" and then recommends to the Court that it "declined exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims," which clearly documents that the individual, Mr. Stokes did not fail to state a valid cognizable claim whereby the Court would exercise jurisdiction. The problem is, Mr. Stokes filed pro se, and he did a fee waiver, by doing so, the courts can dismiss the case based upon its discretion that the individual failed to state a claim, even though he stated a claim by simply saying "state law claim".

We cannot speak on anyone's behalf, all we can do is create a record for you allowing you the opportunity of having that record to go into court so as to not only state a proper claim, but having the evidence and the proof to support your evidence. If you are demanding a jury trial, and you should be demanding a "trial by jury" as afforded by the 7th amendment security within the Constitution of the United States, then you must notify the court that on any of these legal issues and as to the interpretation of congressional acts, you would like for the jury to determine whether or not your claims are frivolous, meritless, or if you are following the letter and/or congressional intent of the statute!

Legal AD-Vise

We are not here to tell you how to proceed in Court, we are here to say that you are required, in the courts of presumptions, to rebut the presumptions of the other party. If you bring the claim first, logic would appear to be on your side, that they will have to rebut your presumptions by a preponderance of evidence to the contrary. It doesn't always work that way, but it appears that's the way it should be under the law presumption, presumption!

What is legal tender in the United States? We're not here to tell you what legal tender is or what legal tender is not in the United States, what we will do is we will provide you with several different cases where the courts have documented what is the acceptable understanding of what is and/or is not legal tender the United States. When you're tendering the payment, it would probably be in your best interests to follow the customary understanding of what is and/or is not legal tender in the United States. Please refer to the following 20+ cases for a better understanding:

 Thornburgh v. Town of Gauley Bridge
No. 12-0329 (Fayette County 11-C-269) (W. Va. May. 24, 2013)
…Virginia Code § 29-12A-5(a)(4). Petitioner argues that the exception provided in West Virginia Code § 29-12A-18(e) is applicable because the issue of petitioner's suit against respondent concerned a violation of a United States statute, i.e., 31 United States Code § 5103. This federal law provides that United States coins are legal tender. Respondent contends that the circuit court did not commit error in finding that it is protected by the doctrines of statutory immunity and qualified immunity and further asserts that petitioner failed to state a prima facie claim for claiming that respondent…

National Life Accident Ins. Co. v. Ransbottom
217 Ind. 452 (Ind. 1940)Cited 2 times
…108 Ind. 246, 8 N.E. 255; Shuee et al. v. Shuee (1885), 100 Ind. 477; Melton et al. v. Coffelt (1878), 59 Ind. 310; Fall v. Hazelrigg (1874), 45 Ind. 576; Lynch et al., Ex'rs, v. Jennings, Adm'r (1873), 43 Ind. 276; Hunter et al. v. Bales (1865), 24 Ind. 299. The tender in an action at law is considered as payment pro tanto and is irrevocable. When an action is brought for more than the defendant believes due, he may bring and pay into court the amount which he concedes to be due and be discharged of costs. This is treated as a voluntary payment, and the money belongs unconditionally to the…

Ada Enterprises, Inc. v. Thompson
132 N.W.2d 244 (Wis. 1965)Cited 6 times
…"The judgment itself may, under proper circumstances, provide for the medium in which it is to be paid. But, subject to such a provision, it is ordinarily payable only in lawful money the same as any other legal obligations, that is, in whatever is legal tender at the time, and place where payment is made, unless plaintiff authorizes or accepts payment in some other medium or manner."…

Stallmaker v. Great American Ins. Co.
364 S.W.2d 620 (Mo. Ct. App. 1963)
…the policy, and (2) the tender of funds into court was not a judicial admission of liability under the policy or an admission of indebtedness in the amount of the tender. We first consider the latter contention. It is the rule of courts generally that a tender or payment into court is an admission of liability on a debt or obligation, at least to the extent of the amount tendered. 52 Am.Jur., Tender, Sections 37, 38, p. 242. This rule is observed by Missouri courts. In Knight v. Firemen's Insurance Company of Newark, N. J., 227 Mo. App. 426, 49 S.W.2d 682, this court said, "A tender is in…

Primo Hosp. Grp., Inc. v. Americana at Brand, LLC
B271188 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2017)Cited 1 times
"Offset is expressed as a right of the judgment debtor." (Margott v. Gem Properties, Inc. (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 849, 855.) "In effect, the judgment debtor satisfies the claim against him by discharging a separate claim he has against the judgment creditor. The offset is the equivalent of payment." (Id. at p. 856.) "The right exists independently of statute and rests upon the inherent power of the court to do justice to the parties before it. [Citations.] . . . '[I]t is well settled that a court of equity will compel a set-off when mutual demands are held under such…

Margott v. Gem Properties, Inc.
34 Cal.App.3d 849 (Cal. Ct. App. 1973)Cited 23 times
…in it. A judgment for punitive damages is no different than any other money judgment in the context of the right of the judgment debtor to offset. In effect, the judgment debtor satisfies the claim against him by discharging a separate claim he has against the judgment creditor. The offset is the equivalent of payment. If such is the case, the source of the satisfied judgment in actual or punitive damages is irrelevant. It is conceivable that unconscionable conduct leading to a judgment of punitive damages may be so related to the offset transaction as to raise an equitable defense to offset…

Bank of Am. v. SFR Invs. Pool 1, LLC
427 P.3d 113 (Nev. 2018)Cited 405 times
…16 (1972) ("Common-law and statutory liens continue in existence until they are satisfied or terminated by some manner recognized by law. A lien may be lost by ... payment or tender of the proper amount of the debt secured by the lien."); see also 74 Am. Jur. 2d Tender § 41 (2012). Valid tender requires payment in full. Annotation, Tender as Affected by Insufficiency of Amount Offered , 5 A.L.R. 1226 (1920). The HOA refused to accept Bank of America’s tender, because it did not satisfy both the superpriority and subpriority portions of the lien. NRS 116.3116 governs liens against units for HOA…

Brubrad Company v. United States Postal Service
404 F. Supp. 691 (E.D.N.Y. 1975)Cited 12 times
…November 4, 1975, lists eleven series of United States government bonds with maturities from 1980 to 1998 and coupons from 3 percent to 4 1/4 percent. Their holders might make the same argument as plaintiff, that they did not contemplate the present inflation when the bonds were issued. Plaintiff, like bondholders and other creditors of the government, is entitled under 31 U.S.C. § 463 only to "payment, dollar for dollar, in . . . legal tender."

Ralda-Sanden v. Sanden
2013 Ill. App. 121117 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013)Cited 14 times
…assigns to the Department “any and all rights, title, and interest in any support obligation, including statutory interest thereon, up to the amount of the financial aid provided.” 305 ILCS 5/10–1 (West 2010). This assigned right is considered a collectible obligation owed the State or local governmental unit by the person responsible and is “collectible under all applicable processes.” Id. ¶ 36 Furthermore, to receive aid under the Public Aid Code, the family unit or parents must accept the “primary and continuing obligation of the family unit for self-support to the fullest extent permitted…

Bennett v. Broderick
858 N.E.2d 1044 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006)Cited 20 times
…the lease's requirement that the security deposit be paid upon execution of the lease. Bennett tendered and Broderick accepted a postdated check in payment of the security deposit. The lease did not restrict the manner of payment. Legal payment can be made in any medium that the party obligated offers and the party to whom payment is due accepts as payment. Lamb v. Thieme, 174 Ind.App. 287, 367 N.E.2d 602, 603 (1977). The security deposit was "on deposit" with Broderick when Bennett gave her his check. There is no evidence that the check would not have been honored when presented to the…

U.S. Bank v. Nev. Sandcastles, LLC
448 P.3d 553 (Nev. 2019)
…Summary judgment is proper "when the pleadings and other evidence on file demonstrate that no genuine issue as to any material fact [remains] and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original). "Valid tender requires payment in full." Bank of America, N.A. v. SFR Investments Pool, 1, LLC, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 72, 427 P.3d 113, 117 (2018).

In re Applause LLC
Case No. SV 04-15821 MT (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2006)
…that is liable with the debtor on, or that has secured, a claim of a creditor against the debtor, and that pays such claim, is subrogated to the rights of such creditor to the extent of such payment."). "[T]here is nothing about the basic structure of the letter of credit transaction that calls for treatment different than other co-obligors in bankruptcy." In re Condor Systems, Inc., 296 B.R. 5, 16 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 2003). "As with other forms of guarantee, payment by the issuer gives rise to a right of reimbursement and subrogates the issuer to the rights of the beneficiary." Id. at 17…

In re Condor Systems, Inc.
BK Number: 01-55472-JRG, 01-55473-JRG, (Jointly Administered), BAP number: NC-02-1380-KMaRy (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Jul. 18, 2003)
…to assume the credit risk of payment by the applicant. P.A. Bergner Co. v. Bank One (In re P.A. Bergner Co.), 140 F.3d 1111, 1114-15 (7th Cir. 1998); John F. Dolan, The Law of Letters of Credit ¶ 3.03[1], at 3-7 to 3-10 (rev. ed. 1999); 6B Wm. D. Hawkland, Hawkland UCC Series rev. § 5-109:10 (2002); David G. Carlson Wm. H. Widen, Letters of Credit, Voidable Preferences, and the "Independence" Principle, 54 Bus. Law. 1661 n. 1 (1999). As with other forms of guarantee, payment by the issuer gives rise to a right of reimbursement and subrogates the issuer to the rights of the beneficiary.…

Frandson v. Oasis Petroleum North America, LLC
870 F. Supp. 2d 726 (D.N.D. 2012)Cited 1 times
…A generally-accepted common rule governing payment of monetary obligations is that, absent an agreement providing otherwise, an obligee can insist upon payment in legal tender or, as it is sometimes referred to, the “coin of the realm.” E.g., Margulus v. Mathes, 339 Ill.App. 497, 90 N.E.2d 254, 256 (4th Dist.1950); Stein v. Shapiro, 145 Minn. 60, 64, 176 N.W. 54, 55 (1920); see generally60 Am.Jur.2d Payment § 21…

United States v. Rickman
638 F.2d 182 (10th Cir. 1980)Cited 47 times
…1, § 8, United States Constitution. We have held to the contrary. United States v. Ware, 10 Cir., 608 F.2d 400, 402-403. We find no validity in the distinction which defendant draws between "lawful money" and "legal tender." Money is a medium of exchange. Legal tender is money which the law requires a creditor to receive in payment of an obligation. The aggregate of the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution includes broad and comprehensive authority over revenue, finance, and currency. Norman v. B. O. R. Co., 294 U.S. 240, 55 S.Ct. 407, 79 L.Ed. 885.

Arnold v. Selman
62 S.E.2d 915 (Ga. Ct. App. 1951)Cited 3 times
…The evidence shows that Arnold tendered the monthly rental of $85 (this being the amount specified in the lease) to Selman, after the sale, for the month of April, 1950, that the money was refused, and that like tenders and refusals of rent were made for May and June, 1950. Tender of payment is equivalent to payment. Life Casualty Ins. Co. of Tenn. v. Jordan, 69 Ga. App. 287, 298 ( 25 S.E.2d 103). The tenders were made a day or two after the first day of the month, but it was the practice and custom of these parties to pay and accept the rent a few days after the first day of the month…

In the Matter of Frost
171 N.J. 308 (N.J. 2002)Cited 18 times
…supports respondent's position. The common law concept of tender provides that if a creditor refuses to accept money tendered by a debtor title to the money reverts to the debtor. 74 Am. Jur. 2d Tender §§ 33, 35 (2001). However, "legal tender is that kind of [payment] which the law compels the creditor to accept in payment of his debt when tendered by the debtor in the right amount." Black's Law Dictionary 1467 (6th Edition 1990) (emphasis added). Here, CNA did not accept the $79,000 check tendered by respondent because CNA believed that it had not compromised its lien to $79,000. Thus, CNA…

Lunsford v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co.
996 N.E.2d 815 (Ind. App. 2013)Cited 11 times
…Appellee's App. p. 96. Lunsford was again provided with updated payoff information via overnight mail following the summary judgment hearing. Id. at 161–62. Notwithstanding this information, no tender of payment was ever made in satisfaction of the loan documents. A proper tender of payment generally requires full payment of the debt due. Cricket Ridge, LLC v. Wright, 880 N.E.2d 1271, 1277 (Ind.Ct.App.2008). And if the payment is refused, “the tender must be kept open by paying the full amount into court.” Id. Put another way, Lunsford has not alleged, and the record does not show, that he…

D. Jack Davis Corp. v. Karp
333 S.E.2d 685 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985)Cited 5 times
…new tenancy to which he was entitled, and thus the landlord was without grounds to seek to distrain the tenant's property when the application was filed a few days before tenant moved out in response to the demand for possession. The correct amount of rent had been sent and returned, so plaintiff was not on solid ground when the sworn application was filed. "Tender of payment is equivalent to payment. [Cit.]." Arnold v. Selman, 83 Ga. App. 145, 149 ( 62 S.E.2d 915) (1951). See also 49 AmJur2d, Landlord and Tenant, § 754, second paragraph. Consequently, a directed verdict as to it was mandated…

In re Hawaiian Vintage Chocolate Co.
No. 21-32112 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Dec. 22, 2021)
…Business Day means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday, or "legal holiday" as defined in Bankruptcy Rule 9006(a). Cash means legal tender of the United States of America.

Ditech Fin. LLC v. Clearwater Cove Homeowners Ass'n
No. 19-16692 (9th Cir. Aug. 18, 2020)
…Plaintiff Ditech Financial, LLC, timely appeals from entry of summary judgment in favor of Defendants. Reviewing de novo, CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Corte Madera Homeowners Ass'n, 962 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 2020), we affirm. 1. In Nevada, it is settled law that valid tender of payment requires payment in full. Bank of Am., N.A. v. SFR Invs. Pool 1, LLC, 427 P.3d 113, 117 (Nev. 2018) (en banc). "In addition to payment in full, valid tender must be unconditional, or with conditions on which the tendering party has a right to insist." Id. at 118.

Williams v. Mobile Oil Exploration Prod. S.E
457 So. 2d 962 (Ala. 1984)Cited 16 times
…The statute allows either payment or tender thereof. There is ample evidence to show payment into the court of the amount due, thus satisfying the statute. A "short statute of limitations" is contained in § 40-10-82, Code 1975, which states that the redemption action must be filed within three years from the date when the…

Contact Us

Company Service Related inquiries ONLY
We cannot respond to your communication otherwise due to company policy

© Copyright 2025 AMARA-LEGION All Rights RETAINED AND Reserved... Dispute Policy