"consideration" can be a promise to do something. so I do not see how you can say there was no consideration. In exchange for providing a banking services .. the FED gets to flip out bonds for a profit. Its a great gig if you can get it. How can you argue there is no consideration. nevertheless - in the end the most dominant principle is the power theory of international law. He who has the power makes the rules. If the U.S. Govt controls the U.S. military... it can tell any one it wishes to pound sand. Those notes and bonds could be turned into confetti tomorrow. That is the right of sovereign. Unless of course your are in europe and your country turned the power of money over to an "international" body or the germans. And even then greece could bail on the EU and issue Drachmanus.
Okay. I see you have nothing to say in terms of my specific points of EO 11110. Figured as much. Basic logic lesson for you my (perhaps) well-armed friend: just because there are conspiracies in the world doesn't mean *your* conspiracy is not based on utter stupidity.
EO11110 is more of a historical reference, not current events. I am more concerned about the present rather than what happened in the 1960s or 1980s. Stocks are not null and void. Securities are probably not null and void either. The reason US Treasury bonds are null and void is because there was no consideration conveyed to the Treasury when the Federal Reserve accepted the $100k bonds. The legal principle of "consideration" basically says that for a contract to be valid, consideration must be conveyed by both parties. Does that explain it? Or should I go into more examples or detail?
seems to be a theme in your 4+ posts per day in a little over a month since you donned your "dont"miss the bus alias..even your moniker is negative..why are you here on a trading site,didn't see any posts regarding trading
Promise Language is the way to go. Person 1 says: "I promise to give you this $5 dollar bill in exchange for that sandwich." Person 2 says: "Ok. I promise to give you this sandwich in exchange for that $5 dollar bill." Person 1 hands $5 bill to Person 2. Person 2 hands sandwich to Person 1. Transaction complete. FYI, you could the above into a computer to track all your transactions. Solves money. Advanced: I have a diamond in a wealth storage facility. I have a diamond card with a Mastercard symbol. I go to the store to purchase a sandwich with said card. The store only accepts USD. I hand my diamond card to the store clerk. He hands me a sandwich. Behind the scenes, a wealth translation occurs. The store receives USD. I paid with a tiny fraction of my diamond. Transaction complete.
Hahaha - with very few exceptions - there's no discussion on trading on this site that's actually about trading. So no, I'm not here to talk about trading (other side of Martingoul and a few others, no one here really understands what I trade anyway). I do enjoy 'discussing' these fringe conspiracies you guys have - though - because I don't really find people this crazy in real life.
I see you've read the first chapter of a contracts law book. Good for you. Except, in this case, the Fed is an agency of the US government (despite whether you think it is or not) with delegated powers; Its relationship with the Treasury and the government is not contractual, but legal. As to your specific claim, I have no idea what "Treasury when the Federal Reserve accepted the $100k bonds" means; The treasury issues bonds. The Fed conducts open market operations separately. Money is paid or received when the Fed trades in the open market. Isn't that money and the flow of coupons/principals mutual consideration between the buyer and sell of a treasury bond?