AUTHORITY OF THE COIN

The definition of a coin is: “coin: n: 1. A metal disc or piece used as money. 2. (Economics, Accounting & Finance / Currencies) metal currency, as opposed to securities, paper currency, etc. Related adj nummary”. The coin is an important concept, that all nations that follow, and obey. The “Common Law” Of Nations was established before Christ, started as “Biblical” law, it has been updated over the centuries, but the concepts have remained the same. Let us continue, LON Book 1 Chapter X § 106: “Duty of the nation or prince with respect to the coin: The impression on the coin becoming the seal of its standard and weight, a moment's reflection will convince us that the coinage of money ought not to be left indiscriminately free to every individual; for, by that means, frauds would become too common — the coin would soon lose the public confidence; and this would destroy a most useful institution. Hence money is coined by the authority and in the name of the state or prince, who are its surety; they ought, therefore, to have a quantity of it coined sufficient to answer the necessities of the country, and to take care that it be good, that is to say, that its intrinsic value bear a just proportion to its extrinsic or numeracy value.

It is true, that, in a pressing necessity, the state would have a right to order the citizens to receive the coin at a price superior to its real value; but as foreigners will not receive it at that price, the nations gains nothing by this proceeding; it is only a temporary palliative for the evil, without effecting a radical cure. This excess of value, added in an arbitrary manner to the coin, is a real debt which the sovereign contracts with individuals: and, in strict justice, this crisis of affairs being over, that money ought to be called in at the expense of the state, and paid for in other specie, according to the natural standard: otherwise, this kind of burden, laid on in the hour of necessity, would fall solely on those who received this arbitrary money in payment, which would be unjust. Besides, experience has shown that such a resource is destructive to trade, by destroying the confidence both of foreigners and citizens — raising in proportion the price of every thing — and inducing every one to lock up or send abroad the good old specie; whereby a temporary stop is put to the circulation of money. So that it is the duty of every nation and of every sovereign to abstain, as much as possible, from so dangerous an experiment, and rather to have recourse to extraordinary taxes and contributions to support the pressing exigencies of the state”.

Concerning LON Book 1 Chapter X § 106, Let us look at definitions:

·       “In the name of” n: “behalf of”; “on the part of”; “by authority”; as, it was done in the name of the people; - often used in invocation, swearing, praying, and the like. In the represented or assumed character of.

·       prince: n; 1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (In Britain) a son of the sovereign or of one of the sovereign's sons

·       2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a non-reigning male member of a sovereign family

·       3. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the monarch of a small territory, such as Monaco, usually called a principality, that was at some time subordinate to an emperor or king

·       4. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) any sovereign; monarch

·       5. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a nobleman in various countries, such as Italy and Germany

·       6. An outstanding member of a specified group a merchant prince

·       7. US and Canadian informal a generous and charming man

[Via Old French from Latin princeps first man, ruler, or chief]

So what does it mean when some private business (FEDERAL RESERVE) creates a coin for the use of the people within a corporation (UNITED STATES: Democracy. Being different then the Republic: United States of America)? Obviously, UNITED STATES has to be a corporation, it cannot be a nation, as it does not have gold, or silver, coins: thus destroying the most useful institution, and the republic. Would this make the Federal Reserve System, who created FRNs, an act of rebellion? Yes. Article 1 § 8 ¶ 6 “To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;” In addition, it includes all who participate in the use of these manufactured forgeries. Except, for one thing, do we, the people, have a choice? Do ‘they’ even inform us? If we are not informed or do not understand, we can have no choice! Can the average man, or woman, be committing a willful act of treason? I think not! There lies the difference, the banks, and our government, have a choice. On the other hand, we, the people, do not have a choice. Besides, we, the people, can use whatever we want; the government is bound by certain restrictions. The LON is clear in the injury it is knowingly causing by making false-coins. LON Book 1 Chapter X§ 107: “Their rights in this respect: Since the state is surely for the goodness of the money and its currency, the public authority alone has the right of coining it. Those who counterfeit it, violate the rights of the sovereign, whether they make it of the same standard and value or not. These are called false-coiners, and their crime is justly considered as one of the most heinous nature. For if they coin base money, they rob both the public and the prince; and if they coin good, they usurp the prerogative of the sovereign. They will never be inclined to coin good money unless there be a profit on the coinage: and in this case they rob the state of a profit, which exclusively belongs to it. In both cases, they do an injury to the sovereign; for the public faith being surety for the money, the sovereign alone has a right to have it coined. For this reason the right of coining is placed among the prerogatives of majesty, and Bodinus relates, 2 That Sigismund Augustus, king of Poland, having granted this privilege to the duke of Prussia, in the year 1543, the states of the country passed a decree in which it was asserted that the king could not grant that privilege, it being inseparable from the crown. The same author observes, that, although many lords and bishops of France had formerly the privilege of coining money, it was still considered as coined by the king's authority: and the kings of France at last withdrew all those privileges, on account of their being often abused”.