I have posted in the money issue brief posted on my website links to the Fay Corp. case upholding gold clauses, and I thought that would be good enough for present purposes. But because of the seeming prevalence of people who erroneously insist that HJR 192 is valid even today, I have posted more such cases. See below for the additions to the brief I just now made.
I hope that people quit thinking that payments in specie are somehow banished because of HJR 192, which has not been in effect for the last 30 years.
I hope people will purchase Dr. Edwin Vieira’s Pieces of Eight:
The brief is posted here:
http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/MONEYbrief.html
The Joint Resolution of June 5, 1933, has no significance today because it has been effectively repealed; see 91 Stat. 1229. For cases explaining the end of HJR 192′s application in 1977, and the validity of gold clause contracts today, see Fay Corp. v. BAT Holdings I, Inc., 646 F. Supp. 946 (W.D.Wash. 1986), affirmed at Fay Corp. v. Frederick & Nelson Seattle, Inc., 896 F.2d 1227 (9th Cir. 1990), Wells Fargo Bank v. Bank of America, 32 Cal.App.4th 424, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 521 (1995); Trostel v. American Life & Casualty Insurance Company, 133 F.3d 679 (8th Cir. 1998); Nebel, Inc. v. Mid-City National Bank, 329 Ill. App.3d 957, 769 N.E.2d 45 (2002); and 216 Jamaica Ave. v. S & R Playhouse Realty Co., 540 F.3d 433 (6th Cir. 2008).
My spouse and I absolutely like your blog post Attorney Larry Becraft on Gold Clauses | Independent American News see the majority of these posts such as Attorney Larry Becraft on Gold Clauses | Independent American News being exactly what We are searching for. Does one provide other authors to write articles for you. I wouldn’t mind publishing a article or perhaps elaborating on most of the subjects you are writing related to in this article. Once more, amazing website! Rob Rasner Magic Show