Judge Poisoned After Ruling Bank Foreclosure Is Illegal and All Mortgages Are Null and Void

The Greatest Crime Against Humanity

(note by dynamo - "Most of us here know this fact, the fiat money system is total BS. This is another example of how this information is quenched by the "law society". Good luck trying to defend this stand, however, as you can read below in this old example").

https://hubpages.com/politics/Judge-...-Null-and-Void

With the advent of the internet in the eighties and knowledge no longer being restricted to well-controlled sources one of the things that I discovered was the facts about the way money works in this world. We've all heard the various sayings about 5% of the world's population holding 95% of the world's wealth but not many are sure how and why this is our reality.

Doing some online research about what is money and how is it created will inevitably lead one to discover the surprisingly fraudulent ways in which banks create money and make loans. Because the world's banking systems, as they exist now, continue to cause pain and suffering in generation after generation of mankind I consider this insidious "con-job" of a banking and monetary system to be the greatest crime against humanity.

Rather than re-iterate the way money should work and the way it does work and rather than re-write the advantages and disadvantages of MONETARY REFORM I urge you to view the various hubpages and online materials to educate yourself.

There has been a movie called "Zeitgeist" making the rounds online and it discusses and exposes the various historical persons, events and laws over the past years that have led us into the almost hopeless situation we now find ourselves in. God has declared that this movie is now MANDATORY for all humans incarnated on Earth so if you haven't watched it, grab a bag of popcorn and do so right now.

One aspect of the Zeitgeist movie I would like to devote this hubpage to is referred to as the "Credit River Decision" or the case of Jerome Daly vs the state of Wisconsin. In this case Jerome Daly defended himself against a lawsuit brought by a bank holding the mortgage on his house. Mr. Daly had defaulted on the mortgage and the bank was suing to foreclose and take his house.

Unfortunately for the bank, even thought it was 1969 and all good little citizens were doing as they were told, never daring to question any kind of authority, Mr. Daly was well educated in the way banks create money. Mr. Daly knew that when a bank makes a loan, it instantly creates money by the stroke of a pen in a ledger, which then is transferred to the borrower's account. (and of course the borrower has to pay back the loan with real money...plus interest. This, of course is the BIG problem simply stated.) Mr. Daly, also being a lawyer knew very well about the "Law of Consideration" meaning, essentially, that a contract was null and void if both parties are not exchanging something of inherent value.

Mr. Daly argued, and somehow got the bank to admit, that they created the money with a stroke of a pen at the time of the loan (and that there was no actual official law empowering them to do so.) Since the bank did not "put up" anything of value (other than the ink from the pen) for Mr. Daly's home mortgage, there was no consideration, therefore the mortgage agreement was null and void.

Justice Martin V. Mahoney ruled against the bank and denied the foreclosure. Mr. Daly kept his house and paid no more mortgage.
Six months later Justice Mahoney was found dead (allegedly by poison) and Mr. Daly was disbarred and never practiced law again.

It really sucks that anytime somebody tries to identify this problem, this crime that these banker-criminal-devil-jerks have been perpetuating for the last few hundred years they are quickly silenced. Abraham Lincoln tried to stop it. They killed him. John Kennedy tried to stop it. They killed him. Unfortunately, those in power, have all the power...and they like it that way....and they have lots of money to hire assassins with. So we are beat. There's nothing we can do. Except one thing.

All we can do is use the power of collective imagination to IMAGINE one or two of these bankers starting to feel guilty...and deciding to bring down there own system. I can imagine a world in which the monetary system benefits ALL of humanity. Can you imagine this?

A Summary of the Facts

Here is a brief summary of the facts.

1. Jerome Daly had a mortgage with the First National Bank of Montgomery , Minnesota .
   In Spring 1967, he was $476.00 in arrears, the bank foreclosed and bought the property at a Sheriff's sale on June 26, 1967.
   The bank sued for possession.
2. A jury trial , presided over by Martin V. Mahoney, Justice of the Peace, Credit River Township , Scott County, Minnesota, was held on December 7, 1968.
3. The bank's president, one Lawrence V. Morgan (familiar name?) appeared along with lawyer R. Melby for the plaintiff and Jerome Daly, who was a lawyer, appeared on his own behalf.

In other words:
"The Credit River Decision," which is, still "The Law of the Land" declared the following

1. the Federal Reserve Act is unconstitutional and VOID
2. the National Banking Act is unconstitutional and VOID
3. the mortgage acquired by the First National Bank of Montgomery, Minnesota in the regular course of its business, along with the foreclosure and the sheriff's sale, to be VOID

_______________________________

I Don't Have to Pay My Mortgage?!?!

https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/2606061_f520.jpg

What Happened Next - Can You Use This Defense?

I have investigated the Jerome Daly case and what I found was just as interesting as the outcome. The whole case was based on trying to expose the scam we call mortgage loans. It was crafted to expose the fact that banks create money out of thin air by depositing your note onto their books as an asset and then loaning that same asset back to you as a loan so basically you are loaning yourself the money.
Most people in this country have been led to believe that the money loaned by the bank is from the deposits of the banks customers. The more money the public saves, the more it can use that money to lend. In a way, the banks slide of hands accomplishes this task by creating your deposit based on the note you sign and then lending it back as if it was already on the books.

The Jerome Daly case was an attempt to prove it once and for all, the problem was that no judge in any court that had jurisdiction would allow the evidence to be admitted. The borrower would request the book keeping ledgers in discovery and the bank would refuse and the judge would side with the bank. In some cases, the judge would force the case to be settled before any such evidence could be entered on record. Since most people are ignorant of the issue, the bank would simply take the loss, after all is was all free money to begin with. To get around this, the bank in the Daly case was served with a complaint in front of a justice of the peace.



The Bank didn’t realize this until after the President of the Bank was forced to testify and admit to the scam under oath. He figured that when he testified, there would be a handy judge there to say he did not have to answer those questions. After his testimony, the jury was immediately sent to deliberate and came back with that verdict that has become so famous.

What followed was an uproar starting with the State Bar, then the State Supreme Court which ruled that the entire case was a nullity and the attorney and the justice of the peace spent several decades trying to get their license to practice law back.

The same thing happens today with the income tax cases. There is no law that says you are required to file an income tax because the law only applies to corporations or foreign nationals. As soon as the defense tries to claim that he was not required to file a tax return, it is immediately ruled as frivolous and that it can not be used in that court as a defense. The IRS and Judges have made claiming you are not required to file an income tax claim so toxic that it is even considered below UFO sighting claims.
There was a recent case where the IRS tried to make an example out of an attorney who wrote a book that said there was no law requiring a person to file an income tax return.The Tom Cryer jury returned a verdict of not guilty on all charges. The case will never be used or seen for that matter in the cases cited in court because it is not a published opinion since it was decided correctly, no appeal required, no published case law.


https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/2606052.jpg

An interview about the case with an associate Justice who knew and worked with Justice Martin V. Mahoney:.

The " Credit River Decision" handed down by a jury of 12 on a cold day in December, in the Credit River Township Hall, was an experience that I'll never forget.

The Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court had phoned me a week before the trial and asked me if I would be an associate justice in assisting Justice Martin V. Mahoney since he had never handled a jury trial before. I accepted, and it took me two hours to get my car running in the 22 below zero weather.

I got to the courtroom about 30 minutes before trial, and helped get the wood stove going, since the trial was being held in an unheated storeroom of a general store. This was the first time I met Justice Mahoney, and I was impressed with his no nonsense manner of handling matters before him. My object was to help pick the jury, and to keep Jerome Daly and the attorney representing the Bank of Montgomery from engaging in a fist fight. The courtroom was highly charged, and the Jury was all business.

The banker testified about the mortgage loan given to Jerome Daly, but then Daly cross examined the banker about the creating of money "out of thin air," and the banker admitted that this was standard banking practice. When Justice Mahoney heard the banker testify that he could "create money out of thin air," Mahoney said, "It sounds like fraud to me." I looked at the faces of the jurors, and they were all agreeing with Mahoney by shaking their heads and by the looks on their faces.

I must admit that up until that point, I really didn't believe Jerome's theory, and thought he was making this up. After I heard the testimony of the banker, my mouth had dropped open in shock, and I was in complete disbelief. There was no doubt in my mind that the Jury would find for Daly.

Jerome Daly had taken on the banks, the Federal Reserve Banking System, and the money lenders, and had won.

It is now twenty eight years since this "Landmark Decision," and Justice Mahoney is quoted more often than any Supreme Court justice ever was. The money boys that run the "private Federal Reserve Bank" soon got back at Mahoney by poisoning him in what appeared to have been a fishing boat accident (but with his body pumped full of poison) in June of 1969, less than 6 months later.

Both Jerome Daly and Justice Martin V. Mahoney are truly the greatest men that I have ever had the pleasure to meet. The Credit River Decision was and still is the most important legal decision ever decided by a Jury. - Bill Drexler

Really, God has made it mandatory to watch Zietgeist? I watched that video many years ago. Can you tell me whether God had already made it mandatory to watch it back then? Or is this a recent injunction from God? I guess either way I'm good with God on this score at least.

Also, help me understand how this 1969 case presided over by a Justice of the Peace from Wisconsin and ostensibly decided by a jury, is the "Law of the Land." At most, it would be the "law of the case." Having, as such, only binding effect on the parties to the case and no one else.

Also, an associate justice of a state Supreme Court would never, ever, be designated to preside over, or even assist a justice of the peace during, a trial proceeding. Period. Further, a justice of the peace presides over matters involving limited jurisdiction and very low dollar cases; such things as traffic fines, barking dogs and other nuisance matters. They are not courts of general jurisdiction and nothing that ocurrs in a state magistrate court or before a justice of the peace has any precedential affect at any level, and least of all at a constitutional level, and is not binding on anyone other than the immediate parties to the case.

By the way, I read this case many years ago. I also read what people such as yourself say about the case. There is a huge disconnect between what the case really stands for and what some people say it stands for. In point of fact, the case stands for nothing useful to any of us who have mortgages or any other debt-based loans.

The foregoing is with all respect to all concerned.

Mod note from Bill:

Please ALWAYS cite the source article you're copying from. (I've added it into your post. :thumbsup: )

• https://hubpages.com/politics/Judge-...-Null-and-Void

Or else members might think it's YOU who wrote silly things like this. :)

Quote:

---

Posted by dynamo

God has declared that this movie is now MANDATORY for all humans incarnated on Earth so if you haven't watched it, grab a bag of popcorn and do so right now.

---

:focus:

Quote:

---

Posted by Bill Ryan

Mod note from Bill:

Please ALWAYS cite the source article you're copying from. (I've added it into your post. :thumbsup: )

• https://hubpages.com/politics/Judge-...-Null-and-Void

Or else members might think it's YOU who wrote silly things like this. :)

Quote:

---

Posted by dynamo

God has declared that this movie is now MANDATORY for all humans incarnated on Earth so if you haven't watched it, grab a bag of popcorn and do so right now.

---

:focus:

---

Thanks Bill, I usually do post the links, must of been before my first coffee LOL!
Anyway, I actually saw the article here first:
https://eraoflight.com/2018/08/12/ju...null-and-void/

So...the point I was trying to bring to light is that Income Tax and the fiat money system in general is one "illegal" way the elite keep humanity enslaved.
Many have attempted to claim sovereign rights (therefore they do not pay income tax) but they usually lose, either financially, by being locked up in jail or getting "suicided".

Of course the other "stuff" in the article is gibberish but there are also many good points (IMO, of course), hence the reason I posted it.

I considered trying this type of defense when I ran into problems. Try asking a creditor for proof that they "advanced you a consideration", which means giving you cash from their pocket.

I'm forced to admit that I did not press it in court, largely from realizing even if it worked against foreclosure, I would still be broke. Instead, I vampirized the Feds for a hefty sum, and then another entity I can't mention.

The Federal Government is a foreign entity to us, so we are foreigners to them. Their only actual domain is federal courts, military bases, or other properties that have been fully conveyed to them.

One cannot become immune to U. S. Code, but one can become immune to statutes. This results from refusing citizenship, which is a "consent to be governed", which gives them jurisdiction to apply statutes. I think it is that simple. Dispose of citizenship, they can no longer bother you or pry taxes out of you. If enough people did this, the whole system would implode rapidly.

And really, this is something to educate children about. What happened? When I was a kid, my mom hooked me up with a Social Security number and I started working and using it. Currently I waffle about renouncing out of a sense of wanting to someday get a pension back from them. If I hadn't paid into it for so many years, then I wouldn't care.

Yes, you do need to read these articles with an extreme grain of salt, and you are much better off learning what law actually is. Not a second or third hand commentary, but the real actual thing. One of my favorite examples is a veterinarian from Colorado, who, in 1996, sold a book and did a speaking tour. His point was that during the Nixon-era repeals of the 1933 executive orders about banking emergencies, that one of the main orders, I forget which, was given a "bye" in that year, 1976 or so, so it remained in effect.

That was actually true, but what he didn't mention was that Congress studied it for a year or two and removed it in 1977 or 8.

Since then, no executive order is binding for more than one year, unless they renew it. Anyone can go look at executive orders and renewals, and if you find a 1933 order still coming up, please tell me. I never found it because it was axed in the 70s.

Citizenship is the real scam; without that, none of that other stuff exists. If I can get my hands on a private property, I probably will toss mine. They are hard to get since the system likes to sell you a residential property, and a resident is a type of status criminal like a vagabond. Claiming residency is just another way to surrender one's rights and instead be granted privileges.

Thomas Jefferson warned us about letting mortgages get started because we would wind up homeless on the land that they fought to get free of mortgages, central banking, and democracy. Not sure where that message went or if they teach it around Independence Day in kindergarten. It was pretty widely known until after a few years of Federal Reserve and governments deciding what should be taught. Once I found a ca. 1921 bank note "Property of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago", beside which, someone wrote in penmanship of the time, "Bolshevik".

Quote:

---

Posted by shaberon

I considered trying this type of defense when I ran into problems. Try asking a creditor for proof that they "advanced you a consideration", which means giving you cash from their pocket.

I'm forced to admit that I did not press it in court, largely from realizing even if it worked against foreclosure, I would still be broke. Instead, I vampirized the Feds for a hefty sum, and then another entity I can't mention.

The Federal Government is a foreign entity to us, so we are foreigners to them. Their only actual domain is federal courts, military bases, or other properties that have been fully conveyed to them.

One cannot become immune to U. S. Code, but one can become immune to statutes. This results from refusing citizenship, which is a "consent to be governed", which gives them jurisdiction to apply statutes. I think it is that simple. Dispose of citizenship, they can no longer bother you or pry taxes out of you. If enough people did this, the whole system would implode rapidly.

And really, this is something to educate children about. What happened? When I was a kid, my mom hooked me up with a Social Security number and I started working and using it. Currently I waffle about renouncing out of a sense of wanting to someday get a pension back from them. If I hadn't paid into it for so many years, then I wouldn't care.

Yes, you do need to read these articles with an extreme grain of salt, and you are much better off learning what law actually is. Not a second or third hand commentary, but the real actual thing. One of my favorite examples is a veterinarian from Colorado, who, in 1996, sold a book and did a speaking tour. His point was that during the Nixon-era repeals of the 1933 executive orders about banking emergencies, that one of the main orders, I forget which, was given a "bye" in that year, 1976 or so, so it remained in effect.

That was actually true, but what he didn't mention was that Congress studied it for a year or two and removed it in 1977 or 8.

Since then, no executive order is binding for more than one year, unless they renew it. Anyone can go look at executive orders and renewals, and if you find a 1933 order still coming up, please tell me. I never found it because it was axed in the 70s.

Citizenship is the real scam; without that, none of that other stuff exists. If I can get my hands on a private property, I probably will toss mine. They are hard to get since the system likes to sell you a residential property, and a resident is a type of status criminal like a vagabond. Claiming residency is just another way to surrender one's rights and instead be granted privileges.

Thomas Jefferson warned us about letting mortgages get started because we would wind up homeless on the land that they fought to get free of mortgages, central banking, and democracy. Not sure where that message went or if they teach it around Independence Day in kindergarten. It was pretty widely known until after a few years of Federal Reserve and governments deciding what should be taught. Once I found a ca. 1921 bank note "Property of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago", beside which, someone wrote in penmanship of the time, "Bolshevik".

---

Thank you, Shaberon, for sharing your experience and insight.
Very interesting read indeed!

Shaberon, I chuckled when I read the part about the bank note.

I once fought what I considered extortion by some institution and I was quite right to do so. Of course, I didn't have a leg to stand on because they could then just cut my utility off.

So, in the memo section of my check I wrote "under protest". I don't think they liked that.

Quote:

---

Posted by shaberon

I considered trying this type of defense when I ran into problems. Try asking a creditor for proof that they "advanced you a consideration", which means giving you cash from their pocket.

I'm forced to admit that I did not press it in court, largely from realizing even if it worked against foreclosure, I would still be broke. Instead, I vampirized the Feds for a hefty sum, and then another entity I can't mention.

The Federal Government is a foreign entity to us, so we are foreigners to them. Their only actual domain is federal courts, military bases, or other properties that have been fully conveyed to them.

One cannot become immune to U. S. Code, but one can become immune to statutes. This results from refusing citizenship, which is a "consent to be governed", which gives them jurisdiction to apply statutes. I think it is that simple. Dispose of citizenship, they can no longer bother you or pry taxes out of you. If enough people did this, the whole system would implode rapidly.

And really, this is something to educate children about. What happened? When I was a kid, my mom hooked me up with a Social Security number and I started working and using it. Currently I waffle about renouncing out of a sense of wanting to someday get a pension back from them. If I hadn't paid into it for so many years, then I wouldn't care.

Yes, you do need to read these articles with an extreme grain of salt, and you are much better off learning what law actually is. Not a second or third hand commentary, but the real actual thing. One of my favorite examples is a veterinarian from Colorado, who, in 1996, sold a book and did a speaking tour. His point was that during the Nixon-era repeals of the 1933 executive orders about banking emergencies, that one of the main orders, I forget which, was given a "bye" in that year, 1976 or so, so it remained in effect.

That was actually true, but what he didn't mention was that Congress studied it for a year or two and removed it in 1977 or 8.

Since then, no executive order is binding for more than one year, unless they renew it. Anyone can go look at executive orders and renewals, and if you find a 1933 order still coming up, please tell me. I never found it because it was axed in the 70s.

Citizenship is the real scam; without that, none of that other stuff exists. If I can get my hands on a private property, I probably will toss mine. They are hard to get since the system likes to sell you a residential property, and a resident is a type of status criminal like a vagabond. Claiming residency is just another way to surrender one's rights and instead be granted privileges.

Thomas Jefferson warned us about letting mortgages get started because we would wind up homeless on the land that they fought to get free of mortgages, central banking, and democracy. Not sure where that message went or if they teach it around Independence Day in kindergarten. It was pretty widely known until after a few years of Federal Reserve and governments deciding what should be taught. Once I found a ca. 1921 bank note "Property of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago", beside which, someone wrote in penmanship of the time, "Bolshevik".

---

With all respect, and I know I'm sticking my neck out here:

If I had the time, energy and inclination I'd demonstrate how this post contains more of that half-baked nonsense about the relationship of the individual to the State and its political, sociological and economic agencies, departments and institutions.

The facts and truth of the matter are incredible enough without having to go down this path of misdirection, distraction, and deception that is fed to us sometimes by well-meaning people, but usually by the controllers' shills (directly or indirectly through well-meaning people), all designed to keep us misinformed about, and blind to, the truth about everything of importance, including "money", mortgages (some like to say "death bond"), citizenship (cf.residency or domicile), property rights (e.g. allodial title), UPPER CASE SELF, lowercase self, sovereignty, taxation etc...

My understanding of the banking system is that the banks must have deposits in order to make loans. The deposits are 'real money'. The bank can loan out around 95% of their (deposits + owners contributed funds). If they are short funds on a given night, they borrow it from the central bank. There's complexity in determining a banks liabilities, to determine the risk exposure the bank haves, due to financial instruments like lines of credit, etc. This situation gets further complicated by bizarre financial items such as financial derivatives like swaps.

If the banking system is properly run, with integrity and honest regulation, then nothing is amiss. When you take out your mortgage, its real money funded by real deposits and real bank owners' contributions.

However, where the real crimes occur in banking, imho, is in the following scenarios:

a) according to monetary economic theory, as proposed by milton friedman (to my understanding), the money supply should increase in the same amount as growth in the economy. So if the economy grows by $200 billion, the money supply needs to increase by that amount too. (by the way, money supply never matches the total value in the economy, the same money just gets recycled many times). The crime currently with money supply is under the current banking practices, the central bank produces it (via hard currency or electronically) and lends it out as debt. So, all the expanded volume in the economy immediately becomes debt. The way this should be really done, is that the sovereign government should produce these new funds, debt free, and spend it as it sees fit. The three most productive expenditures are infrastructure, debt reduction and social programs.

b) another crime is when the central bank is privately owned but the sovereign state is responsible for the central bank's liabilities, which is the case with the federal reserve bank in the usa. The federal reserve can print as much american currency they want, give it or lend it to whomever they please, and do not have to submit to even an audit. The good news is that the fed can be dissolved for a few hundred million dollars, its just that the gutless american congress are either owned by the fed mobster owners or are too chicken to take a stand. Apparently the fed funded the nazis and also stole all the gold from fort knox, a place that also refuses to be submitted to an audit.

c) another banking crime is their involvement with financial derivatives, which can expose them to billions of dollars of liability. These derivatives produce no real value and should be eliminated from the legal realm of banking practices.

d) of course, financial fraud is a big concern. Commercial or retail anks should never be able ro 'create money' from the stroke of a pen. This should all be properly controlled.

I am sure there are more areas of concern in how banks perform their duties. Investment banking is another kettle of fish, tied up in shady bond rating services, improper insurance schemes, shortselling, price fixing on exchange rates, price fixing on interest rates [ie. Libor], etc., but that is beyond the mortgage banking referred to in this thread. Suffice to say there is plenty of problems with the banking model, but if run honestly and honourable, banking serves a vital and necessary condition in the economy.

Lest anyone think I'm in favor of central banks as presently constituted and operated, I'll say for the record, I emphatically am not.

Justplain has summed up nicely some important parts of the big picture regarding the federal reserve system in the US. (Which is akin to central banking systems globally.) It's twin sister, federal taxation of incomes via the ostensibly ratified 16th amendment to the US constitution, is the other ugly head and body of this creature that we must not overlook.

It is no coincidence that both the federal reserve act and the so-called 16th Amd. came into being in 1913. They are the principal intake (money placed into the stream of commerce) and exhaust (some money taken out of the stream of commerce) components of the monetary, financial, economic system. This topic has been researched, written and spoken about by many very good thinkers and such. There are many. G Edward Griffin always comes to mind. The late Stephen Zarlenga, of the American Monetary Institute, is another. However, I side more with Griffin then Zarlenga. But for me Edwin Vieira is top drawer and takes home the prize.

One parting thought:

The central bankers and their handlers know that reasonably intelligent people would not want fiat legal tender. It has no intrinsic value; and apart from the public confidence in it and the willingness by most people to accept fiat in exchange for goods and services there would be little demand for it and few people would want fiat. So they create a demand for it by mandating it as legal tender for the discharge of all debts public and private.

But it is the public part that is the kicker. While we, the people, in our private transactions might and often do accept other consideration, that is, something of value other than fiat in exchange for goods and services, the tax authorities will not. One may only use fiat, legal tender to discharge all public obligations, such as income taxes, fines, licenses, permits, etc... This is true at both the national and state levels. It is this scam that one might also consider criminal. Especially since they know their monetary fiat, legal tender casino is not sustainable and that they are robbing us blind by the hidden tax of inflation--not to mention the overt hand of taxes in all its forms.

Quote:

---

Posted by Satori

...It is this scam that one might also consider criminal. Especially since they know their monetary fiat, legal tender casino is not sustainable and that they are robbing us blind by the hidden tax of inflation--not to mention the overt hand of taxes in all its forms.

---

Thanks Satori, well put.
Same goes to Justplain.
I, for one, do not "consider (it) criminal".
It is criminal and they continue to operate in this criminal manner, while the uneducated (?) masses are being fleeced.

Just one thought on 'fiat currency'. I hope everyone realizes that it's actually impossible to create a currency with 'intrinsic value'. Any metal, or other item, that is used to 'back up' a currency has the same flaw as fiat currency, in that the value of the backing item, such as the metal gold, is only as valuable as people value it. This causes two major problems when supply and demand are used for the valuation of the currency backing item:

a) shortages: milton friedman, and others, i believe demonstrated through research that american recessions, particularly pre-ww1, directly coincided with shortages in money supply. So, does it make sense to reduce economic activity because of a shortage of the backing item, such as gold? If we dont have enough gold, the economy tanks. That sounds like inane economic policy to me.

b) surplus: if there is an oversupply of the backing item, such as a bonanza of gold (ie. a vast new recoverable deposit is found) that doubles the supply, and therefore halves the value of the currency. A radically devalued currency causes increased economic uncertainty and would be highly inflationary, for no good economic reason

So, the saying goes, a currency has the value that people give it. Its a consciousness thing, and always has been. If we have confidence in our economy, and its regulators and their rules, then the currency is stable, as hopefully the economy is too. In a healthy, well managed economy, the currency valuation and supply supports the economy and maintains the people's confidence in it

However, if anyone who has a better idea on how to conduct economic transactions, we should all be willing to hear them. Although i am not a big fan of the current economic model, and certainly for capitalism or socialism or whatever ism, the users of the system need better moral compasses than the greed driven idiocy we see that is rampant now. Barter based economies are sluggish and awkward. I would suggest if we can correct the morality of current practices, we stand a greater chance for success than switching to barter, imho. But i am all ears for any viable alternatives.

Good points Justplain. They hold true more so for a global and national economic systems, but not as much for local economic systems. The ongoing and quite successful drive for globalization is anathema to localization and alternative forms of exchange, such as barter. There is still room for both systems, but globalization is pushing out localization.