ALWAYS include reference to the below 31T5118 when invoking the Oaths of judges and other "officials". It invokes both the standard of actual money (make them define money, if they entered any dollar amount in the court case, theyre in contempt) AND CONSENT TO SUE THEM, but permission is never given for them to sue us!!

TITLE 31, 5118. Gold clauses and consent to sue(a) In this section (1) gold clause means a provision in or related to an obligation alleging to give the obligee a right to require payment in (A) gold; (B) a particular United States coin or currency; or (C) United States money measured in gold or a particular United States coin or currency. (2) public debt obligation means a domestic obligation issued or guaranteed by the United States Government to repay money or interest. (b) The United States Government may not pay out any gold coin. A person lawfully holding United States coins and currency may present the coins and currency to the Secretary of the Treasury for exchange (dollar for dollar) for other United States coins and currency (other than gold and silver coins) that may be lawfully held. The Secretary shall make the exchange under regulations prescribed by the Secretary. (c) (1) The Government withdraws its consent given to anyone to assert against the Government, its agencies, or its officers, employees, or agents, a claim (A) on a gold clause public debt obligation or interest on the obligation; (B) for United States coins or currency; or (C) arising out of the surrender, requisition, seizure, or acquisition of United States coins or currency, gold, or silver involving the effect or validity of a change in the metallic content of the dollar or in a regulation about the value of money. (2) Paragraph (1) of this subsection does not apply to a proceeding in which no claim is made for payment or credit in an amount greater than the face or nominal value in dollars of public debt obligations or United States coins or currency involved in the proceeding. (3) Except when consent is not withdrawn under this subsection, an amount appropriated for payment on public debt obligations and for United States coins and currency may be expended only dollar for dollar. (d) (1) In this subsection, obligation means any obligation (except United States currency) payable in United States money. (2) An obligation issued containing a gold clause or governed by a gold clause is discharged on payment (dollar for dollar) in United States coin or currency that is legal tender at the time of payment. This paragraph does not apply to an obligation issued after October 27, 1977.

Heres the latest I have found:

Congress passed on September 21, 1973 , the Par Value Modification Act Amendment wherein section 3 of said Act states the following: (a) Section 3 and 4 of the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 (31 U.S.C. 442 and 443) are repealed. (b) No provision of any law in effect on the date of enactment of this Act, and no rule, regulation, or order under authority of any such law, may be construed to prohibit any person from purchasing, holding, selling, or otherwise dealing with gold.The holding of gold remained prohibited until 1973, when congress repealed the 1934 ban on private ownership of gold, 87 Stat. 352 (1973), as amended by 88 Stat. 445 (1974), but did not address the 1933 prohibition of gold clauses. This omission was remedied in 1982, when the statute was adopted 31 U.S.C.A. 5118(d)(2) (1983), (hereinafter section 5118). The language provided that obligations covered by gold clauses prior to 1977 are, as before, dischargeable dollar for dollar with United States currency. . . Gold clauses are enforceable after October 27, 1977, pursuant to section 5118; . Therefore, the gold clause contained in the August 28, 1982 contract is enforceable. The amount of rent owed under the gold clause and the date from which it should accumulate will be determined at trial. THEREFORE, plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED, the FAY CORPORATION a Washington corporation, Plaintiff v. BAT HOLDINGS 1, INC., also known as Marshall Field & Co., a Delaware corporation; and Fredrick & Nelson Seattle, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, No. C86-542D. United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle, 646 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT 946, 948, 952, 953 (October 23, 1986); and further This court concluded that the effect of novation was to revive the original gold clause. Thus rent after August 28, 1982 is to be made pursuant to the original lease terms in lawful gold coin of the United States of America of the present standard of weight and fineness. . . Lease, Article II FAY CORP. V. BAT HOLDINGS 1, INC.651 F. Supp. 307, 308 (W.D. Wash. 1987); and further The court found the gold clause in the commercial lease to be enforceable. . . Congress determined in 1977 that obligation entered into after 1977 would be enforceable. 31 U.S.C. section 5118(d)(2) (1983). FAY CORP. V. FREDRICK & NELSON SEATTLE, INC., 896 F.2d. 1227 (9th Cir. 1990); WHEREFORE, the gold clauses have been reinstated and all Oaths of Office are secured by Bonds valued according to the Par Value Modification Act Amendment (87 Stat. 352) Sec. 1 as amended: "0.828948 Special Drawing Right or, the equivalent in terms of gold, of forty-two and two-ninths dollars per fine troy ounce of gold" which is the constitutional money of account in this case; and further Section 2 (b) of said Act states: "No provision of any law in effect on the date of enactment of this Act, and no rule, regulation, or order under authority of any such law, may be construed to prohibit any person from purchasing, holding, selling, or otherwise dealing with gold"28 1491. Claims against United States generally; actions involving Tennessee Valley Authority(a)(1) The United States Court of Federal Claims shall have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim against the United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort. [snip]Regards,Kenp.s No sanction shall be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction; and further It follows that there is no occasion to determine under what circumstances the plaintiffs would be entitled to judgment against a delinquent tax- payer for penalties, interest, or attorney's fees; for, if the plaintiffs are not entitled to judgment for the taxes arising out of the assessments in question, no liability for penalties, interest, or attorney's fees could result from a refusal or failure to pay such taxes. Judgment affirmed. SANTA CLARA COUNTY v. SOUTHERN PAC. R. CO., 118 U.S. 394