Force Majeure is a term that refers to “government force” or other circumstances that are outside of the reasonable control of normal businesses, such as war, Acts of God, insurrection, etc.
It is a term that is typically referred to within insurance contracts or purchase agreements stating that losses incurred due to such events cannot be covered by the insurer.
Force Majeure is not something that a Depository operator can enact against its own customers. There is no legal basis in any type of law or situation which would ever allow for such an action, and the ownership of Dakota Depository would never even contemplate such an idea.
The threat of a force majeure event is one that we are well familiar with and have considered from many angles. And while, like any other company, we are unable to provide a firm legal guarantee of protection, nor can we officially assume responsibility to defend against such a scenario, we will do everything within our power to secure and protect our clients’ assets during such a time, including, but not limited to:
- Private armed security, in coordination with our local sheriff, in the event of a breakdown of public utilities or law enforcement, supported by:
- Maintaining supply of almost three hundred gallons of backup diesel generator fuel.
- Maintaining supply of arms and ammunition to provide opportunity to repel armed insurrection or terrorism.
- Maintenance of auxiliary food and water supplies.
- Engaging in civil disobedience against obviously unjust, unlawful, or unconstitutional mandates or orders
- Protection of our clients’ records against sweeping requests or “fishing expeditions” by refusing to blindly comply with such requests but instead to resist them through every legal means possible.
Of course, if we are overpowered, either legally or physically, there is nothing further we can do to protect your assets in such an event. But we can assure you we’ll do our very best.
Government Confiscation of Gold
“What if the government bans the ownership of gold?”
We are asked this question frequently.
To understand the reasons why the government would want to restrict the ownership of gold we need to first look at the reasons why the ban was implemented the first time in 1933. At that time the US dollar was backed by gold at a 40% ratio as set by Congress in the Act that created the Federal Reserve System in 1913. However, more dollars had been produced than there was gold available to maintain the 40% reserve ratio. So, it was decided by the bankers and the politicians who answer to them that the domestic use of gold should be restricted. This allowed the Federal Government to quickly replenish its gold reserves by making it illegal, by regulation, for corporations and banks to any longer hold or settle transactions in gold bullion.
As the rationale for restricting the ownership and use of gold bullion within the United States was to back up the existing US Gold Standard and, given that we have not been on a gold standard since 1971, and given, further, that most banks and corporations do not do business in gold, we believe it is unlikely that such a sweeping regulation or law would be passed. And, if it were, we anticipate that, unlike in the 1930s, it would be very vigorously resisted in the courts, and ultimately overturned.
However, if this were the course that the government decided to pursue, it is far more likely that they would begin by targeting the operations of the easy and most likely targets: The major gold exchanges and ETFs, such as the COMEX and GLD. This would provide plenty of advanced warning for the average person to prepare.
A more likely scenario
If the Fed wanted to restore a gold-backed dollar a more likely scenario, in our view, would be for the Fed to become the top buyer of gold within the United States. For example, if the Fed believed that the Dollar should be backed by gold at a rate of $15,000 per ounce, they may start by bidding $3,000 per ounce to see how much they can get people to sell at that rate. They could then begin raising that price over time to get more and more gold to flow in, until they reach their target for gold holdings necessary to support whatever exchange rate they are trying to peg. In this scenario, many people would be enticed to sell their gold and, so, no costly and impossible-to-implement confiscation measures would be necessary.
A final word
All this being said, Dakota Depository, along with its owners and partners, will allow no one to confiscate anything, apart from our constitutionally elected County Sheriff serving what we would consider to be a valid order, and will vigorously resist anything contrary to this.
We would appeal any baseless action such as “general confiscation” immediately in the appropriate judicial venue.
Additionally, we would be responsive to all rightful owners’ instructions to deliver or to make their holdings available to them for pickup.
