PDA

View Full Version : Federal Reserve Act - Remedy video.



David Merrill
03-03-11, 10:26 PM
This is my second video (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImNjA0NTQ5MTItNTg2Mi00N2QyLWE5Y 2UtMDMzNGU0YWE3NWE5&hl=en) about the Fed. I produced this about a year after the first because I wanted to lose that computer voice for one thing but mainly because I felt that I could explain remedy much better after thinking about it and discussing it for a year.

I have received a few more compliments from the later video. A also got one comment about including the JFK Zapruder footage at the end; that it really distracts the viewer's attention from all the great points about remedy. I did so much researching about the JFK assassination and in doing so I guess that I numbed out a bit to the fact that a fine man is seen being killed, and that it is gory to watch on the original close up footage. [What you see is the first digital rendering from the original film off a documentary about preserving the Zapruder Footage.] The intention was that you believe that the left-handed Secret Service driver William GREER inspected the sniper's work, determined that it was insufficient to kill JFK, draws his pistol, takes aim, and shoots JFK in the head. Secret Service if you don't already know, is Treasury.


Regards,

David Merrill.

martin earl
03-07-11, 04:10 PM
Few people realize that the Secret Service are Treasury officers and the only Government agents authorized to have loaded firearms when the President is near.

Not even the Marine Color Guards at the white house have loaded firearms if the man is around is what I have been told.

David Merrill
03-08-11, 12:13 AM
Few people realize that the Secret Service are Treasury officers and the only Government agents authorized to have loaded firearms when the President is near.

Not even the Marine Color Guards at the white house have loaded firearms if the man is around is what I have been told.

I grabbed a snippet (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImYjE0NTk5ZjEtNTFlMC00YThhLTgwY zUtNWU1ODEwNDY2MmEz&hl=en) from Bones.

Metheist
03-08-11, 03:32 PM
David, thank you for your posting of this. Even though I have seen the claim that FRN's could be redeemed in lawful money, I didn't comprehend how it was so.

Seeing that it is written into the FRA, I now have the lights on...

Thanks

Metheist

David Merrill
04-18-11, 10:36 AM
David, thank you for your posting of this. Even though I have seen the claim that FRN's could be redeemed in lawful money, I didn't comprehend how it was so.

Seeing that it is written into the FRA, I now have the lights on...

Thanks

Metheist


You are quite welcome.

Frederick Burrell
06-03-11, 04:29 AM
http://stormthunder.com/federal-reserve-act/

Federal Reserve Act
The first thing you need to know is it is within your power to stop the continual accumulation of our national debt.
You do not need to “petition congress” or “wait for the next election” and hope things change, because they won’t. Sadly, it doesn’t matter who gets elected. Republican or Democrat, they are all on the same team with the same master. The Federal Reserve.
We can get mad, wave signs and banners in the streets, even cry for revolution… It won’t change a thing.
It’s difficult to discuss this subject without sounding like a “conspiracy theorist”. In fact it’s not a theory, and everything I’m going to point out is actually in US Law. Starting with the Federal Reserve Act. It is in fact within the power of congress to repeal the Federal Reserve Act, but they will never do it.
One only has to look at how Ron Paul was mocked and marginalized during his presidential run to get an understanding of how embedded the Federal Reserve is in our political system. It is not a “wild conspiracy” and there is no greater evidence of that than the current events we see today.
So how does this work? There are two types of currency in circulation. US Notes, and Federal Reserve Notes.
Lawful Money = United States Notes; Not “Federal Reserve Notes”
Title 12 USC §411 :
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00000411—-000-.html
Read:
“Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank. “
(emphasis mine)
This proves that “Lawful Money” and “Legal Tender” are not the same.
All that is required is a restricted endorsement on the back of any check to the effect of:
Redeemed in Lawful money
Pursuant to Title 12 USC §411
True name dba Legal name
I have a red ink stamp. Your true name is your first and middle, your “legal name” is “FIRST LAST”. Look at your drivers license. Wonder why your name is in ALL CAPS? Same on your birth certificate. Same on any notice from a court. That’s your legal name, a trust formed by the government in order to do business with you and on you.
Make copies of all your checks (front and back) with your restricted endorsement. Keep them on file, or even better, file them in a case jacket at your nearest district court. This is what all the IRS will be required to see. Lawful money is not taxable income. You have not endorsed private credit, you have not bonded your substance to the contract with the Federal Reserve.
Those who demand lawful money rather than engage in signature endorsed contract with the FED, in their own right and by the operation of law found at §16 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 now codified at Title 12 U.S.C. §411 which is binding law upon the IRS, and any other United States claiming entity, to accept and recognize the non-taxable nature of lawful money of exchange.
That makes the bank unable to fractionally lend against your signature which serves as bond against the future interest and party to the national debt. This is what essentially reduces the people of the the United States to chattel.
When you sign or “endorse” your check you are bonding your substance behind fractional lending or “elastic currency”. ONLY THEN is the elastic currency “as good as” Lawful Money. But it is not Lawful Money.
You are “opting out” of the federal reserve system. The United States currently has 300 Million dollars of US notes in reserve. The stopped printing them because obviously they don’t want anyone using them.
You’ll remember what they look like. Take out a dollar bill, at the top on the “face” you’ll see “Federal Reserve Note” As clearly seen at the top of this page.
US Notes look almost the same, but the serial numbers are in red instead of green, the seal is in red, and the top says: “United States Note”. US Notes are the only currency that is recognized as “Lawful Money”, not just “legal tender”. (Fed Notes)
This law remains in full force and effect today. There is a video (long but worth it) DETAILING it here:
http://stormthunder.com
This is why “Constitutional” arguments cannot be brought. It is contract law. Every one of us has agreed by signature.
Our government was hijacked by a group of international bankers in 1913 that understood this.
The Federal Reserve is a private corporation. Corporations have owners. The government of the United States borrows it’s own money, from this private corporation, pay interest on it, and collects that interest through it’s (the Federal Reserve) arm the I.R.S. The national debt is nothing more than the interest owed on the loans our government has received from this corporation for it’s own money.
To put it plainly and in the interest of brevity, If the Fed ended tomorrow, our debt would be gone. That’s oversimplified, yes but it’s not complicated.
Proof: There is only one President in history that has ever paid off the national debt. Andrew Jackson. How did he do it? He took back control of our own currency. He stopped the bank. Debt stopped accumulating, and we were able to pay all outstanding debts before his term ended. Conspiracy “wako”? No. It has happened before. >Look it up.
That wiki article is just tip of the iceberg but worth pointing out is the mention of the use of class warfare and it’s central theme in the discussion:
“The classic statement by Arthur Schlesinger was that the partisan politics during the Jacksonian period was grounded in class conflict. Viewed through the lens of party elite discourse, Schlesinger saw inter-party conflict as a clash between wealthy Whigs and working class Democrats”(Grynaviski).
President Andrew Jackson strongly opposed the renewal of its charter, and built his platform for the election of 1832 around doing away with the Second Bank of the United States. Jackson’s political target was Nicholas Biddle, financier, politician, and president of the Bank of the United States.
Apart from a general hostility to banking and the belief that specie (gold and/or silver) was the only true money, Jackson’s reasons for opposing the renewal of the charter revolved around his belief that bestowing power and responsibility upon a single bank was the cause of inflation and other perceived evils.
“Other perceived evils” indeed. Jackson understood as did many others that with this kind of fiat currency in place and not under the control of the United States we would soon become a nation of slaves to a debt that we could never repay.
Interesting that Wikipedia mentions that he was a slave owner in the first paragraph, but it isn’t until the bottom of the page that there is a small blurb that he was the first and only President to ever pay off the national debt. Immediately followed by “However, this accomplishment was short lived. A severe depression from 1837 to 1844 caused a tenfold increase in national debt within its first year.”
I could go into how the war of 1812 and the depression following Jackson’s term were both caused directly by the international bankers to renew there charter in the first case, and re institute their charter in the second, but that is not the focus of this discussion. You are encouraged to read up on it yourself. As are you encouraged to read up on all of this yourself.
What I’m giving you is not conjecture. There are many that are doing this now, and have been for some 2 years. Many of the “tax arguments” in existence today have focused on the wrong things. “Constitutionality” and “Supreme Court” case law, it’s been right there in the Act the whole time.
Make no mistake, as the video on the homepage points out, it’s all about the exact “verbiage” that you use. If you get it wrong, you are in violation of your agreement with the Fed. By contract you have agreed to bond your substance for their credit. That’s what it means when they have said “income tax is voluntary”.
Did your parents ever explain why you are supposed to endorse the backs of your checks? I betting no. It’s something we are simply conditioned to do. We are never taught that our signatures are “worth” something.

allodial
06-03-11, 05:58 AM
Few people realize that the Secret Service are Treasury officers and the only Government agents authorized to have loaded firearms when the President is near.

Not even the Marine Color Guards at the white house have loaded firearms if the man is around is what I have been told.

Something very interesting I found years ago in maybe Massachusetts's or Maine's statutes pertained to who can carry a gun or who/what was exempt from the State's gun control laws. One of them was something along the lines of creditors to the state or something. Consider it for a moment..maybe even look it up.

Now consider for a moment that the President of the United States is also a commissioned officer in the U.S. Army and also in the US. Navy. Now according to some, such a soldier would be property of the United States. Would there be logic, therefore, in a division of the United States Department of the Treasury providing full-time, 24/7 protection to public property of the United States?

And not to denigrate or diminish the man John Fitzgerald ..but in the juristic perspective on former U.S. President John F. Kennedy having been a flag officer of the United States Army and U.S. Navy, the Zapruder Film would be evidence of overt, outright, intentional, conspiratorial destruction of public property. The aftermath of pondering that....


(b) Exceptions.--The provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply to:
(1) Constables, sheriffs, prison or jail wardens, or their deputies, policemen of this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions, or other law-enforcement officers.{such as State Treasury agents? Revenue collectors? Do wardens or police protect public property such as police cars?}
(2) Members of the army, navy, marine corps, air force or coast guard of the United States or of the National Guard or organized reserves when on duty.
(3) The regularly enrolled members of any organization duly organized to purchase or receive such firearms from the United States or from this Commonwealth.
(4) Any persons engaged in target shooting with a firearm, if such persons are at or are going to or from their places of assembly or target practice and if, while going to or from their places of assembly or target practice, the firearm is not loaded.
(5) Officers or employees of the United States duly authorized to carry a concealed firearm. {Treasury Agents}
(6) Agents, messengers and other employees of common carriers, banks {Treasuries are often likened to banks}, or business firms, whose duties require them to protect moneys, valuables and other property in the discharge of such duties. {such as Treasury Agents?}
(7) Any person engaged in the business of manufacturing, repairing, or dealing in firearms, or the agent or representative of any such person, having in his possession, using or carrying a firearm in the usual or ordinary course of such business.{you mean like..Treasury (govt. bank)/Revenue Agents, flag officers or bank employees?}
(8) Any person while carrying a firearm which is not loaded and is in a secure wrapper from the place of purchase to his home or place of business, or to a place of repair, sale or appraisal or back to his home or place of business, or in moving from one place of abode or business to another or from his home to a vacation or recreational home or dwelling or back, or to recover stolen property under section 6111.1(b)(4) (relating to Pennsylvania State Police), or to a place of instruction intended to teach the safe handling, use or maintenance of firearms or back or to a location to which the person has been directed to relinquish firearms under 23 Pa.C.S. § 6108 (relating to relief) or back upon return of the relinquished firearm or to a licensed dealer's place of business for relinquishment pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S § 6108.2 (relating to relinquishment for consignment sale, lawful transfer or safekeeping) or back upon return of the relinquished firearm or to a location for safekeeping pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 6108.3 (relating to relinquishment to third party for safekeeping) or back upon return of the relinquished firearm.
(9) Persons licensed to hunt, take furbearers or fish in this Commonwealth, if such persons are actually hunting, taking furbearers or fishing as permitted by such license, or are going to the places where they desire to hunt, take furbearers or fish or returning from such places.
(10) Persons training dogs, if such persons are actually training dogs during the regular training season.
(11) Any person while carrying a firearm in any vehicle, which person possesses a valid and lawfully issued license for that firearm which has been issued under the laws of the United States or any other state.
(12) A person who has a lawfully issued license to carry a firearm pursuant to section 6109 (relating to licenses) and that said license expired within six months prior to the date of arrest and that the individual is otherwise eligible for renewal of the license.
(13) Any person who is otherwise eligible to possess a firearm under this chapter and who is operating a motor vehicle which is registered in the person's name or the name of a spouse or parent and which contains a firearm for which a valid license has been issued pursuant to section 6109 to the spouse or parent owning the firearm.
(14) A person lawfully engaged in the interstate transportation of a firearm as defined under 18 U.S.C § 921(a)(3) (relating to definitions) in compliance with 18 U.S.C. § 926A (relating to interstate transportation of firearms).
(15) Any person who possesses a valid and lawfully issued license or permit to carry a firearm which has been issued under the laws of another state, regardless of whether a reciprocity agreement exists between the Commonwealth and the state under section 6109(k), provided:
(i) The state provides a reciprocal privilege for individuals licensed to carry firearms under section 6109.
(ii) The Attorney General has determined that the firearm laws of the state are similar to the firearm laws of this Commonwealth.
(16) Any person holding a license in accordance with section 6109(f)(3).

Its been so long..who knows..but I recall an overt exception to do with creditors (perhaps it had to do with repossession companies) or something like that. It was a long time go reading that. But nonetheless...revenue/treasury agents (agents of creditors) are given some pretty wide berth arent they?

EZrhythm
06-03-11, 07:06 AM
Nice article to accompany Fredrick's post; http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/United-States-Note

Reigne
06-03-11, 11:28 AM
Regarding the FedRes remedy ... and if this Q was answered previously, I apologize:
Since Nixon took us off the gold standard, doesn't that nullify the remedy to 'redeem in lawful money' since there is none now?

shikamaru
06-03-11, 02:25 PM
Regarding the FedRes remedy ... and if this Q was answered previously, I apologize:
Since Nixon took us off the gold standard, doesn't that nullify the remedy to 'redeem in lawful money' since there is none now?

US Notes are lawful money.
Postal money orders are lawful money too.
Gold and silver certificates as well as gold and silver coin are lawful money.
Coins produced by the US Mint would be lawful money as well.

The term lawful money refers to the issuer of the currency, in this case, the Sovereign (or quasi-sovereign).
What makes lawful money lawful is the issuance by the Sovereign.

FRNs are issued by a private bank i.e. Federal Reserve Bank.

US Notes and FRNs are both notes.... which is another discussion in itself.

It so much about gold and silver as it is about control and regulation of money and the money supply.
Gold and silver are used primarily as a measure of just weights and balances. Gold and silver is fungible, divisible, resists rusts, durable, etc.
All money initially begins as a system of weights and measures.

The demand for lawful money is enough to open a can of worms :).

Reigne
06-03-11, 02:59 PM
Thanks for the reply :o)

My Q is really about us being OFF the gold/silver standard cuz of what Nixon did .... since there is nothing tangible to back the Notes (frn, postal [which postal are you referring to?] money orders, US/Treasury Notes (as far as I can tell they haven't been been available to us for some time cuz that is what they are actually giving the FedRes in return for the overpriced FedNotes).

If what we can obtain (FRN's, postal money orders, etc) are backed by NOTHING, then HOW can the Sovereign be what makes it lawful money?
The US (corp/de jure govt) is bankrupt - therefore they GAVE UP their sovereignty as a "nation".

Additionally, I personally can see where gold/silver (heck any tangible thing) can be manipulated by TPTB, so I am not completely "sold" that we should be on the gold/silver standard (esp since nobody knows what's in Fort Knox, etc, however I do speculate the ONLY thing in FtKnox are only footprints leading out the door).

I do appreciate the time to consider my question ... so far, wherever else I've posted the same Q I either get no response or am told I am an "idiot" for not fully trusting the gold/silver standard.

shikamaru
06-03-11, 03:49 PM
Thanks for the reply :o)

My Q is really about us being OFF the gold/silver standard cuz of what Nixon did .... since there is nothing tangible to back the Notes (frn, postal [which postal are you referring to?] money orders, US/Treasury Notes (as far as I can tell they haven't been been available to us for some time cuz that is what they are actually giving the FedRes in return for the overpriced FedNotes).

To be backed by something is referred to as reserves.
Reserves fulfill the purpose of limiting or preventing inflation of the issuing medium of exchange.
This is a facet of representative or commodity money that uses paper at some point for transactions or exchange.



If what we can obtain (FRN's, postal money orders, etc) are backed by NOTHING, then HOW can the Sovereign be what makes it lawful money?
The US (corp/de jure govt) is bankrupt - therefore they GAVE UP their sovereignty as a "nation".

The Sovereign determines what the "coin of the realm" will be.
For example, in England the "coin of the realm" for centuries were tally sticks (wood), in addition to copper, silver, or gold coin.
It doesn't really matter what is used as a medium of exchange. Gold and silver just do a really nice job of acting as a medium of exchange.
The Sovereign can just as easy declare a particular medium no longer as lawful tender. This is called demonetization.
Law is the will of the sovereign.



Additionally, I personally can see where gold/silver (heck any tangible thing) can be manipulated by TPTB, so I am not completely "sold" that we should be on the gold/silver standard (esp since nobody knows what's in Fort Knox, etc, however I do speculate the ONLY thing in FtKnox are only footprints leading out the door).


You are doing better than me on this aspect. I didn't realize this until recently!



I do appreciate the time to consider my question ... so far, wherever else I've posted the same Q I either get no response or am told I am an "idiot" for not fully trusting the gold/silver standard.

If a person insults you for asking intelligent questions, it means either they are hiding something or they themselves are clueless.
Insults serve to cover one's ignorance of the subject in addition to being a wasteful distraction.

Reigne
06-03-11, 04:22 PM
To be backed by something is referred to as reserves.
Reserves fulfill the purpose of limiting or preventing inflation of the issuing medium of exchange.
This is a facet of representative or commodity money that uses paper at some point for transactions or exchange.
And that is where I - mentally, conceptually, understandingly - get stuck. IF there really are no "reserves" then there is nothing backing it nor is there any 'full-faith & credit of the people' since the people (the majority of them anyway) are not aware of this.


The Sovereign determines what the "coin of the realm" will be.
For example, in England the "coin of the realm" for centuries were tally sticks (wood), in addition to copper, silver, or gold coin.
It doesn't really matter what is used as a medium of exchange. Gold and silver just do a really nice job of acting as a medium of exchange.
The Sovereign can just as easy declare a particular medium no longer as lawful tender. This is called demonetization.
Law is the will of the sovereign.
From my understanding, it was the King who decided upon using tally marks upon sticks/wood. That means HE was the sovereign, not the People. Are we not in the very same situation right now? THEY decided we should use FRN's, THEY decided to take us off the gold standard. This is where my own conundrum begins regarding 'redeemed for lawful money' & believing we "should" be back on the gold standard.
However, I have yet to find anything that says we are limited to contract, therefore, if I want to bargain/exchange/trade with you, that would fall under Private Contract (which it does appear we would HAVE To PROVE to avoid being 'taxed')



You are doing better than me on this aspect. I didn't realize this until recently!
Ha ha ha you should see my "No Trespassing" sign (only have it cuz I did research on land/ownership and fully understand all Rules/Regulations/Codes pertain to THEM not me. And please don't think I'm doing better than you - I guarantee you have more insight/knowlegde than I do in many other areas.



If a person insults you for asking intelligent questions, it means either they are hiding something or they themselves are clueless.
Insults serve to cover one's ignorance of the subject in addition to being a wasteful distraction.
Yes, I am well aware of those tactics/defenses.
I only acknowledge/thank for considering my Q's because I was kicked out of Catholic Church cuz I asked too many Q's they could not answer ... well, not 'kicked out' but was told "...there is no reason for you to return here again."
That is why I do my best to acknowledge forthcoming/open folks when I pose Q's/statements/beliefs/etc. - because I truly do appreciate the time, consideration & effort.

shikamaru
06-03-11, 05:21 PM
And that is where I - mentally, conceptually, understandingly - get stuck. IF there really are no "reserves" then there is nothing backing it nor is there any 'full-faith & credit of the people' since the people (the majority of them anyway) are not aware of this.

There are some reserves behind FRNs, but not "reserves" in the traditional sense.
Fractional-reserve lending has some levels or limits that a bank has to maintain.

FRNs are backed by the labor and assets of the American people. These properties have been pledged as collateral for FRNs.
It is not the FRNs so much as the Treasury bills and Treasury notes the government sells in which said government owes interest on.

By the by, Treasury bills and Treasury notes are lawful money as well :).



From my understanding, it was the King who decided upon using tally marks upon sticks/wood. That means HE was the sovereign, not the People. Are we not in the very same situation right now? THEY decided we should use FRN's, THEY decided to take us off the gold standard. This is where my own conundrum begins regarding 'redeemed for lawful money' & believing we "should" be back on the gold standard.


True. The Constitution may have been a false bill of goods for the majority of people.
A gold or silver standard would be no better. Check out the movie, "The Secret of Oz" on YouTube.com
I would make the demand for lawful money however. It would seem to have tax implications in your favor.



However, I have yet to find anything that says we are limited to contract, therefore, if I want to bargain/exchange/trade with you, that would fall under Private Contract (which it does appear we would HAVE To PROVE to avoid being 'taxed')


You can do private contracts in gold, silver, or sheepskins if you like. Private is private.
In fact, you can do better for yourself negotiating private contracts in gold and silver than FRNs, in my opinion.

Reigne
06-04-11, 01:21 AM
Okay, so we do NOT have to prove a private contract .... Yippeee (somewhere in my head tho I thought we would need to PROVE a private negotiation ... maybe cuz I believe - in the courts/law eyes we are guilty till proven innocent).

shikamaru
06-04-11, 01:50 AM
Okay, so we do NOT have to prove a private contract .... Yippeee (somewhere in my head tho I thought we would need to PROVE a private negotiation ... maybe cuz I believe - in the courts/law eyes we are guilty till proven innocent).


The proof of the agreement is the contract itself. That is why it is written. Law of evidence.

The substance of the contract is the agreement between the parties, the intent.

If there is agreement struck between two or more parties as well as no controversy, then there is no need for a court.
Courts are for controversies.
Avoid controversy.
Live in peace. Uphold your contracts. Enter contracts sparingly. Be sure to read them too.

You have a right to contract. This right precedes the creation of any American government.

What do you think government uses to rope you into their jurisdiction? Contracts :).

Public policy is for those matters which are considered to affect the public interest such as employment.
In the aforementioned, government is claiming title of trustee.

David Merrill
06-04-11, 01:09 PM
Thanks for the reply :o)

My Q is really about us being OFF the gold/silver standard cuz of what Nixon did .... since there is nothing tangible to back the Notes (frn, postal [which postal are you referring to?] money orders, US/Treasury Notes (as far as I can tell they haven't been been available to us for some time cuz that is what they are actually giving the FedRes in return for the overpriced FedNotes).

If what we can obtain (FRN's, postal money orders, etc) are backed by NOTHING, then HOW can the Sovereign be what makes it lawful money?
The US (corp/de jure govt) is bankrupt - therefore they GAVE UP their sovereignty as a "nation".

Additionally, I personally can see where gold/silver (heck any tangible thing) can be manipulated by TPTB, so I am not completely "sold" that we should be on the gold/silver standard (esp since nobody knows what's in Fort Knox, etc, however I do speculate the ONLY thing in FtKnox are only footprints leading out the door).

I do appreciate the time to consider my question ... so far, wherever else I've posted the same Q I either get no response or am told I am an "idiot" for not fully trusting the gold/silver standard.


I think the confusion is simplifying adopting a floating exchange rate (SDR's) for gold as NIXON taking us off the gold standard. There is still a standard and that standard is based in an earmarked gold price to this day ($42.22/troy ounce. The UN's IMF Trust Fund). This simplification leads to incorrect presumptions about lawful money.

A couple weeks ago I received a conference call from a member here, studied in trust law and an experienced paralegal who had a friend that wanted to speak to me about this same crux. Her friend had quite a bit of experience studying out the public laws around the formation of money (debt) in circulation. We quickly came to the name-change Congress put on lawful money in found at Title 31 U.S.C. §5115 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode31/usc_sec_31_00005115----000-.html) - slipping the word currency (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode31/usc_sec_31_00005115----000-notes.html) into the term US note.



In the section, the words “United States currency notes” are substituted for “United States notes” for clarity and consistency in the revised title.


United States currency notes are indeed several other forms of lawful money including postage stamps. What this action in late 1982 did is to integrate US notes into the larger grouping of US currency - which it already was. US notes were the original US currency in the Civil War regime, legitimized by Governor GILPIN's fiat notes (http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/533/gilpinswarmeasureszoom.jpg) here in Colorado. [SW Corner of the Golden Rectangle (http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/4255/monumentsfibonaccispira.jpg). Capital building attached.]

As we spoke, it was pointed out that many times the US Code does not portray an accurate reflection of the Public Laws. I thought that worth a trip down to the federal repository [SE Corner of the Monuments] and produced the Public Law in question. Albeit she may have had a point; that when the attorneys topically organize the Public Law into US Code they may tend to put their attorner sway on the final reading in the Code, it is a little difficult to see it happening in this specific example.

Public Law 97-258 1 (http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/9809/publiclaw97258.jpg).

Public Law 97-258 2. (http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/6448/publiclaw972582.jpg)

Do you see that? Congress just slipped in the term currency, without any justification or legislative amendment action - apparently changing the definition of US notes. The only reasoning or justification for doing so was so that Title 31 could be re-enacted into Positive Law - meaning that it extended outside of the districts into the law of the land.

In short though, by changing the lawful money, US Notes to United States currency notes in nomenclature, Congress was able to justify the parity difference and float the value of the lawful money to match Federal Reserve notes (which of course depreciate over time because they are a reserve currency - fractional lending). Sophistry. It is a lie alright. US notes and US currency notes are still the same thing, lawful money and still carry the value of such in a world of true balances - which world kept Title 31 from becoming positive law until Congress could formulate the Big Lie.

It is a little difficult to understand that the entire Big Lie boils down to slipping one word into the Code - currency.


I am quite grateful for that phone call. It called for a Reality Check on something I already learned from Shoonra the Useful a couple years ago on SJC.



Regards,

David Merrill.

allodial
06-05-11, 01:58 AM
I think the confusion is simplifying adopting a floating exchange rate (SDR's) for gold as NIXON taking us off the gold standard. There is still a standard and that standard is based in an earmarked gold price to this day ($42.22/troy ounce. The UN's IMF Trust Fund). This simplification leads to incorrect presumptions about lawful money.
...
United States currency notes are indeed several other forms of lawful money including postage stamps.
...
As we spoke, it was pointed out that many times the US Code does not portray an accurate reflection of the Public Laws. I thought that worth a trip down to the federal repository [SE Corner of the Monuments] and produced the Public Law in question. Albeit she may have had a point; that when the attorneys topically organize the Public Law into US Code they may tend to put their attorner sway on the final reading in the Code, it is a little difficult to see it happening in this specific example.

Do you see that? Congress just slipped in the term currency, without any justification or legislative amendment action - apparently changing the definition of US notes. The only reasoning or justification for doing so was so that Title 31 could be re-enacted into Positive Law - meaning that it extended outside of the districts into the law of the land.

In treaty-linguistics the term "high contracting parties" contrasts with those parties which have 'de facto adoption of a given treaty--in that they can sign a treaty and bind the party they represent but not in a de jure sense. That is, consider that the US could sign a treaty in a defacto sense and only bind the districts of the United States but not the united states of America which formed The United States of America or not the de jure states or nations which formed the United States. And so, perhaps there is a similarity where U.S. Congress can keep 'two books' not only economically (kind've like there is CAFR and then there is perhaps "public accounting tomfoolery" called "the budget" but jurisprudentially. The plenary power over the district-state that US Congress might have might let them hold a secret meeting and decide to put "currency" in front of notes in the related 'chapter and verse'--and such might even have served as a kind of notice in the Federal Register--legislation/treaty by notice (see Delcaration by the United Nations and the pertinence of treaties by notice)--but still there is the defacto kind of treaty and the dejure kind of treaty.

Let us reiterate:


defacto vs. de jure
legal vs. lawful
not high contracting vs high contracting
organic vs. corporate/military
positive law vs public policy/executive orders
state of America vs military-revenue district or Congressional "plenary power zones"

So the scam/sham might hereby be decoded with respect to "the Code".

More? OK!

To clarify regarding high contracting parties (http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080609192016AAdGIZx)

one of the best summaries of what a high contracting party is can be found on Yahoo Answers--believe it or not.


What is a high contracting party in international law?
Best Answer: It describes parties to any international agreement which have both signed and ratified it.

So this brings us quite clearly and squarely to the term 'ratification' as compared to 'signature'/'assent'. The plenary zones of the U.S. Congress--remember military power of any commander in chief of the United States have their most immediate source in the U.S. Congress. :) Thusly IMHO it would follow that military-revenue districts are suitably referable to as 'plenary power zones'. The US Congress or one of its representatives (ministers plenipotentiary) could SIGN or ASSENT to a treaty but it would not necessarily constitute organic ratification in any de jure state, tribe, nation or free association of the Americas. Outside of the military-revenue districts, the US Congress convened by a commander in chief (flag officer) would have no power outside of the military venue--and cannot ratify. But the catch is that in a military district, the US Congress could sign a treaty without organic ratification and it could be instantly 'law' for the districts or 'defacto plenary power zones' but not positive law.


Now one might want to investigate how the US Treaty making power changed after the U.S. Civil War --especially with respect to so-called "Indians". (If I recall correctly--it changed drastically!)

The relevance is to the ability of U.S. Congress to keep two sets of books--not just accounting books but 'law books' one organic and one defacto. But mystery might be well-unraveled in realizing that 'ratification' in the defacto isn't really an organic ratification but just assent carried over by "capital integration" or what I might call "consolidation" or "merger" into the "defacto zone" (public policy / plenary power zones).

"US currency notes" flies in the "defacto" but probably isn't kosher in the organic sense.

And perhaps reminder of a discussion whereby I mentioned a potential 'scheme' in of having driver licenses be renewed every few years rather than being a way to "renew an identity" (silly idea!) or to "keep up to date pictures on file" (ummm suuuure) but instead as a way to "obtain" (perhaps weakly) a case-by-case ratification where there would otherwise be none. :) Kind've like "Treaty Assent-to-Ratification Conversion & Service Packs".

Do you figure that the fiduciaries of People's Republic of China knows that the United States is a lot smaller than it might at first appear?

earthshake
07-04-11, 06:02 PM
This is my second video (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImNjA0NTQ5MTItNTg2Mi00N2QyLWE5Y 2UtMDMzNGU0YWE3NWE5&hl=en) about the Fed. I produced this about a year after the first because I wanted to lose that computer voice for one thing but mainly because I felt that I could explain remedy much better after thinking about it and discussing it for a year.

Regards,

David Merrill.

David, I watched your video and read some other posts here, and I now believe I understand what lawful money is. Here are my still-a-newbie questions:

* Must the bank pay us in cash or can they add it to our existing checking accounts?
* Does every bank have to have lawful money on hand?
* If not, what happens if they do not have any lawful money on premises?

As far as existing issues with DOR and IRS, is anything here for me, other than stating if we had known in good faith we could have been requesting lawful money all along, we would have started with our first paychecks?

Thanks,
earthshake

David Merrill
07-04-11, 09:39 PM
Great questions Earthshake;


David, I watched your video and read some other posts here, and I now believe I understand what lawful money is. Here are my still-a-newbie questions:

* Must the bank pay us in cash or can they add it to our existing checking accounts?

Credit on Account is not taxable income... yet.


* Does every bank have to have lawful money on hand?

The FRNs are lawful money - when you withdraw cash though, you choose to endorse private credit from the Fed, or not. Rock Anthony just explained it a new way (click here) (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?56-Lawful-Money-and-the-Bank&p=3474&viewfull=1#post3474), I find it refreshing - the words he chose. Very helpful!!

* If not, what happens if they do not have any lawful money on premises?

That is what FDIC is about. If too many people come in for cash, any FDIC bank makes a quick call for an armored car delivery.

As far as existing issues with DOR and IRS, is anything here for me, other than stating if we had known in good faith we could have been requesting lawful money all along, we would have started with our first paychecks?

That is accusing Fraud by Omission. Some of that is in the works on some of Pete HENDRICKSON's Cracking the Code damage. Some of those suitors post here so maybe we will hear how that goes?


Thanks,
earthshake

earthshake
07-05-11, 12:31 AM
Great questions Earthshake;

Hi David,

I thought that "lawful money" was the correct phrase for the opposite of FRN's/private credit? What should I be calling it - US Notes or...?

If credit on account isn't taxable income, when does it become so? When you spend it or withdraw it?

What I was getting at with my original questions is, if I endorse my checks as mentioned in your video, will my bank be able to give me US Notes instead of FRNs?

thanks!
earthshake

David Merrill
07-05-11, 01:27 AM
Federal Reserve Notes are for federal reserve banks - and for no other purpose. People, through endorsement became federal reserve banks in 1933. Since 1971 only the major 12 Fed Banks circulate US notes.

You get US notes in the form of FRNs when you demand lawful money. But if you demand lawful money, you are not a Fed Bank.

Brian
07-06-11, 05:13 PM
Federal Reserve Notes are for federal reserve banks - and for no other purpose. People, through endorsement became federal reserve banks in 1933. Since 1971 only the major 12 Fed Banks circulate US notes.

You get US notes in the form of FRNs when you demand lawful money. But if you demand lawful money, you are not a Fed Bank.

See this link: http://moneyfactory.gov/usnotes.html

"Both types of notes were redeemable in gold until 1933, when the United States abandoned the gold standard. Since then, both currencies have served essentially the same purpose, and have had the same value. Because United States Notes serve no function that is not already adequately served by Federal Reserve Notes, their issuance was discontinued, and none have been placed into circulation since January 21, 1971."

David Merrill
07-06-11, 10:10 PM
See this link: http://moneyfactory.gov/usnotes.html

"Both types of notes were redeemable in gold until 1933, when the United States abandoned the gold standard. Since then, both currencies have served essentially the same purpose, and have had the same value. Because United States Notes serve no function that is not already adequately served by Federal Reserve Notes, their issuance was discontinued, and none have been placed into circulation since January 21, 1971."

Yes. But the ones that are still extant are kept in circulation - with the major 12 Fed Banks.

Pfunk
01-29-12, 03:49 PM
So I understand the importance of endorsing your checks properly from here on out, but what about fixing the error of money I already have in an account that was not endorsed properly but should have been? What would be a plan of action to fix my prior ignorance in this situation?