PDA

View Full Version : Lawful Money ...??



Binbokusai Yagyuu
05-02-11, 03:48 AM
I found this interesting

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=75&invol=1


THORINGTON v. SMITH, 75 U.S. 1 (1868)

75 U.S. 1 (Wall.)

THORINGTON
v.
SMITH.

December Term, 1868

APPEAL from the District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, the case being this:

In November, 1864, Thorington being the owner of a piece of land adjoining the city of Montgomery, Alabama, sold it to Smith and Hartley, all parties being then resident of Montgomery. At the time of this sale the late rebellion was still in active operation and had been so for more than three years. Alabama, or this part of it, was at the time in the occupation of the military and civil authorities of the rebel States, and the Federal government exercised no authority there. There was no gold or silver coin in use, nor any notes of the United States, such as made the circulation [75 U.S. 1, 2] of the loyal portion of the country. The only currency in any ordinary use, or in which current daily business could be at all carried on, were treasury notes of the Confederate States, notes in form and general aspect like bank bills, and by which the Confederate States of America promised to pay the bearer the sum named in them, 'two years after the ratification of a treaty of peace between the Confederate States and the United States of America.'

'The whole State of Alabama,' said the testimony in the case, 'was in a revolutionary condition, politically and financially. The value of all kinds and species of property was changing from week to week, and from day to day, and there was no standard of value for property. A large advance frequently took place in the price of property of different kinds within a day or two, say one hundred to two hundred per cent. Speculation pervaded the whole community, and individuals asked whatever they thought proper for any and everything they had to sell. There was no standard value or regular price for real estate at the time mentioned. Prices changed with the fortunes of war. As the prospects grew dark the prices advanced. While, however, the Confederate States treasury notes were the general and really the only currency used in the common transactions of business, there were occasional instances where sales of property were made on the basis of gold and of notes of the United States.'

The Confederate notes, though in fact imposed upon the people of the Confederate States, by its government, were never declared by it to be a legal tender.

The price agreed to be paid by Smith and Hartley, for the land which they purchased was $45,000. Of this sum $35,000 were paid at the execution of the deed in Confederate States treasury notes; and for the residue a note was executed thus:

MONTGOMERY, November 28th, 1864.

$10,000.

One day after date, we, or either of us, promise to pay Jack Thorington, or bearer, ten thousand dollars, for value received [75 U.S. 1, 3] in real estate, sold and delivered by said Thorington to us this day, as per his deed to us of this date: this note, part of the same transaction, is hereby declared as a lien or mortgage on said real estate situate and adjoining the city of Montgomery.

W. D. SMITH.

J. H. HARTLEY.

The rebellion being suppressed in 1865, the Confederate States treasury notes became, of course, worthless, and Thorington, in 1867, filed a bill in the court below against his purchasers, who were still in possession, for the enforcement of the vendor's lien, claiming the $10,000 in the only money now current, to wit, lawful money of the United States.

The answer set up, by way of defence, that the negotiation for the purchase of the land took place, and that the note in controversy was made, at Montgomery, in the State of Alabama, where all the parties resided, in November, 1864, at which time the authority of the United States was excluded from that portion of the State, and the only currency in use consisted of Confederate treasury notes, issued and put in circulation by the persons exercising the ruling power of the States in rebellion, known as the Confederate government.

It was also insisted that the land purchased was worth no more than $ 3000 in lawful money; that the contract price was $45,000; that this price, by the agreement of the parties, was to be paid in Confederate notes; that $ 35,000 were actually paid in those notes; and that the note given for the remaining $10,000 was to be discharged in the same manner; and it was asserted on this state of facts, that the vendor was entitled to no relief in a court of the United States.

On the hearing below, a witness, who negotiated the sale of the land, was offered to show that it was agreed and understood that the note should be paid in Confederate States treasury notes, as the $35,000 had been. This witness described the note, however, as one payable at thirty days.

The court below, admitting the evidence to prove that the [75 U.S. 1, 4] note was in fact made for payment in Confederate States treasury notes, and sustaining, apparently, the view of the purchasers that the contract was illegal because to be paid in such notes, dismissed the bill.

The questions before this court upon the appeal, were these:

1. Can a contract for the payment of Confederate notes, made during the late rebellion, between parties residing within the so-called Confederate States, be enforced at all in the courts of the United States?

2. Can evidence be received to prove that a promise expressed to be for the payment of dollars was, in fact, made for the payment of any other than lawful dollars of the United States?

3. Did the evidence establish the fact that the note for ten thousand dollars was to be paid, by agreement of the parties, in Confederate notes?

A point as to the measure of damages was also raised at the bar.

The case was twice argued.

Mr. P. Phillips, for the appellant (a brief of Mr. Chilton being filed):

1. There is no reason to suppose that the contract was entered into for the purpose of giving currency to the Confederate notes, and thus aiding the rebellion. And the question is not whether the issuing of these notes was illegal, but whether an agreement to receive them in payment of property, made the contract between the parties illegal. If there was no illegal design, the contract was not immoral. 1 The contract, therefore, was legal.

The only question is, what must we hold it to mean.

The note now here on its face is clear and distinct. The promise to pay 'ten thousand dollars' has a well-under-stood, well-defined meaning. Whether made in Massachusetts or Alabama the rules applicable to its construction are [75 U.S. 1, 5] the same. The issue presented by the answer is, that this contract did not represent the truth; that, in point of fact, the agreement was for a payment in an illegal currency of a mere nominal value. It is difficult to conceive of a more palpable contradiction of the legal effect of a contract than the admission of evidence to sustain this defence.

The cases are numerous where the struggle has been made to introduce parol evidence to explain the meaning of words, regarded by the court of doubtful import: such as 'current funds,' 'current bank notes,' 'currency.' But where, as in this case, a party has promised to pay so many 'dollars,' no authority will sanction evidence of an agreement that dollars meant not what the law says it meant, but something very different, to wit, Confederate treasury notes. All the authorities are the other way. 2

2. This question, as applicable to the condition of things set up in the answer, was considered in Roane v. Green,3 the court holding that it was not competent to prove by parol, on such a note, that Confederate treasury notes was the payment agreed on. In fact, as these notes were never made a legal tender by the rebel government nothing but coin would, even under it, be a discharge of the debt.

Indeed in all these cases of alleged contemporaneous agreements, it may be asked why the verbal condition, if bargained for, was not put in writing also? If the rest of the agreement was sufficiently important to authorize written evidence of its execution, why except the remainder? The obvious inference must be, that all that the parties did in fact agree to was put in due written form, and that all collaterals and appendages, concerning which there was mere conversation, was precisely what they could not agree upon. This, of course, is not always the true inference, but it is of necessity the legal inference.

3. The parol evidence offered, if competent, is insufficient. [75 U.S. 1, 6] There was but one witness, and he misdescribes the note in one feature of it, the time namely that it had to run: a most important feature in view of the changes in values at the time when the note was given.

Binbokusai Yagyuu
05-02-11, 03:51 AM
4. Another point not raised below, perhaps, but to which, if the court should think that the contract can be enforced, but not payment demanded in our now recognized currency, we would direct attention, is this. Confederate money is now wholly worthless. Payment in it is no payment at all. What, then, is the measure of damages? The peculiar circumstances of this case perhaps take it out of the rule announced in Thompson v. Riggs,4 that the value of the money at the time the note was payable is the criterion. The value of gold as marked by these treasury notes, fluctuated daily and hourly, and was different in different parts of the State. While it was 20, 30, or 40 to 1, these treasury notes had an exchangeable power of 2, 3, or 4 to 1 in the different species of property. It may well be that the vendor should have agreed that if the note was paid at maturity, it might be extinguished in these notes; but it by no means follows that in default of payment he was willing to be compensated by the value of these notes in gold.

If, therefore, the date of the maturity of the note is adopted for the purpose of ascertaining the damage, the measure should be, not the value as compared to gold, but rather its relative value in property.

No opposing counsel on either argument.

The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.

The questions before us upon this appeal are these:

(1.) Can a contract for the payment of Confederate notes, made during the late rebellion, between parties residing within the so-called Confederate States, be enforced at all in the courts of the United States?

(2.) Can evidence be received to prove that a promise expressed to be for the payment of dollars was, in fact, made [75 U.S. 1, 7] for the payment of any other than lawful dollars of the United States?

(3.) Does the evidence in the record establish the fact that the note for ten thousand dollars was to be paid, by agreement of the parties, in Confederate notes?

The first question is by no means free from difficulty. It cannot be questioned that the Confederate notes were issued in furtherance of an unlawful attempt to overthrow the government of the United States, by insurrectionary force. Nor is it a doubtful principle of law that no contracts made in aid of such an attempt can be enforced through the courts of the country whose government is thus assailed. But, was the contract of the parties to this suit a contract of that character? Can it be fairly described as a contract in aid of the rebellion?

In examining this question the state of that part of the country in which it was made must be considered. It is familiar history, that early in 1861 the authorities of seven States, supported, as was alleged, by popular majorities, combined for the overthrow of the National Union, and for the establishment, within its boundaries, of a separate and independent confederation. A governmental organization, representing these States, was established at Montgomery in Alabama, first under a provisional constitution, and afterwards under a constitution intended to be permanent. In the course of a few months, four other States acceded to this confederation, and the seat of the central authority was transferred to Richmond, in Virginia. It was, by the central authority thus organized, and under its direction, that civil war was carried on upon a vast scale against the government of the United States for more than four years. Its power was recognized as supreme in nearly the whole of the territory of the States confederated in insurrection. It was the actual government of all the insurgent States, except those portions of them protected from its control by the presence of the armed forces of the National government.

Binbokusai Yagyuu
05-02-11, 03:53 AM
What was the precise character of this government in contemplation of law? [75 U.S. 1, 8] It is difficult to define it with exactness. Any definition that may be given may not improbably be found to require limitation and qualification. But the general principles of law relating to de facto government will, we think, conduct us to a conclusion sufficiently accurate.

There are several degrees of what is called de facto government.

Such a government, in its highest degree, assumes a character very closely resembling that of a lawful government. This is when the usurping government expels the regular authorities from their customary seats and functions, and establishes itself in their place, and so becomes the actual government of a country. The distinguishing characteristic of such a government is, that adherents to it in war against the government de jure do not incur the penalties of treason; and under certain limitations, obligations assumed by it in behalf of the country, or otherwise, will, in general, be respected by the government de jure when restored.

Examples of this description of government de facto are found in English history. The statute 11 Henry VII, c. 1,5 relieves from penalties for treason all persons who, in defence of the king, for the time being, wage war against those who endeavor to subvert his authority by force of arms, though warranted in so doing by the lawful monarch. 6

But this is where the usurper obtains actual possession of the royal authority of the kingdom: not when he has succeeded only in establishing his power over particular localities. Being in possession, allegiance is due to him as king de facto.

Another example may be found in the government of England under the Commonwealth, first by Parliament, and afterwards by Cromwell as Protector. It was not, in the contemplation of law, a government de jure, but it was a government de facto in the most absolute sense. It incurred obligations and made conquests which remained the obligations and conquests of England after the restoration. [75 U.S. 1, 9] The better opinion doubtless is, that acts done in obedience to this government could not be justly regarded as treasonable, though in hostility to the king de jure. Such acts were protected from criminal prosecution by the spirit, if not by the letter, of the statute of Henry the Seventh. It was held otherwise by the judges by whom Sir Henry Vane was tried for treason,7 in the year following the restoration. But such a judgment, in such a time, has little authority.

It is very certain that the Confederate government was never acknowledged by the United States as a de facto government in this sense. Nor was it acknowledged as such by other powers. No treaty was made by it with any civilized state. No obligations of a National character were created by it, binding after its dissolution, on the States which it represented, or on the National government. From a very early period of the civil war to its close, it was regarded as simply the military representative of the insurrection against the authority of the United States.

But there is another description of government, called also by publicists a government de facto, but which might, perhaps, be more aptly denominated a government of paramount force. Its distinguishing characteristics are (1), that its existence is maintained by active military power, within the territories, and against the rightful authority of an established and lawful government; and (2), that while it exists, it must necessarily be obeyed in civil matters by private citizens who, by acts of obedience, rendered in submission to such force, do not become responsible, as wrongdoers, for those acts, though not warranted by the laws of the rightful government. Actual governments of this sort are established over districts differing greatly in extent and conditions. They are usually administered directly by military authority, but they may be administered, also, by civil authority, supported more or less directly by military force.

One example of this sort of government is found in the case of Castine, in Maine, reduced to British possession during [75 U.S. 1, 10] the war of 1812. From the 1st of September, 1814, to the ratification of the treaty of peace in 1815, according to the judgment of this court in United States v. Rice,8 'the British government exercised all civil and military authority over the place.' 'The authority of the United States over the territory was suspended, and the laws of the United States could no longer be rightfully enforced there, or be obligatory upon the inhabitants who remained and submitted to the conqueror. By the surrender, the inhabitants passed under a temporary allegiance to the British government, and were bound by such laws, and such only, as it chose to recognize and impose.' It is not to be inferred from this that the obligations of the people of Castine as citizens of the United States were abrogated. They were suspended merely by the presence, and only during the presence, of the paramount force. A like example is found in the case of Tampico, occupied during the war with Mexico by the troops of the United States. It was determined by this court, in Fleming v. Page,9 that, although Tampico did not become a port of the United States in consequence of that occupation, still, having come, together with the whole State of Tamaulipas, of which it was part, into the exclusive possession of the National forces, it must be regarded and respected by other nations as the territory of the United States. These were cases of temporary possession of territory by lawful and regular governments at war with the country of which the territory so possessed was part.

The central government established for the insurgent States differed from the temporary governments at Castine and Tampico in the circumstance, that its authority did not originate in lawful acts of regular war, but it was not, on that account, less actual or less supreme. And we think that it must be classed among the governments of which these are examples. It is to be observed that the rights and obligations of a belligerent were conceded to it, in its military character, very soon after the war began, from motives [75 U.S. 1, 11] of humanity and expediency by the United States. The whole territory controlled by it was thereafter held to be enemies' territory, and the inhabitants of that territory were held, in most respects, for enemies. To the extent, then, of actual supremacy, however unlawfully gained, in all matters of government within its military lines, the power of the insurgent government cannot be questioned. That supremacy did not justify acts of hostility to the United States. How far it should excuse them must be left to the lawful government upon the re-establishment of its authority. But it made obedience to its authority, in civil and local matters, not only a necessity but a duty. Without such obedience, civil order was impossible.

It was by this government exercising its power throughout an immense territory, that the Confederate notes were issued early in the war, and these notes in a short time became almost exclusively the currency of the insurgent States. As contracts in themselves, except in the contingency of successful revolution, these notes were nullities; for, except in that event, there could be no payer. They bore, indeed, this character upon their face, for they were made payable only 'after the ratification of a treaty of peace between the Confederate States and the United States of America.' While the war lasted, however, they had a certain contingent value, and were used as money in nearly all the business transactions of many millions of people. They must be regarded, therefore, as a currency, imposed on the community by irresistible force.

It seems to follow as a necessary consequence from this actual supremacy of the insurgent government, as a belligerent, within the territory where it circulated, and from the necessity of civil obedience on the part of all who remained in it, that this currency must be considered in courts of law in the same light as if it had been issued by a foreign government, temporarily occupying a part of the territory of the United States. Contracts stipulating for payments in this currency, cannot be regarded for that reason only, as made in aid of the foreign invasion in the one case, or of the [75 U.S. 1, 12] domestic insurrection in the other. They have no necessary relations to the hostile government, whether invading or insurgent. They are transactions in the ordinary course of civil society, and, though they may indirectly and remotely promote the ends of the unlawful government, are without blame, except when proved to have been entered into with actual intent to further invasion or insurrection. We cannot doubt that such contracts should be enforced in the courts of the United States, after the restoration of peace, to the extent of their just obligation. The first question, therefore, must receive an affirmative answer.

The second question, Whether evidence can be received to prove that a promise, made in one of the insurgent States, and expressed to be for the payment of dollars, without qualifying words, was in fact made for the payment of any other than lawful dollars of the United States? is next to be considered.

Binbokusai Yagyuu
05-02-11, 03:54 AM
It is quite clear that a contract to pay dollars, made between citizens of any State of the Union, while maintaining its constitutional relations with the National government, is a contract to pay lawful money of the United States, and cannot be modified or explained by parol evidence. But it is equally clear, if in any other country, coins or notes denominated dollars should be authorized of different value from the coins or notes which are current here under that name, that, in a suit upon a contract to pay dollars, made in that country, evidence would be admitted to prove what kind of dollars were intended, and, if it should turn out that foreign dollars were meant, to prove their equivalent value in lawful money of the United States. Such evidence does not modify or alter the contract. It simply explains an ambiguity, which, under the general rules of evidence, may be removed by parol evidence.

We have already seen that the people of the insurgent States, under the Confederate government were, in legal contemplation, substantially in the same condition as inhabitants of districts of a country occupied and controlled by an [75 U.S. 1, 13] invading belligerent. The rules which would apply in the former case would apply in the latter; and, as in the former case, the people must be regarded as subjects of a foreign power, and contracts among them be interpreted and enforced with reference to the conditions imposed by the conqueror, so in the latter case, the inhabitants must be regarded as under the authority of the insurgent belligerent power actually established as the government of the country, and contracts made with them must be interpreted and enforced with reference to the condition of things created by the acts of the govering power.

It is said, indeed, that under the insurgent government the word dollar had the same meaning as under the government of the United States; that the Confederate notes were never made a legal tender, and, therefore, that no evidence can be received to show any other meaning of the word when used in a contract. But, it must be remembered that the whole condition of things in the insurgent States was matter of fact rather than matter of law, and, as matter of fact, these notes, payable at a future and contingent day, which has not arrived and can never arrive, were forced into circulation as dollars, if not directly by the legislation, yet indirectly and quite as effectually by the acts of the insurgent government. Considered in themselves, and in the light of subsequent events, these notes had no real value, but they were made current as dollars by irresistible force. They were the only measure of value which the people had, and their use was a matter of almost absolute necessity. And this use gave them a sort of value, insignificant and precarious enough it is true, but always having a sufficiently definite relation to gold and silver, the universal measures of value, so that it was always easy to ascertain how much gold and silver was the real equivalent of a sum expressed in this currency. In the light of these facts it seems hardly less than absurd to say that these dollars must be regarded as identical in kind and value with the dollars which constitute the money of the United States. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that they were essentially [75 U.S. 1, 14] different in both respects; and it seems to us that no rule of evidence properly understood requires us to refuse, under the circumstances, to admit proof of the sense in which the word dollar is used in the contract before us. Our answer to the second question is, therefore, also in the affirmative. We are clearly of opinion that such evidence must be received in respect to such contracts, in order that justice may be done between the parties, and that the party entitled to be paid in these Confederate dollars can recover their actual value at the time and place of the contract, in lawful money of the United States.

We do think it necessary to go into a detailed examination of the evidence in the record in order to vindicate our answer to the third question. It is enough to say that it has left no doubt in our minds that the note for ten thousand dollars, to enforce payment of which suit was brought in the Circuit Court, was to be paid, by agreement of the parties, in Confederate notes. It follows that the decree of the Circuit Court must be REVERSED, and the cause remanded, for further hearing and decree, in conformity with this opinion.

NOTE. At the same time with the foregoing case was decided another, as to its chief point, like it; an appeal from the Circuit Court for the Northern District of Georgia. It was the case of DEAN v. YOUNELL'S ADMINISTRATOR. A bill had been filed below to set aside a deed of land for fraud and inadequate consideration. The allegations of fraud were founded wholly upon the circumstance, that the land was sold for Confederate notes. The bill set up also a lien in favor of the vendor of the complainant. The vendor, whose lien was set up, was not made a party, nor was there any allegation of notice to the grantor of the complainant of the alleged lien for purchase-money; nor was there any averment that the commplainant was induced to take the Confederate notes by fraudulent misrepresentations of the decedent. A demurrer was inter posed in the court below (Erskine, J., presiding), and being sustained, the bill was dismissed.

The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of this court, to the effect, that the vendor whose lien was set up not having been made a party, and there not being any allegations of notice to the grantor of the complainant, of the alleged lien for purchase-money, no ground of relief was shown by the bill as to this lien. And that upon the principles of Thorington v. Smith, just preceding, the fact that the land was sold for Confederate notes, did not, in the absence of all averment that the complainant was induced to take them by fraudulent misrepresentations of the decedent, afford ground for the interposition of a court of equity. The decree was accordingly

AFFIRMED.
Footnotes

[ Footnote 1 ] Orchard v. Hughes, 1 Wallace, 75.

[ Footnote 2 ] Baugh v. Ramsey, 4 Monroe, 155; Pack v. Thomas, 13 Smeedes & Marshall, 11; Williams v. Beazley, 3 J. J. Marshall, 577; Morris v. Edwards, 1 Ohio, 189.

[ Footnote 3 ] 24 Arkansas, 212.

[ Footnote 4 ] 5 Wallace, 663.

[ Footnote 5 ] 2 British Stat. at Large, 82.

[ Footnote 6 ] 4 Commentaries, 77.

[ Footnote 7 ] 6 State Trials, 119.

[ Footnote 8 ] 4 Wheaton, 253.

[ Footnote 9 ] 9 Howard, 614.

David Merrill
05-02-11, 12:28 PM
Thank you BY!!

That is most interesting in many different ways. Could you please highlight some passages in bold or red to get the conversation rolling?


P.S. The reason I would like this thread to go your way is that I am now in Dave RAMSEY's course and it may not be of interest on this thread. But that is what is standing out for me this morning - that the new face of financial terrorism in America is Financial Peace. It is not just a pun! In light of your case, we see that after 150 years (exactly) we may be entering into an actual era of Financial Peace. I am not sure how to articulate it, but your court case there is about the war that began the fiat.

I am enrolled in Financial Peace University and it is just an amazing little scrape on the tip of the iceburg - what I want to express about it.

David Merrill
05-02-11, 02:57 PM
Well... I will kick it off anyway, with this:


The first question is by no means free from difficulty. It cannot be questioned that the Confederate notes were issued in furtherance of an unlawful attempt to overthrow the government of the United States, by insurrectionary force...

My posture is that the only freedom from the Lieber Code is to become non-belligerant/non-combatant. Ergo, Financial Peace.

Every bill floating in circulation began as a loan somewhere. It is all debt currency. The new form and face of financial terrorism sounds like this (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImMzA1ZTQ3MWUtNzQ0My00ZTg1LWE2N TktMTkzNjgwZWRhNDJl&hl=en). (Listen to Money Market Insurance.) If you save, even credit on account, and you will survive an emergency without having to borrow your way out of it, then you have countered the very substantive principle of the highly compressed information infrastructure.

You may remain at peace.



Regards,

David Merrill.

motla68
05-02-11, 02:59 PM
The whole face of money could be changing soon, not the Amero, I hear that is off the table and a new change to a different name, there is a couple interesting arguments in this short article and some images to what could become real:

http://www.federaljack.com/?p=7560. (http://www.federaljack.com/?p=7560)

Does it change things? Not in my opinion, it is just names an maybe their survey of land and the way I see the system it is all the same, The Cesti Que Vie trust will still exist. Why? If the Lieber Code had been absorbed into the International Hague it is still there, it has just changed names as well.

David Merrill
05-02-11, 03:59 PM
My vote is hoax. There is a new $100 bill announced (http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-news/blog/daily-money/treasury-unveils-new-100-bill-fun-facts-about-the-benjamins/257/) and it looks nothing like those notes. Time will tell us if I am wrong.

motla68
05-02-11, 05:29 PM
My vote is hoax. There is a new $100 bill announced (http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-news/blog/daily-money/treasury-unveils-new-100-bill-fun-facts-about-the-benjamins/257/) and it looks nothing like those notes. Time will tell us if I am wrong.

In today's general standards of longevity of instruments being almost a year old now (http://www.moneyfactory.gov/mediacenter/pressreleases.html), we could hardly call it new anymore,
or on another conscience it even being real. Fancy looking money is just that an image of deception, just like color of law / mirage.

shikamaru
05-02-11, 10:53 PM
Ramsey is alright. Kiyosaki is better in my opinion.
Then there are other materials that will increase one's financial intelligence.

David Merrill
05-03-11, 12:41 AM
I believe my perspective on it is unique.

Michael Joseph
05-03-11, 01:18 AM
My posture is that the only freedom from the Lieber Code is to become non-belligerant/non-combatant. Ergo, Financial Peace.




Regards,

David Merrill.

I think that is a very wise position. (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_v._Klein)

435

436

It would be wise indeed to keep the peace.

And in light of Lieber Code Section 31:


--- SECTION II ---

Public and private property of the enemy--Protection of persons, and especially of women; of religion, the arts and sciences--Punishment of crimes against the inhabitants of hostile countries


31. A victorious army appropriates all public money, seizes all public movable property until further direction by its government, and sequesters for its own benefit or of that of its government all the revenues of real property belonging to the hostile government or nation. The title to such real property remains in abeyance during military occupation, and until the conquest is made complete.

Would someone please show me where the Civil War has ended? It appears that ALL rights, titles and interests are held in Trust by Military,as Trustee. So how do you think the Trustee feels about those who would usurp his Office?

Position of the Trustee: Who is this claiming against OUR estate?

---------------

Reference the 1861 CONFISCATIONS ACT.

motla68
05-03-11, 01:01 PM
Ramsey is alright. Kiyosaki is better in my opinion.
Then there are other materials that will increase one's financial intelligence.

Really? I found it quite shocking a couple years ago when I was invited to one of his
introductory seminars, this was the downslope of the economy where he was asking
people to negotiate increasing the credit on their credit cards with the banks to pay
for his advanced training course and then later negotiate another increase with another
card to go get a house to flip, he noted it as hard money.
This guy Kiyosaki is a showmen and so are a couple of his associates, they make
money off of doing seminars in a downed economy taking advantage of people and
that is about it, Needless to say I left not to return the next day.

I tore up all credit cards, paid off loans back in 2003, no more lines of credit either since
then. If your serious about Lawful Money you cannot be playing around with bank money,
this is double mindedness and destroys the cause laid out for a sound Republic.
Banks are doing what we should have been doing, investing in the treasury in lawful money,
then the treasury allows them to fractionalize it at the expense of taxpayers, another words they get paid twice and we are left to look like fools.
There is more of us then there is of them, it is the free will wants of the people that determine the direction of the currency flow. I see the treasury as like one of those old dumb terminal computers, it knows nothing, what you put into it is what you are going to get out of it

Food for thought,

motla68

David Merrill
05-03-11, 01:44 PM
Really? I found it quite shocking a couple years ago when I was invited to one of his
introductory seminars, this was the downslope of the economy where he was asking
people to negotiate increasing the credit on their credit cards with the banks to pay
for his advanced training course and then later negotiate another increase with another
card to go get a house to flip, he noted it as hard money.
This guy Kiyosaki is a showmen and so are a couple of his associates, they make
money off of doing seminars in a downed economy taking advantage of people and
that is about it, Needless to say I left not to return the next day.

I tore up all credit cards, paid off loans back in 2003, no more lines of credit either since
then. If your serious about Lawful Money you cannot be playing around with bank money,
this is double mindedness and destroys the cause laid out for a sound Republic.
Banks are doing what we should have been doing, investing in the treasury in lawful money,
then the treasury allows them to fractionalize it at the expense of taxpayers, another words they get paid twice and we are left to look like fools.
There is more of us then there is of them, it is the free will wants of the people that determine the direction of the currency flow. I see the treasury as like one of those old dumb terminal computers, it knows nothing, what you put into it is what you are going to get out of it

Food for thought,

motla68



Now you are starting to get my perspective on the people in the course. Not RAMSEY. However RAMSEY cuts a Credit Card in half on stage in Lesson One. The facilitator though, he admits that he still keeps a CC because of his wife.

I am there to guage shock testing.

David Merrill
05-03-11, 02:26 PM
Such a government, in its highest degree, assumes a character very closely resembling that of a lawful government. This is when the usurping government expels the regular authorities from their customary seats and functions, and establishes itself in their place, and so becomes the actual government of a country. The distinguishing characteristic of such a government is, that adherents to it in war against the government de jure do not incur the penalties of treason...


I believe this is in alignment with what MJ is saying. I wish BY would facilitate discussion too by pointing out some interesting passages.

It is certainly in alignment with my point - about Financial Peace. - In that when I tried negotiating a Comptroller Warrant without resorting to citation of the UCC - Without Recourse only; the next morning was the Montana Freeman Standoff. Commanding the return of specie (pre-1861) against the US has manifest in that more than once (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImOTg3NWZhYmYtYjM5Ny00M2YwLTk0N GQtZDhhZGY1OTMyNGM3&hl=en).

Michael Joseph
05-03-11, 03:23 PM
I believe this is in alignment with what MJ is saying. I wish BY would facilitate discussion too by pointing out some interesting passages.

It is certainly in alignment with my point - about Financial Peace. - In that when I tried negotiating a Comptroller Warrant without resorting to citation of the UCC - Without Recourse only; the next morning was the Montana Freeman Standoff. Commanding the return of specie (pre-1861) against the US has manifest in that more than once (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImOTg3NWZhYmYtYjM5Ny00M2YwLTk0N GQtZDhhZGY1OTMyNGM3&hl=en).

1861 Confiscation Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confiscation_Act_of_1861)

here's the thing: If the Military holds Titles [legal/equitable] and Property [rights of use] in Trust, as Trustee. And the beneficiary is government at that time, then we got to look at the structure of government at that time. And in fact "The United States of America" - style of the Art. of Confederacy - was already in default - so the United States comes in and does a thing for it see Preamble. So in fact The United States of America has already been placed into Trust and the United States is government as beneficiary to the Military as Trustee and the US Treasury held in Trust.

Tell me where a private man fits into this trust structure? Will you now argue against the Trustee in regard to his estate? I am neither trustee or beneficiary - I am without, acting as envoy, on behalf of the owner.

Will you, as Adam, cover the sin of one who would take against the Trust - by bond? If you would place a bond, don't you have an interest in said bond?

But then again, you are using Intangible Property of the Trust? = Money! Did you make a demand for lawful money or not? Did you create said money ?

For I know I am not trustee and this is your estate in the [FIRST MIDDLE LAST], as cestui que trust; and, while I am authorized by legal right to Use the CQT, I do not intent to trespass the office of the Trustee in [I]Trustee de son Tort.

7. Martial law extends to property, and to persons, whether they are subjects of the enemy or aliens to that government.

31. A victorious army appropriates all public money, seizes all public movable property until further direction by its government, and sequesters for its own benefit or of that of its government all the revenues of real property belonging to the hostile government or nation. The title to such real property remains in abeyance during military occupation, and until the conquest is made complete.

I am still waiting for one to show me the Peace Treaty that ended the Civil War.....


---------------------------------------
We have already seen that the people of the insurgent States, under the Confederate government were, in legal contemplation, substantially in the same condition as inhabitants of districts of a country occupied and controlled by an [75 U.S. 1, 13] invading belligerent. The rules which would apply in the former case would apply in the latter; and, as in the former case, the people must be regarded as subjects of a foreign power, and contracts among them be interpreted and enforced with reference to the conditions imposed by the conqueror, so in the latter case, the inhabitants must be regarded as under the authority of the insurgent belligerent power actually established as the government of the country, and contracts made with them must be interpreted and enforced with reference to the condition of things created by the acts of the govering power.

Turn your penny over and see if you can find the king of the throne!

David Merrill
05-03-11, 03:58 PM
Exactly - the BOND (http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/992/beijing2.jpg).

Michael Joseph
05-03-11, 04:07 PM
Exactly - the BOND (http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/992/beijing2.jpg).

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?254-The-Song-of-Moses&p=2308&viewfull=1#post2308

Binbokusai Yagyuu
05-03-11, 04:08 PM
Sorry ..
traveling has been of necessity

Let's start here

It was by this government exercising its power throughout an immense territory, that the Confederate notes were issued early in the war, and these notes in a short time became almost exclusively the currency of the insurgent States. As contracts in themselves, except in the contingency of successful revolution, these notes were nullities; for, except in that event, there could be no payer. They bore, indeed, this character upon their face, for they were made payable only 'after the ratification of a treaty of peace between the Confederate States and the United States of America.' While the war lasted, however, they had a certain contingent value, and were used as money in nearly all the business transactions of many millions of people. They must be regarded, therefore, as a currency, imposed on the community by irresistible force.

David Merrill
05-03-11, 05:21 PM
Sorry ..
traveling has been of necessity

Let's start here

It was by this government exercising its power throughout an immense territory, that the Confederate notes were issued early in the war, and these notes in a short time became almost exclusively the currency of the insurgent States. As contracts in themselves, except in the contingency of successful revolution, these notes were nullities; for, except in that event, there could be no payer. They bore, indeed, this character upon their face, for they were made payable only 'after the ratification of a treaty of peace between the Confederate States and the United States of America.' While the war lasted, however, they had a certain contingent value, and were used as money in nearly all the business transactions of many millions of people. They must be regarded, therefore, as a currency, imposed on the community by irresistible force.





Thank you BY!

It is good to have you back with us, Welcome and Happy Trails in your travels too.

The point that MJ and I barter with is the monetizing of sin - that the original Income Tax began in the form of having to sacrifice your prize livestock to an angry God of Abraham. He was angry because gold was valueless until people foiled it and wrapped idols and made them shiny and pretty - the Golden Calf.

Moses sung his song of Forgiveness and Redemption and actually changed God's mind about destroying Israel. The price though, was a steep one - the Income Tax, and the subsequent monetizing of sin through currency in the Messianic Model.

The point I keep making though is that the mental models are much older than 1861. The passage you are speaking of began on the SW corner of the Monument (http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/4255/monumentsfibonaccispira.jpg) right here in Old Colorado City of Colorado Springs (http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/533/gilpinswarmeasureszoom.jpg).

The original estate is not within the scope of Israel.




Jesus did not become a formal initiate until he was dunked in the Jordan River, with John in the Order of Archelaus.



Regards,

David Merrill.

shikamaru
05-03-11, 11:04 PM
Really? I found it quite shocking a couple years ago when I was invited to one of his
introductory seminars, this was the downslope of the economy where he was asking
people to negotiate increasing the credit on their credit cards with the banks to pay
for his advanced training course and then later negotiate another increase with another
card to go get a house to flip, he noted it as hard money.
This guy Kiyosaki is a showmen and so are a couple of his associates, they make
money off of doing seminars in a downed economy taking advantage of people and
that is about it, Needless to say I left not to return the next day.


I would not know as much as I know about finance and money had it not been for Kiyosaki. In fact, Kiyosaki's information got me out of debt. Kiyosaki's information got me from plumb ignorance to having some idea of what is going on with and in money.
You have an advantage over most people because you know of law and finance as well as the relationship between the two.
I would tailor Kiyosaki's information based on your legal and financial knowledge as well as your personal dispositions.
Ramsey's information is far, far too basic in my opinion. I consider Kiyosaki's information fairly advanced in comparison to Ramsey.
Corporations are designed for engaging in debt and risk with limited liability immunity. Use them for that purpose.



I tore up all credit cards, paid off loans back in 2003, no more lines of credit either since
then. If your serious about Lawful Money you cannot be playing around with bank money,
this is double mindedness and destroys the cause laid out for a sound Republic.
Banks are doing what we should have been doing, investing in the treasury in lawful money,
then the treasury allows them to fractionalize it at the expense of taxpayers, another words they get paid twice and we are left to look like fools.
There is more of us then there is of them, it is the free will wants of the people that determine the direction of the currency flow. I see the treasury as like one of those old dumb terminal computers, it knows nothing, what you put into it is what you are going to get out of it

Food for thought,

motla68

Fair enough.
As far as republicanism goes, most people have no interest in bringing back or living within a republic. They are quite content with their private credit of the FRB as well as their agent telling them what to do and how to live.
My public/private model accounts for both the private credit of the FRB and lawful money. If at the very least, one can use the system to transition from Lex Mercatoria to American Common Law.

Michael Joseph
05-03-11, 11:37 PM
The original estate is not within the scope of Israel.



438

Rom 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded


--------------------------

Isa 6:8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.

Isa 6:9 And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.

Isa 6:13 But yet in it shall be a tenth, and it shall return, and shall be eaten: as a teil tree, and as an oak, whose substance is in them, when they cast their leaves: so the holy seed shall be the substance thereof.


verse 13 speaks to the Remnant in every Generation and the Election in the last Generation. With Duty as co-trustee and co-beneficiary; these will not drop the trust. For these are presanctified and prejustified and preordained to duty!

There is but one Redeemer. In the former Age Yehovah Saves, in this age of Flesh, by Faith, in Yehoshuah. But there are others who have already overcome who FIRST trusted on Yehovah!

See how the Sons of Cain work. Daniel was definitely Remnant/Elect and they tried all that they could to harm Daniel - yet, Daniel, a type for Election in latter days, would not bow to the Image and to its Laws; Daniel prayed towards Jerusalem three times a day. And Daniel was delivered up to the King, just as Election will also be; see Mark 13, Luke 21, Matt 24 for a specific reason.

All that I have is yours to the Elect son! Give him no inheritance for he shall inherit Yehovah! AWESOME!

Michael Joseph
05-03-11, 11:44 PM
I would not know as much as I know about finance and money had it not been for Kiyosaki. In fact, Kiyosaki's information got me out of debt. Kiyosaki's information got me from plumb ignorance to having some idea of what is going on with and in money.
You have an advantage over most people because you know of law and finance as well as the relationship between the two.
I would tailor Kiyosaki's information based on your legal and financial knowledge as well as your personal dispositions.
Ramsey's information is far, far too basic in my opinion. I consider Kiyosaki's information fairly advanced in comparison to Ramsey.
Corporations are designed for engaging in debt and risk with limited liability immunity. Use them for that purpose.



Kiyosaki's money 101 game should be pre-requisite to each boy and girl before the age of 14. How many will believe my house is my greatest asset? Does that house make you any money? Or are you paying a boatload of interest to another? Still think it to be an asset. Kiyosaki's books helped me to see money in a new light. And to that I am grateful.

shikamaru
05-04-11, 02:39 PM
Kiyosaki's money 101 game should be pre-requisite to each boy and girl before the age of 14. How many will believe my house is my greatest asset? Does that house make you any money? Or are you paying a boatload of interest to another? Still think it to be an asset. Kiyosaki's books helped me to see money in a new light. And to that I am grateful.

Right on, right on ...

In my opinion, it isn't an asset unless it produces income for you.
Buy and hold of any "asset" only makes money for others.
And that tenure is an EQUITY stake at that !!

David Merrill
05-04-11, 03:24 PM
Right on, right on ...

In my opinion, it isn't an asset unless it produces income for you.
Buy and hold of any "asset" only makes money for others.
And that tenure is an EQUITY stake at that !!

Wow!

That is a helpful light to shed.

Michael Joseph
05-04-11, 03:46 PM
Right on, right on ...

In my opinion, it isn't an asset unless it produces income for you.
Buy and hold of any "asset" only makes money for others.
And that tenure is an EQUITY stake at that !!

Or, you can play Monopoly and ask yourself - where did the money come from? And what is this Property? You might incorporate ideas such, as lease with option to buy, or just options, or seller financing to buy, or buy for cash directly from Owner, or a number of other ways to buy - but do keep good records.

At the end of the game - the property goes back to the banker - an anonymous figure.


Example what if you own Park Place and another owns Boardwalk - Perhaps you enter into a deal with the Owner of Boardwalk to lease Park Place to him for $300 each time around the board. While he can now improve the property due to his interest in it, he may have a term limit on the lease [20x around the board] and if he does not execute the option to buy, the improvements revert back to the remainderman - you. Makes the game a bit more interesting and a lot more real.

Michael Joseph
05-04-11, 05:55 PM
The point I keep making though is that the mental models are much older than 1861. The passage you are speaking of began on the SW corner of the Monument (http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/4255/monumentsfibonaccispira.jpg) right here in Old Colorado City of Colorado Springs (http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/533/gilpinswarmeasureszoom.jpg).


David, I opened the 2nd link :The Governor is Trustee de son Tort as he acted as DEFACTO Trustee absent any authorization from the War Department - Military as Trustee was usurped by Governor acting as Trustee. Governor claims he had been granted Agency from an authorized source - maybe he was or maybe not. I am unfamiliar with the Governor Gilpen's story.

Darkcrusade
05-04-11, 09:24 PM
I would not know as much as I know about finance and money had it not been for Kiyosaki. In fact, Kiyosaki's information got me out of debt. Kiyosaki's information got me from plumb ignorance to having some idea of what is going on with and in money. Care to share,as much as you dare?

shikamaru
05-04-11, 09:25 PM
Or, you can play Monopoly and ask yourself - where did the money come from? And what is this Property? You might incorporate ideas such, as lease with option to buy, or just options, or seller financing to buy, or buy for cash directly from Owner, or a number of other ways to buy - but do keep good records.

At the end of the game - the property goes back to the banker - an anonymous figure.


Example what if you own Park Place and another owns Boardwalk - Perhaps you enter into a deal with the Owner of Boardwalk to lease Park Place to him for $300 each time around the board. While he can now improve the property due to his interest in it, he may have a term limit on the lease [20x around the board] and if he does not execute the option to buy, the improvements revert back to the remainderman - you. Makes the game a bit more interesting and a lot more real.

Holy snap!
I never considered that. I am disturbed by this revelation.

I will keep this in mind.....

shikamaru
05-04-11, 09:30 PM
Care to share,as much as you dare?

Rich Dad, Poor Dad is an excellent introductory basis to how the wealthy play the game of money. As far as I am concerned, he gives it all away.

After reading Rich Dad, Poor Dad, you then need to begin building up your financial education so that you too can play the game to win. Winning in the financial game is to have an abundance of cash and assets that generate revenue.

One of the biggest reasons people lose in capitalism is because they don't know how to count (George Gordon). In addition to learning how to count, we want to learn how to improve our financial report cards (net worth, financial statements, etc.). Accounting is most important.

So learn how to count and learn how to read money (accounting).
Also, learn and master sales.

Won't hurt to master the customs of merchants either (Lex Mercatoria).

Is there anything specific you would like me to address?

David Merrill
05-05-11, 12:07 AM
GILPIN was strongly condemned for his writing (presumption of authority) notes against the War Department.



http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/533/gilpinswarmeasureszoom.jpg

Michael Joseph
05-05-11, 12:32 AM
Rich Dad, Poor Dad is an excellent introductory basis to how the wealthy play the game of money. As far as I am concerned, he gives it all away.

After reading Rich Dad, Poor Dad, you then need to begin building up your financial education so that you too can play the game to win. Winning in the financial game is to have an abundance of cash and assets that generate revenue.

One of the biggest reasons people lose in capitalism is because they don't know how to count (George Gordon). In addition to learning how to count, we want to learn how to improve our financial report cards (net worth, financial statements, etc.). Accounting is most important.

So learn how to count and learn how to read money (accounting).
Also, learn and master sales.

Won't hurt to master the customs of merchants either (Lex Mercatoria).

Is there anything specific you would like me to address?

Rich Dad Poor Dad was an eye opener for me. As far as I am concerned that book is fundamental reading for my children. My daughter being not yet 11 can comprehend now Options, Lease with Option to Buy, Seller carry back note, Seller financing, buying Payments and selling Payments to third party, and Cash deal.

If the Personal Property is costing you money - it is NOT an Asset. Simple. Stop listening to the banker.

shikamaru
05-05-11, 03:41 PM
If the Personal Property is costing you money - it is NOT an Asset. Simple. Stop listening to the banker.

But, but, but .... its an asset for the bankers !!

:D

They are making money from it. Probably 150% - 200% profit in conservative estimates.

doug555
05-06-11, 01:11 AM
David,

Do you have any information confirming that Abraham Lincoln transferred all of the property of the USA to the Navy in the 1860's, creating a Public Trust and making the people the Beneficiaries and the Navy the Military Trustees, in order to preserve the Union, which the Creditors were trying to destroy?

Doug

motla68
05-06-11, 03:04 AM
David,

Do you have any information confirming that Abraham Lincoln transferred all of the property of the USA to the Navy in the 1860's, creating a Public Trust and making the people the Beneficiaries and the Navy the Military Trustees, in order to preserve the Union, which the Creditors were trying to destroy?

Doug

Lieber Code:
45. All captures and booty belong, according to the modern law of war, primarily to the government of the captor. Prize money, whether on sea or land, can now only be claimed under local law.

shikamaru
05-06-11, 08:29 AM
David,

Do you have any information confirming that Abraham Lincoln transferred all of the property of the USA to the Navy in the 1860's, creating a Public Trust and making the people the Beneficiaries and the Navy the Military Trustees, in order to preserve the Union, which the Creditors were trying to destroy?

Doug

Reconstruction Acts of the Civil War.
They have not been repealed (still in effect) ....

David Merrill
05-06-11, 10:17 AM
David,

Do you have any information confirming that Abraham Lincoln transferred all of the property of the USA to the Navy in the 1860's, creating a Public Trust and making the people the Beneficiaries and the Navy the Military Trustees, in order to preserve the Union, which the Creditors were trying to destroy?

Doug

The various mental models (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImODVkMmJiYzktMDdlYS00ZWFkLWI4Z WMtNmJiMWI0ZmU1MzEx&hl=en) are fleeting.


Lieber Code:
45. All captures and booty belong, according to the modern law of war, primarily to the government of the captor. Prize money, whether on sea or land, can now only be claimed under local law.

Motla68 was banished for a spell, for pushing only the ethereal and whimsical side of the remedy. There are merits as found in Are You Lost at C? What happened is when I demanded the verbiage on his Refusals for Cause (by any other name) he omitted the verbiage that expresses the current active law... or exchanged for (lawful money).

There was obviously a War (of Rebellion/Civil War) and its effects were to implement a regime of Executive Order. That war has been long over and I subscribe to a line of reasoning that the Power of Executive Order still remains but if you follow the thread of history, the Emergency - an extraordinary occasion (http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/6479/conventionextraordinary.jpg) - persists only within the realm of international banking practices. However, the gold seizure in 1933 upon saving the 1913 Fed System and 1917 Trading with the Enemy Act transmuted the use of elastic currency to that akin to a national mortgage on all real estate transactions:


http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/514/mortgageofpeople.jpg

This elastic money regime however depended and still depends on cooperation and voluntary signature bond by way of endorsement:


http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/4556/governmentbondslarge.jpg

However, America supporting fiat at all - US Notes - is an indication that Emergency is still in progress in America. This supports a contradiction by Abe himself - that the People have the fundamental right to secede States from the Union but he managed to consider it a terrible thing (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImN2NiNTQ5ZjYtMzA5NS00MzM1LTllM DItNDY3N2EwYzcxNWNk&hl=en) to divide America into North and South confederations.

The political sentiment in America supports the executive regime. No State or Confederation of States are allowed to secede from the Union. Even though States or confederations can today. The Contradiction is that it is the money system that ties the whole thing together - the adhesion.~

We need to focus on a controversy that is ongoing here on the forums and even arises in the echo chamber of the brain trust. It is reflective of this seeming to be "my" Website too; in that I am intelligence nexus surrounded by sensory nodes, of which Motla68 is not included. When I prodded him to disclose the verbiage he (Coresource Solutions, an alternate think tank) would use on their R4C's he misdirected the readers here to think that the mental model of the Emergency and Lieber Code were the only active terms of agreement. After a few weeks I have decided that hashing it over - like this Post does exactly was the more beneficial method of teaching and learning both.

Indeed, a suitor has a very interesting success regarding a Setoff from a state DoR of taxes - retroactive back to before he was redeeming lawful money! But this much I am comfortable sharing; in that when he shared it with the suitors by broadcast:


Again, so that you can get it in your head - this has nothing to do with 12USC411 or refusal for cause - read carefully.

However, upon even the most cursory reading the Letter he authored utilized cited his usage of Title 12 U.S.C. §411 and he is rethinking, upon my correction his one-sided stance about what exactly the effective law was that effected the Setoff.

The issue being hashed out on the private side of the echoes is how clearly the trust structure was defined in current and ancient trust law, and how effective it was in being retroactive - in affecting the Setoff, way back for a State tax bill in 2005!

Not only that, I expect a tinge of regret that I would mention that at all here because of the sentiment that the trust structure - describing it with boxes and "private" v. "public" conventions on the front side and backside had any effect at all.

I am saying and he is saying:


[B]David Merrill: The mention of current banking policy removing one from federal liability for Income Tax (the State liability depends on Federal liability) has potential on the challenge - Fraud by Omission. Nobody in good faith is teaching children about remedy* written into the Fed Act §16! - Leaving us in a position where we cannot sue our parents, tellers and civics teachers because they are as much victims of the fraud too. But by properly learning and applying Record-Forming we exhibit competence as courts of record and therefore getting the law (long forgotten) into the courts where an appeal tribunal will be compelled to opine and publish it for everybody.

Suitor: That the accurate description of the CQV trust structure was the effective remedy as it removed him from the virtual theater of war. - That by being a peaceful inhabitant he removed himself - primarily by offering to assist the trustee, therefore not being the trustee himself - from the post-1861 Emergency/extraordinary occasion.

Interstingly, this is done in every Libel of Review (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImNWY1MzE0YWYtNWIzYy00NzYzLWI1M TQtNDdjNDczNWE4MzJh&hl=en), in the "exclusive original cognizance" of the United States. It is the same old, in fact ancient mariner argument - [I]What is the Contract? - The Law of the Flag:


Law of the flag: Man is created in the image of God and to reduce a man to chattel against the national debt is an affront to God. Exodus 13:16 and Genesis 1:27.

Exo 13:16 And it shall be for a token upon thine hand, and for frontlets between thine eyes: for by strength of hand the LORD brought us forth out of Egypt.

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

This reflects a much more ancient trust and the suitor included that on the "private" side of the Letter - his confession of faith in the Christian Messianic Model. This would mean that there has been a payment, through the ancient Mosaic blood sacrifice by Jesus hanging on the Cross, that has covered his declining to become the Trustee - that he can refuse that position and appointment by right; deferring it back to the NY State DoR to act as trustee. And it did - Setoff.



Regards,

David Merrill.


~ Around 2005 the federal government was becoming stingy with State funding and there was an upsurge in local authoritian mumblings by sheriffs here and there. I suspected this was because the federal funding was becoming tight-fisted. My confirmation came though when a federal judge ordered a county clerk and recorder to remove a LoR Judgment (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImOGFiNzI4YTMtZmY2NC00NTM0LTlmN TQtZTRmZDBjMTNhNDYz&hl=en). The county C&R made no response - and the Judgment remained untouched. After about six weeks the defense attorney for the Respondent filed/published the Order. That was all the C&R would permit apparently. The Judgment still stands published on the record.



* This may be a lot more remarkable than people might expect on the surface. Remember the suitor who got his full NY Refund (http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/5241/staterefundnydepositrec.jpg)? We were concerned for a moment though, because DoR NY delayed to reassess (http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/7716/nystatusreport2010asses.png) his self-assessment. The correspondence (http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/3503/staterefund125adjustmen.jpg) was that NY added $150 to his Refund because he forgot to claim his NY City School Credit! This showed obvious contemplation (http://img807.imageshack.us/img807/3503/staterefund125adjustmen.jpg) by the DoR. The agent handling it is obviously aware that this fellow has more than $6K Withholdings on Zero Income?

That is not my point though.

Upon discussion, neither he nor I were comfortable about receiving and spending the $150 from the NY DoR. We never really discussed why exactly. Maybe it is simply allowing the DoR agent to come in and reassess at all. So he made a couple phone calls and discovered the NY Schools will accept cash donations and even allow within parameters for the parent to dedicate that donation to a particular mission or category so the suitor included instructions for the school to include lessons about the Federal Reserve Act in their curriculum.

Sounds like nothing but the administrator (school principal) reading the request will have it lodged in his or her mind, now won't they?

motla68
05-06-11, 04:22 PM
Motla68 was banished for a spell, for pushing only the ethereal and whimsical side of the remedy. There are merits as found in Are You Lost at C?

Once again this is getting personally insulting.

- Are you not aware that " Are you Lost at C?" is a write up of some ones opinion?
it is just a story.

- doug555 asked about the era of Lincoln, did not ask about 1913 or 1933 as it has
no application to what Lincoln did himself.

- I gave a direct answer to a direct question and even stated a reference from Lincoln's
order. Shikamaru only stated a title name, but still you call my response "whimsical".

Thanks for showing us that your EGO cannot be controlled, you cannot let go of some
grudge you have against me for some reason, that is pretty clear.

David Merrill
05-06-11, 04:55 PM
Once again this is getting personally insulting.

- Are you not aware that " Are you Lost at C?" is a write up of some ones opinion?
it is just a story.

- doug555 asked about the era of Lincoln, did not ask about 1913 or 1933 as it has
no application to what Lincoln did himself.

- I gave a direct answer to a direct question and even stated a reference from Lincoln's
order. Shikamaru only stated a title name, but still you call my response "whimsical".

Thanks for showing us that your EGO cannot be controlled, you cannot let go of some
grudge you have against me for some reason, that is pretty clear.


I do not view it that way Motla68;


It is an edifying push and pull of ideals. In your Coresource Camp we find a bias toward trust structure, believing in a fully implemented Lieber Code with its integration into international law through the Hague and its conventions. On my side, I am not disqualifying that, simply pointing out how much easier this is to understand through the simple verbiage:


http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/6127/12usc411published.jpg

You did what you did and I banished you for it. I feel it necessary for the readers here to understand why I am correcting your posture - simply because people do not need to understand trust law to find remedy. However they need to understand trust law to understand you. When you omitted the effective law from your explanation, biasing remedy upon the untried rendition, I decided that was hurtful.

Here is an example:


http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/5148/nonendorsementonticket2.jpg

The active verbiage is or Exchanged for [Lawful Money] on the prescribed stamp. By the handwritten verbiage you had actually restricted the presenter's available options:


http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/7039/12usc411.jpg

The presenter does not need to go to the Treasury only.

In the explanation you so grudgingly gave us, you left the active ingredient of remedy off.

It is of benefit to examine your views though, albeit I mitigate the damage your bias might cause. For another example, this suitor writes of your style:


2. I don’t buy totally into the military thing although maybe I just don’t understand him totally. All of these guys write so esoterically that I cannot understand them since they do not explain themselves well. Teachers – they are not. Although I must say, the XX document was the best I have seen explaining things. His emails are all esoteric and I cannot follow

That comes from an engineer who designed power conditioning systems for complex off-grid systems like aircraft carriers, and who built a successful S-corporation to sell it too.

What you call my Ego is in my mind, curbing your tendency to try dazzling people with evasive explanations and partial misdirection. The example for which I banished you is the best one - to demonstrate your bias by pretending the verbiage was a big secret for a week, and then excluding the part I was expecting there all along. The Remedy - at least what we find written into the law.

The reason I lifted the ban after three weeks was it became clear that we could learn more from this push and pull debate style. If you would rather get insulting than defend by example, anecdote and evidence why the Lieber Code is still such a prevailing execution of law in America, then this just goes along slower than I had hoped.


Regards,

David Merrill.

motla68
05-06-11, 05:40 PM
Regardless of background I still think people need to learn on their own a bit and sometimes told to do their own Due diligence, we have this gigantic tool called the Internet, what good is it if it is not used?
A simple search would have revealed that Lincoln ordered the Liber Code. On another note about that in my original reply I never mentioned anything about trust law or Coresource, so I find it hardly applicable to your response other then you pulling up the past just to grind it in like bleach in a open wound. What does it matter to the post whatsoever?

In my travels last week I talked to a man who told me a story about his granddaughter, she came home one day doing her math lessons from school and the method used to solve math problems was nothing like he or her mother had seen. When she was asked about it, her reply was " the teacher taught us this way so we would not have to think ". At that moment everyone at the meeting sort of gasped at that moment. This was a group who also studies alternative energy and actually have a working Tesla model going.
Anyone can go to a cookie cutter school to learn a cookie cutter trade and the rules that bind, work for a cookie cutter corporation and call themselves a engineer, but without these systems in place would they have learned it otherwise? my guess is probably not. No judgement against them or parents, they were just never told how to live that way, so if the mold is not broken we continue on with the ridiculousness in the world that brought us to this forum.

I gave a example and you have ignored it. If i had just said "Reconstruction Acts" as did Shikamaru would you have still called it whimsical?

David Merrill
05-06-11, 09:00 PM
David,

Do you have any information confirming that Abraham Lincoln transferred all of the property of the USA to the Navy in the 1860's, creating a Public Trust and making the people the Beneficiaries and the Navy the Military Trustees, in order to preserve the Union, which the Creditors were trying to destroy?

Doug

Lieber Code:
45. All captures and booty belong, according to the modern law of war, primarily to the government of the captor. Prize money, whether on sea or land, can now only be claimed under local law.



You answered a question directed at me with your cryptic misdirection. Did you realize that the Civil War ended a long time ago?

David Merrill
05-07-11, 12:22 AM
P.S. I should apologize, again.

I thought that Motla68 was up to developing the Lieber Code's role in the current state of Emergency, and how the perpetual condition of rule executive order and martial rule plays its role though banking.

It did not occur to me that pointing out his posture of approach, as I perceive it would be so acute.

I am sorry.

motla68
05-07-11, 05:13 AM
P.S. I should apologize, again.

I thought that Motla68 was up to developing the Lieber Code's role in the current state of Emergency, and how the perpetual condition of rule executive order and martial rule plays its role though banking.

It did not occur to me that pointing out his posture of approach, as I perceive it would be so acute.

I am sorry.

Thank you.

marcel
09-10-23, 12:11 PM
I see that a class-action lawsuit against Dave Ramsey, his company The Lampo Group, and marketing firm Happy Hour Media Group has been filed in the U.S. District Court for Western Washington.
The lawsuit seeks damages in excess of $150 million.

https://julieroys.com/dave-ramsey-sued-for-150-million-former-fans-who-followed-timeshare-exit-advice/

David Merrill
09-10-23, 08:43 PM
I see that a class-action lawsuit against Dave Ramsey, his company The Lampo Group, and marketing firm Happy Hour Media Group has been filed in the U.S. District Court for Western Washington.
The lawsuit seeks damages in excess of $150 million.

https://julieroys.com/dave-ramsey-sued-for-150-million-former-fans-who-followed-timeshare-exit-advice/


Thank you for mentioning it. I have been through his Financial Peace University seminars three times, studying psychology.


P.S. I recall some geopolitical social engineering. I was on the FPU forums and slipped in a couple posts how David promoted selling all your gold and silver to his friend on the side of the stage there. Many people did so on the advice that this was very wise, to sell your gold and use the money to get out of debt. But this was while gold was in a soaring price Spot. So these people lost all that profit, that David's friend (we can easily presume) gained.

The forums shut down. A few years later they were back up though.