PDA

View Full Version : Clarity please



BAMAJiPS
12-15-12, 08:15 AM
I have been studying code, common law, money, new world order etc etc etc non stop for a week now... Everything runs in seemingly indefinite tangents because laws, code and supreme court rulings are so vast. I think I have broken my mind trying to wrap my head around this and sifting through fact and fiction.

My question are:
A) Is the only real end result of demanding lawful money the undermining of the Federal Reserve and lightening the debt load?

What other practical uses are there?

B) I'm assuming that you can argue that when you receive lawful money you are not earning "income" and therefore it is not taxable, so is this a benefit as well?

C) I have read in several places and forums (was it here?? as I said my mind is numb) that you can't REALLY own land because you are extinguishing a debt, not actually PAYING for it. Is this correct? Having asked that, am I wrong in assuming that in order to "own" land you can or need to set up a common law trust and somehow pay a debt off using "real" lawful money and holding title in the land in said trust?

I just feel overwhelmed with the seeming abyss of information. Can someone in a CONCISE manner outline the practical and applicable uses of demanding lawful money please or just reaffirm my assumptions.

Thanks very much

bamajips@gmail.com

David Merrill
12-15-12, 11:43 AM
I have been studying code, common law, money, new world order etc etc etc non stop for a week now... Everything runs in seemingly indefinite tangents because laws, code and supreme court rulings are so vast. I think I have broken my mind trying to wrap my head around this and sifting through fact and fiction.

My question are:
A) Is the only real end result of demanding lawful money the undermining of the Federal Reserve and lightening the debt load?

What other practical uses are there?

B) I'm assuming that you can argue that when you receive lawful money you are not earning "income" and therefore it is not taxable, so is this a benefit as well?

C) I have read in several places and forums (was it here?? as I said my mind is numb) that you can't REALLY own land because you are extinguishing a debt, not actually PAYING for it. Is this correct? Having asked that, am I wrong in assuming that in order to "own" land you can or need to set up a common law trust and somehow pay a debt off using "real" lawful money and holding title in the land in said trust?

I just feel overwhelmed with the seeming abyss of information. Can someone in a CONCISE manner outline the practical and applicable uses of demanding lawful money please or just reaffirm my assumptions.

Thanks very much

bamajips@gmail.com


Welcome and thank you for studying until your mind feels numb. It is always my hope to cut through all the patriot mythology and get to the source of the diversity - whether you are in contract with the Fed, or not. It becomes clear with the Masons for example that through agreement various political and even ecclesiastic jurisdictions can arise among American jurisprudence. And so the major (central banking) lodge of America created in 1913 by Congress is the Federal Reserve.

Maybe that will help you adjust and calm down.

About ownership:

One suitor in the brain trust witnessed several employees at a bank that were fired and some bank accounts redeeming lawful money by demand were shut down. This was done on a Signature Card agreement that the bank could shut down any account for any reason - I am sure this clause is found in any standard Signature Card agreement. However no bank can do so because it is against fiduciary responsibility and policy to shut down bank accounts. However in this case, because the bank had not been treating the unbounded (un-bonded) funds as special deposits they risked being charged with counterfeiting and at the very least sanctions by the OCC supervising banking activity.

So the suitor is going to the next bank and of course all the other banks are learning that special deposits must be logged as special or there can be very severe consequences. The reason they shut down the bank accounts is that it cost the bank dearly. Otherwise they have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders and cannot shut down accounts on a whim.

I am proud of people who redeem and proud of myself for teaching and learning redemption.

Ergo an ego forms.

I create my ego and therefore I can claim ownership - all buttons included.

Own your buttons!

Own your buttons (too)!

However this is the only thing I truly own. My ego.

Everything else is owned by God as Creator, even my children were fabricated by and from the substance God the Creator provided. I fabricated them from materials already provided by the Creator. By registering them with the State I made attributes through the Israelite "Man Kings" and in some ways as trustee am saying that the State owns children. The same with land and motor vehicles. I accept Certificate of Title as title and like to ignore that I am using the State's car.

I suggest that you relax about it though. Just hold trustees to what they are bound to do - protect your use as beneficiary. Otherwise go freeze your fingers and toes in Freeman Valley, a mythical teepee-filled utopia in Canada somewhere... Four or five months out of the year I imagine it is kind of nice if somebody with a job is buying groceries.

shikamaru
12-15-12, 12:47 PM
I have been studying code, common law, money, new world order etc etc etc non stop for a week now... Everything runs in seemingly indefinite tangents because laws, code and supreme court rulings are so vast. I think I have broken my mind trying to wrap my head around this and sifting through fact and fiction.

My question are:
A) Is the only real end result of demanding lawful money the undermining of the Federal Reserve and lightening the debt load?

What other practical uses are there?

B) I'm assuming that you can argue that when you receive lawful money you are not earning "income" and therefore it is not taxable, so is this a benefit as well?

C) I have read in several places and forums (was it here?? as I said my mind is numb) that you can't REALLY own land because you are extinguishing a debt, not actually PAYING for it. Is this correct? Having asked that, am I wrong in assuming that in order to "own" land you can or need to set up a common law trust and somehow pay a debt off using "real" lawful money and holding title in the land in said trust?

I just feel overwhelmed with the seeming abyss of information. Can someone in a CONCISE manner outline the practical and applicable uses of demanding lawful money please or just reaffirm my assumptions.

Thanks very much

bamajips@gmail.com


I'll tackle the land law question. The others will be addressed by others.

There are factors with regard to owning land including mortgage, insurance, bonds written against the land as collateral for public debt, patents, titles, deeds, registration, etc.

Land held in trust is owned by the trust and not by a person.

Ownership comes in multiple varieties.
The two primary divisions of ownership are:

Common Law:: absolute (allodial) and qualified
Roman Civil Law:: dominium (dominion) and servitude

Most if not all people possess qualified ownership of their property, not absolute. Furthermore, they hold the abstract and title of the land, but not the land itself.
The land is distinct from the title and both from deed. A land patent is also known as a first title deed.
In addition, people share the ownership of the land with other entities i.e. banks, insurance companies, governments, districts, etc. for profit, benefit, gain, advantage, or privileges.

As to clearing the land of encumbrances, we can address that later.

Trusts are vehicles used for housing property for a purpose. Most trusts are dedicated to purposes of profit. A corporation is one of the most common forms of trusts today.
Trusts have their origin in English Common Law. An antecedent of the trust was the use. Uses and trusts came about from attorneys and those in the know seeking to evade the King's census regalia (royal revenues).

In essence, they were designed to evade the law :D.

If you are seeking to own land as a self-determined individual, you won't do it via trusts.

You are just starting out. If you are interested, you will be studying this stuff for the rest of your life. Your viewpoint and knowledge on these subjects will evolve and change over time as well. So, it isn't a sprint. It is a light jog.

I believe you should start at the beginning and not at the end (statutes, acts, codes, rules, and regulations).
I believe in starting in the past and moving forward. Things make much more sense studying the history and political backdrops before addressing statutes and acts.

Law is WILL backed by force. WILL of whom? WILL of the political power holder. The earliest and most practiced form of government in history are monarchies. The most extreme philosophy with respect to law being the will of the political power holder is the divine right of kings (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/166626/divine-right-of-kings).

The STATE is a creature born of conquest, dominion, warfare, and subjugation. Its purpose is revenue collection, militarism, property and resource tenuring, and subjugation.

BAMAJiPS
12-16-12, 04:45 AM
Well, I can see getting any simple answers will be difficult I think... Not trying to be snide or rude, but is there a reason to be so poetic almost whimsical? Is it because the situation is so grave and out of control that it is just an act of rebellion before the system collapses? I had to go back and read your response. I assume that the subject matter is so vast that it just can't be "explained" - perhaps only sincere individuals who truly seek will find the answers, and maybe thats the exercise - we got into this mess because we took for granted what we were told, rather than researched ourselves. I just have to keep at it and keep trying I suppose and when I have tangible proof of my actions, then you guys will perhaps be more direct in response. I get it :)

I believe God has everything in his control, so I don't worry about too much - but in the meantime think we need to be good stewards as we pass through this world. A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight. Prov 11:1

I went to my bank today and spoke with the branch manager. She will have my signature card there Monday after 1.

I plan on never endorsing a check ever again. It will be an exercise in discipline, but I think it is well worth it. Does this mean I will no longer have "income" and now have "compensation" which isn't taxable by the IRS?
I am completely aghast that America has been sold down the river. I think I have been in shock more than anything knowing that to claim our rights we have to escape the corporate code which is VERY difficult in our complacent lives.

I have also just been turned on to land patents. It's funny because I went to real estate school and have NEVER heard of land patents. Amazing how the "education" system failed to mention that. Oh - I cant wait for my blacks law dictionary to arrive either! :)

JohnnyCash
12-17-12, 06:22 AM
interesting tactics bamajips (http://jesse2012.com/1in25.jpg). Trying to browbeat info from suitors? And then publishing your email addy so you can continue to goad them & slur remedy on an individual basis? Good luck with that. I should think Proverbs 17:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2017:8&version=NLT) more appropriate for you.

BAMAJiPS
12-17-12, 07:07 AM
not trying to browbeat anyone... just stating my observations.
There appears to be almost a poetic dance here. I *assumed* from other newbies seeking information in other posts and after getting a rather... lets just say - less than direct answer - I drew my conclusion that I haven't figured out the way things operate here. Someone asked on another post something to the effect of "if you're trying to save the world, why don't you just come out and say how to do it?"
I am not worried about my email, thank you.
I did just read Proverbs 17:8 so I think I get it... perhaps I'll do better next go around

David Merrill
12-17-12, 08:51 AM
When one is in contract with the Fed it may be more like a lodge - a separate jurisdiction created by Congress. The rules of this Fed-lodge are really quite complex and maybe even arbitrary.

Stay out of contract with the Fed and the original jurisdiction 'saving to suitors' is much simpler and therefore easier to understand.

shikamaru
12-17-12, 12:08 PM
Well, I can see getting any simple answers will be difficult I think... Not trying to be snide or rude, but is there a reason to be so poetic almost whimsical? Is it because the situation is so grave and out of control that it is just an act of rebellion before the system collapses? I had to go back and read your response. I assume that the subject matter is so vast that it just can't be "explained" - perhaps only sincere individuals who truly seek will find the answers, and maybe thats the exercise - we got into this mess because we took for granted what we were told, rather than researched ourselves. I just have to keep at it and keep trying I suppose and when I have tangible proof of my actions, then you guys will perhaps be more direct in response. I get it :)

If you are looking for a silver bullet or easy fix, you are wasting your time.
This situation is centuries if not eons in the making.
The subject matter is vast and deep. It requires study. It requires work. It requires research. On top of all that, you've been indoctrinated all your life with false information. You will certainly be treading upstream.
As to the system collapsing, it isn't your system. I say develop your own system and take peace in that.

My system incorporates a good deal from the Old Testament.

No offense, but I'm detecting a degree of slothfulness on your part.
Being you quoted from the Bible in one of your posts, you should know that God helps those who help themselves. Helping one's self takes work and action.



I have also just been turned on to land patents. It's funny because I went to real estate school and have NEVER heard of land patents. Amazing how the "education" system failed to mention that. Oh - I cant wait for my blacks law dictionary to arrive either! :)

That's on purpose :). Why do you think government seeks to regulate everything?

If you study land patents, also study land grants as well.

BAMAJiPS
12-18-12, 01:22 AM
Common law, "money" and the matrix I just woke up from has blown my mind. I agree to my slothfulness. I see that it takes massive amount of study. I am intrigued by A4V but am scared as all get out thinking about attempting it... What IF it's just paranoid "freeman" nonsense ya know? I think David hit it on the head though with perhaps being 'arbitrary'.
I've always been a conservative and couldn't understand the how and why our country has ended up here... I think the simple fact of the Fed Reserve and UCC explains EVERYTHING.
I started researching when I served 4 days in jail for a debt when US Code forbids debtors jail and the Alabama constitution has it right in the first article that "no person shall be imprisoned for a debt". I wrote my state legislator as to how it could be and he didn't know. Research led me down this rabbit hole and I awoke in the matrix and realized I am a bond slave to the Fed Reserve note :( :( :(
Have to say - God warned us. The phrase "Don't work! Let your money work for you!" makes me sick now.
Thanks for the WONDERFUL website.
I watched David's video on the Fed Reserve remedy again - I think I will end up watching several times - but cant help but to think I'm listening to Jesse James the whole time. :)
Thanks guys

JohnnyCash
12-18-12, 02:11 AM
Sounds like you're well on your way. Just keep redeeming lawful money (with good recordkeeping) and everything else should fall into place. How'd it go at the bank today?

David Merrill
12-18-12, 07:33 AM
There is certainly a lot to be learned by doing.

Chipper registered and posted one post (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?757-Respectfully-Disagree-with-David&p=8953&viewfull=1#post8953) (so far) that has caught my attention. If you would take time to read my commentary and the red highlights then you might comprehend a little better the points I have been making.

I believe that Chipper's interpretation of Title 12 USC §411 is definitely clearer than mine, maybe even more correct about the distinctions of FRNs public and private. However he leads to the interpretation that FRNs in the public as cash are based in nothing and that is in my opinion, just too... fragile! With no confidence and security building measures such as the SDR replacing the gold in around 1976 then people would not have that good faith and credit in the money as backed by the national debt.

Therefore I restate my coined definition of SDR's - The measure of conditioning for people to endorse the private credit of the local central bank - in the US, the Fed. By even attempting to redeem lawful money by demand you remove your conditioned support as a brick in the zigurat (pyramid) on the back side of the "dollar"; any way around it and by any interpretation you choose.

There are no silver bullets but getting your head clear of the conditioning is a great start toward better providence and will help you keep out of the mire when the gold is reinstated at $42.22/troy ounce. To everybody else, it will appear to be a "collapse".



Regards,

David Merrill.



P.S.


I watched David's video on the Fed Reserve remedy again - I think I will end up watching several times - but cant help but to think I'm listening to Jesse James the whole time.

With all his alleged alter egos on the Web, I suppose you might find him producing videos in my name some day. I am thinking to produce a 10-minute video; Redeeming Lawful Money for Dummies...

BAMAJiPS
12-18-12, 06:38 PM
Sounds like you're well on your way. Just keep redeeming lawful money (with good recordkeeping) and everything else should fall into place. How'd it go at the bank today?

I now carry with me and don't want to spend an old $20 bill to plant seeds. I showed the bank manager the message on the $20FRN that I could redeem in lawful money - I asked her if she remembered US Notes- any way she was real receptive to the idea and very accommodating. I put my toe in to test the water and even made comment that she realizes this will decrease her banks lending capacity (we had a discussion on fractional lending). Bottom line was she was very intrigued and made me well aware she was there to serve me as a customer! It's a small regional bank so I wonder if when the senior management figures it out if I will receive some kickback.

I am now a Johnny Appleseed. I can't make people pay attention if they don't want to but I am using the old FRN disclaimer to plant seeds and let people know we are indeed bond servants.

David Merrill
12-18-12, 09:19 PM
Nice! I have heard how rewarding that kind of communication/creation can be. Teaching is learning and learning is teaching.




I now carry with me and don't want to spend an old $20 bill to plant seeds. I showed the bank manager the message on the $20FRN that I could redeem in lawful money - I asked her if she remembered US Notes- any way she was real receptive to the idea and very accommodating. I put my toe in to test the water and even made comment that she realizes this will decrease her banks lending capacity (we had a discussion on fractional lending). Bottom line was she was very intrigued and made me well aware she was there to serve me as a customer! It's a small regional bank so I wonder if when the senior management figures it out if I will receive some kickback.

I am now a Johnny Appleseed. I can't make people pay attention if they don't want to but I am using the old FRN disclaimer to plant seeds and let people know we are indeed bond servants.

BAMAJiPS
12-19-12, 03:09 AM
[QUOTE=David Merrill;8954]

There are no silver bullets but getting your head clear of the conditioning is a great start toward better providence and will help you keep out of the mire when the gold is reinstated at $42.22/troy ounce. To everybody else, it will appear to be a "collapse".

(hopefully I quoted right) - I can only read so much in a day, and I am now cognizant of the need for a slow jog pace and maybe my questions will have to be answered only in due time... but I am curious... my head hasn't wrapped itself around this yet:

When we "demand lawful money" on all our incoming money to the bank, what happens when we "spend" that money? HOW do we "spend" it without US Notes in circulation? Do we spend it? If we have a bank account full of lawful money and we use our debit card - are we spending lawful money or spending debts (FRN's)?

As David said, "when" the dollar is put back on the gold standard (and I heard that for the longest time), does that mean if I have a modest bank account stocked with LAWFUL money, that my bank account will read almost 40:1 what someones bank account will read with all FRN's? (I base this on two assumptions - Gold at $1600/oz FRN and gold at $40/oz USNotes [without looking up actual spot prices])
I am assuming that a lawful note is worth (roughly) 40:1 vs the FRN (POTENTIALLY)?
Maybe I need to ask these in a new thread, or maybe they tie into my initial question - I don't know. Please bare with me. I have learned an immense amount in just over a week. I doubt I will ever use an attorney again except maybe for review opinion. I am just having trouble wrapping my head around how we can "spend" lawful money, rather than just acquire it. (Almost all google searches referencing "lawful money" redirect to suitors club) :)

Thanks guys

JohnnyCash
12-19-12, 04:17 AM
When we "demand lawful money" on all our incoming money to the bank, what happens when we "spend" that money? HOW do we "spend" it without US Notes in circulation? Do we spend it? If we have a bank account full of lawful money and we use our debit card - are we spending lawful money or spending debts (FRN's)? Then we are spending lawful money. And we own whatever is purchased with it; US Treasury doesn't carry first lien; we own those purchases in highest title.



I went to my bank today and spoke with the branch manager. She will have my signature card there Monday after 1. Did you get the signature card innovated (http://jesse2012.com/signcard.jpg) as you wanted?

BAMAJiPS
12-19-12, 04:31 AM
Did you get the signature card innovated (http://jesse2012.com/signcard.jpg) as you wanted?

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU for posting the example. I got the entire contract printed and am going to review it, but I sat there and stared at the signature card not seeing anything I could do to it to make it "my own". Thank you for the example so I now know what to do to make it "mine".

Im not stupid - but trying to overcome the conditioning and understanding that contract law allows amendments (on the spot) is proving to be a challenge. Again thank you for the example.

BAMAJiPS
12-19-12, 04:50 AM
Is it just me Johnny or, looking at your signature card, do illegal aliens have FAR more rights than we do as "citizens"? The more this simmers, the more blown away/angry I become

JohnnyCash
12-19-12, 05:44 AM
Not sure why you perceive aliens to have more rights than citizens, unless you're focusing on the bit about U.S. person (http://losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2869).

David Merrill
12-19-12, 07:58 AM
[QUOTE=David Merrill;8954]

There are no silver bullets but getting your head clear of the conditioning is a great start toward better providence and will help you keep out of the mire when the gold is reinstated at $42.22/troy ounce. To everybody else, it will appear to be a "collapse".

(hopefully I quoted right) - I can only read so much in a day, and I am now cognizant of the need for a slow jog pace and maybe my questions will have to be answered only in due time... but I am curious... my head hasn't wrapped itself around this yet:

When we "demand lawful money" on all our incoming money to the bank, what happens when we "spend" that money? HOW do we "spend" it without US Notes in circulation? Do we spend it? If we have a bank account full of lawful money and we use our debit card - are we spending lawful money or spending debts (FRN's)?

As David said, "when" the dollar is put back on the gold standard (and I heard that for the longest time), does that mean if I have a modest bank account stocked with LAWFUL money, that my bank account will read almost 40:1 what someones bank account will read with all FRN's? (I base this on two assumptions - Gold at $1600/oz FRN and gold at $40/oz USNotes [without looking up actual spot prices])
I am assuming that a lawful note is worth (roughly) 40:1 vs the FRN (POTENTIALLY)?
Maybe I need to ask these in a new thread, or maybe they tie into my initial question - I don't know. Please bare with me. I have learned an immense amount in just over a week. I doubt I will ever use an attorney again except maybe for review opinion. I am just having trouble wrapping my head around how we can "spend" lawful money, rather than just acquire it. (Almost all google searches referencing "lawful money" redirect to suitors club) :)

Thanks guys

There are discrepancies by Congress that blockade logic and reason. Of course you would have to spend a few days here alone to cover everything but I have written about changing United States notes to United States currency notes. Interestingly two ladies, who have never shown much interest in becoming suitors or even posting here called me and lectured me about this statute at Title 31 USC §5115. I was presuming it was a simple name change. These angels (literally?) pointed out how Congress had put US notes into a bundle of other currencies of lawful money.

Just the same it still does not link together without wrapping your mind around Special Drawing Rights.

So as you make your demand for lawful money known, sometimes through a Notice and Demand in an evidence repository in the USDC or otherwise with your bank, maybe to your nearest Federal Reserve Bank etc. then you progress and evolve your transactions in the right direction toward substantial currency as US notes cannot be used for a reserve currency. Without SDR's the value of the "Dollar" would always reconcile with four quarters whether Federal Reserve notes or United States notes.

Perhaps a whimsical conversation with a coin dealer while discussing a copy of the Senate Report (http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/3599/publiclaw94564.pdf) from 1976. I suggested that he sell me an ounce coin for $42.22/troy ounce and then I go sell that for Spot at the next coin shop, then come back and buy up two or three more ounces at $42.22. He wanted me to try that out at a different coin shop of course. [That is exactly what buying and selling the dollar domestic and foreign was that caused the Amendments to the Bretton Woods Agreements in 1976!]

JohnnyCash
12-19-12, 04:05 PM
There are no silver bullets but ... I have found Led (http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=8pPvNqOb6RA#t=255s) to have greater power anyway.



If there's a bustle in your hedgerow, don't be alarmed now,
It's just a sprinkling for the Bake queen.
Yes, there are two paths (https://www.google.com/search?q=Public+Money+v+Private+Credit) you can go by, but in the long run
There's still time to change the road you're on.
And it makes me wonder.

Chex
12-19-12, 07:33 PM
I will never listen to this song the same way I ever did before. Thanks JC.

BAMAJiPS
12-19-12, 08:52 PM
My small regional bank's CFO just called me. He is investigating the situation. He says he will be discussing it with council and seeing how they ammend the signature card or even account for it. He says in his 20 years he has never heard of such a thing, but says it doesnt suprise him with the looming "fiscal cliff". He was very intrigued about the idea so I encouraged him to study it.

My only fear is that as I educate more people, they use this technique and when the bank realizes this reduces their lending capacity, they may hike fees or try to find some creative solutions to combat it.

It's pretty damn empowering when you rattle off "Title 12 USC section 411" and the CFO of a corporation is on the other end typing it in and says "Oh, there it is, sure as you're born. Wow."

If they use the "we aren't a reserve bank" then I will point them to David's wonderful video notation that FRN's are ONLY for federal reserve banks and since I have them I am indeed a Federal Reserve Bank as is my local bank!

Knowledge is power! I am very thankful for you guys!

David Merrill
12-19-12, 11:06 PM
My small regional bank's CFO just called me. He is investigating the situation. He says he will be discussing it with council and seeing how they ammend the signature card or even account for it. He says in his 20 years he has never heard of such a thing, but says it doesnt suprise him with the looming "fiscal cliff". He was very intrigued about the idea so I encouraged him to study it.

My only fear is that as I educate more people, they use this technique and when the bank realizes this reduces their lending capacity, they may hike fees or try to find some creative solutions to combat it.

It's pretty damn empowering when you rattle off "Title 12 USC section 411" and the CFO of a corporation is on the other end typing it in and says "Oh, there it is, sure as you're born. Wow."

If they use the "we aren't a reserve bank" then I will point them to David's wonderful video notation that FRN's are ONLY for federal reserve banks and since I have them I am indeed a Federal Reserve Bank as is my local bank!

Knowledge is power! I am very thankful for you guys!

It is exciting as well to watch your experience. Thank you for sharing. I am wondering, did you actually submit your signature card yet?

If so, did you remember to get a copy?

BAMAJiPS
12-19-12, 11:44 PM
My local branch was very receptive and actually encouraging of what I am attempting to do. I went BACK today to try to amend my signature card after reviewing it monday without seeing anywhere to "check a box" or write it in. Although they were enthusiastic, they balked when I wanted to actually write on my signature card and thought it best to contact the upper management on "how" to do it - because, to their credit, they were worried that that piece of paper would just sit in a file folder in their office and not be credited properly in the bank's ledger. I had every intention of documenting what I was going to do with my signature card, but nothing happened and they wanted to see how to make it stick with the legal dept so it was binding. As soon as I sign, noted, alter, any documents I will certainly photo and provide updates!

WAIT A MINUTE!!! No way! NO WAY!!! How coincidental is this??? I remarked on how much you sound like Jesse James from West Coast Choppers and Austin Speed Shop and LOOK! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Tracy

David Merrill was Jesse James' cohort! Have I uncovered another secret??

BAMAJiPS
12-19-12, 11:48 PM
Oh I misread that - Harry Tracy was compared to Jesse James in the story. Grrr (Im reading way way too much this past week)

David Merrill
12-20-12, 09:06 AM
Harry TRACY and David MERRILL made an escape from prison together, so I guess they were cohorts for a little while...

BAMAJiPS
12-20-12, 04:30 PM
Bank CFO just called me back. He still thinks its an interesting idea and conveyed that he was going to research it more on a personal level, but said that legal council had come back with supreme court rulings that FRN's were indeed termed "lawful money" and that the original 1913 act was amended in 1933, so he went on to say there's just nothing they can do.

I have been trying to absorb the supreme court cases and, as pointed out in the Remedy video, men in black robes say the FRN is legal TENDER. I've read US v Rickman, Milam, appellant v us and a few others - and I can't use any of these things to advance my case. In bureaucrat circles I suppose legal tender is synonymous with lawful money and they dont want to deal with it.

It leads me to ask the question - in the banks that DO accept "Demand lawful money pursuant to Title 12 USC s411", do they actually ledger the books differently? I say they have to - they can't fractional lend on that money right? On the other side of the coin, is this all just an exercise of us doing our due diligence and keeping our own records in a passive manner for us to claim to have gotten lawful money in any actions down the road?

Either way, I'm discouraged. Time to watch the video AGAIN and then study more on saving to suitors clause... Im not sure I understand all that's entailed there --- had to read Black's Law on what "In Rem" was, so it makes me wonder...

BAMAJiPS
12-20-12, 04:38 PM
1002

What more can I do? #Frustrated

BAMAJiPS
12-22-12, 04:37 PM
I have interesting news today. I deposited a check, my first attempt, and when I did so I did notendorse it . I placed on the back "demand lawful money ( US note) as per Title 12 USC S 411" then I signed James Paul DBA James Paul Fexxxxxxx and as an added layer under that I added "UCC 1-308 without pejudice"

The girl at the drive through didn't skip a beat and asked if there was anything se she could do for me.
I checked my account via iPhone app and saw something - it was coded different than any other deposit I've ever seen!!! Instead of being labeled "deposit" it was coded "BY 31 1196". This after all the runaround from the CFO! Ill post pictures tonight when I get home.

I wonder if ill get another phone call!!

I'm James Paul by the way guys. It's been a pleasure [slowly] learning from you guys.

Michael Joseph
12-22-12, 05:07 PM
I have interesting news today. I deposited a check, my first attempt, and when I did so I did notendorse it . I placed on the back "demand lawful money ( US note) as per Title 12 USC S 411" then I signed James Paul DBA James Paul Fexxxxxxx and as an added layer under that I added "UCC 1-308 without pejudice"

The girl at the drive through didn't skip a beat and asked if there was anything se she could do for me.
I checked my account via iPhone app and saw something - it was coded different than any other deposit I've ever seen!!! Instead of being labeled "deposit" it was coded "BY 31 1196". This after all the runaround from the CFO! Ill post pictures tonight when I get home.

I wonder if ill get another phone call!!

I'm James Paul by the way guys. It's been a pleasure [slowly] learning from you guys.

Hello James Paul,

In my estimate, the FRN is a dual capacity note. So I will say it like this: There are TWO seals on said note and two signatories. So then both the USN and the FRN are legal tender and Both are LAWFUL TO USE but only one is Lawful Money OF the United States. Just like there can be two children in a room from two different families and one child is OF his daddy and another child is OF his daddy.

So then any slick is going to just say you got lawful money - but that is obfuscation in that a FRN is lawful to USE but is NOT lawful money OF the United States.

As I said this is my opinion.

Shalom,
MJ

Brian
12-22-12, 06:29 PM
Hello James Paul,

In my estimate, the FRN is a dual capacity note. So I will say it like this: There are TWO seals on said note and two signatories. So then both the USN and the FRN are legal tender and Both are LAWFUL TO USE but only one is Lawful Money OF the United States. Just like there can be two children in a room from two different families and one child is OF his daddy and another child is OF his daddy.

So then any slick is going to just say you got lawful money - but that is obfuscation in that a FRN is lawful to USE but is NOT lawful money OF the United States.

As I said this is my opinion.

Shalom,
MJ

Bingo! What matters is who issues the "money". The treasury of the US or A private bank. Lawful money of the U.S. (coin or US currency notes) or Bank credit (Lawful money).

shikamaru
12-22-12, 06:58 PM
Bingo! What matters is who issues the "money". The treasury of the US or A private bank. Lawful money of the U.S. (coin or US currency notes) or Bank credit (Lawful money).

Notes, bills, and coins issued by the U.S. Treasury (actually .... the Department of the Treasury) is lawful money.

Notes and bills issued by the FRB is legal tender.

US Treasury bills and notes are used as a reserve currency, but not a circulating one.

Also, don't you find it strange that the article 'the' is in the official title?

Strangely enough, I've heard that postal money orders are lawful money.

Brian
12-23-12, 01:09 AM
Notes, bills, and coins issued by the U.S. Treasury (actually .... the Department of the Treasury) is lawful money.

Notes and bills issued by the FRB is legal tender.

US Treasury bills and notes are used as a reserve currency, but not a circulating one.

Also, don't you find it strange that the article 'the' is in the official title?

Strangely enough, I've heard that postal money orders are lawful money.

Shik, re-read pages 6 and 7 of this doc: Lawful Money (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImZTc4MGNlZjMtMGRmMy00ZmJhLThlYWItZTVhZ jA0MzczODM4/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1)

I think there may be a distinction between "lawful money" and "lawful money of the U.S." That distinction being who issues it. Both may be lawful (authorized by law) but one is issued by a private bank and the other by the Treasury. I don't know for sure, but it seems to fit. At any rate does adding "of the U.S." make it any less effective?

JohnnyCash
12-23-12, 01:29 AM
I have interesting news today. I deposited a check, my first attempt, and when I did so I did notendorse it . I placed on the back "demand lawful money ( US note) as per Title 12 USC S 411" then I signed James Paul DBA James Paul Fexxxxxxx and as an added layer under that I added "UCC 1-308 without pejudice"

What's interesting is how some folks just can't seem to remember a simple demand. "Redeemed Lawful Money pursuant to 12 USC 411" Eight words. Not saying your demand won't work but user "freedave" here also had lotsa trouble with this (just like BAMAJiPS). Kept rearranging and adding new words into the demand before disappearing about a year ago. Or was it just feigned trouble and ignorance?

Michael Joseph
12-23-12, 01:41 AM
Shik, re-read pages 6 and 7 of this doc: Lawful Money (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImZTc4MGNlZjMtMGRmMy00ZmJhLThlYWItZTVhZ jA0MzczODM4/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1)

I think there may be a distinction between "lawful money" and "lawful money of the U.S." That distinction being who issues it. Both may be lawful (authorized by law) but one is issued by a private bank and the other by the Treasury. I don't know for sure, but it seems to fit. At any rate does adding "of the U.S." make it any less effective?


Look at the Seals on the Note. If you are on the LEFT hand side you have a Federal Reserve Note - see the FRS seal. But we are told to fish out of the RIGHT SIDE of the Boat - see the U.S. Seal - look closely at the date. See if you can tell me the date and then see if you can tell me the significance of that date. You can do it.

Ah heck, I will do it for you: Date 1789. Why is this significant? Hint September 24, 1789. What was done prior to establishing the Districts in 1790? What I am discussing IS THE CRUX of this Site.

Speaking historically, the districts, formed in 1790 for handling the financial obligations of the United States could not come into existence until after formal expression of remedy in the 'saving to suitors' clause (1789) quoted below and codified at Title 28 U.S.C.A. §1333:

"...the United States, ... within their respective districts, as well as upon the high seas; (a) saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land,..." The First Judiciary Act; September 24, 1789; Chapter 20, page 77. The Constitution of the United States of America, Revised and Annotated - Analysis and Interpretation - 1982; Article III, §2, Cl. 1 Diversity of Citizenship, U.S. Government Printing Office document 99-16, p. 741. (emphasis added)

=====

Regarding Postal Money Orders they are issued "PAY TO" they lack the language of negotiability which is "PAY TO THE ORDER OF". This means that a Postal Money Order is non-assignable.

Why get so wrapped up in semantics, the answer is simple : how to get lawful money : THEY SHALL BE REDEEMED IN LAWFUL MONEY ON DEMAND.....AT ANY FEDERAL RESERVE BANK.

Now then anyone making a use of Federal Reserve Notes is by default is involved in Federal Reserve Banking. So dear reader, Walmart, Wells Fargo, Best Buy are all Federal Reserve Banks.

On my side of the counter - "Demand is made for lawful money per 12USC411" is my administrative lawful process. I don't give a crap what is actually happening on the other side of the counter. If I make a use for the benefit of the Public, then the Public gets the benefit. And it is known that HE WHO IS WITH THE BENEFIT IS WITH THE OBLIGATION. So then, I allow the Trustee to perform and I hope to never trespass his office.


Shalom,
Michael Joseph

David Merrill
12-23-12, 02:37 AM
Very Advanced!

Anthony Joseph
12-23-12, 03:22 AM
Look at the Seals on the Note. If you are on the LEFT hand side you have a Federal Reserve Note - see the FRS seal. But we are told to fish out of the RIGHT SIDE of the Boat - see the U.S. Seal - look closely at the date. See if you can tell me the date and then see if you can tell me the significance of that date. You can do it.

Ah heck, I will do it for you: Date 1789. Why is this significant? Hint September 24, 1789. What was done prior to establishing the Districts in 1790? What I am discussing IS THE CRUX of this Site.

Speaking historically, the districts, formed in 1790 for handling the financial obligations of the United States could not come into existence until after formal expression of remedy in the 'saving to suitors' clause (1789) quoted below and codified at Title 28 U.S.C.A. §1333:

"...the United States, ... within their respective districts, as well as upon the high seas; (a) saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land,..." The First Judiciary Act; September 24, 1789; Chapter 20, page 77. The Constitution of the United States of America, Revised and Annotated - Analysis and Interpretation - 1982; Article III, §2, Cl. 1 Diversity of Citizenship, U.S. Government Printing Office document 99-16, p. 741. (emphasis added)

=====

Regarding Postal Money Orders they are issued "PAY TO" they lack the language of negotiability which is "PAY TO THE ORDER OF". This means that a Postal Money Order is non-assignable.

Why get so wrapped up in semantics, the answer is simple : how to get lawful money : THEY SHALL BE REDEEMED IN LAWFUL MONEY ON DEMAND.....AT ANY FEDERAL RESERVE BANK.

Now then anyone making a use of Federal Reserve Notes is by default is involved in Federal Reserve Banking. So dear reader, Walmart, Wells Fargo, Best Buy are all Federal Reserve Banks.

On my side of the counter - "Demand is made for lawful money per 12USC411" is my administrative lawful process. I don't give a crap what is actually happening on the other side of the counter. If I make a use for the benefit of the Public, then the Public gets the benefit. And it is known that HE WHO IS WITH THE BENEFIT IS WITH THE OBLIGATION. So then, I allow the Trustee to perform and I hope to never trespass his office.


Shalom,
Michael Joseph

What were the "respective districts" within the United States in 1789 prior to the formation in 1790?

Michael Joseph
12-23-12, 03:30 AM
What were the "respective districts" within the United States in 1789 prior to the formation in 1790?

Excellent Question: Consider the following word groupings:..

In the United States District Court
for the District of North Carolina

Anthony Joseph
12-23-12, 03:59 AM
Excellent Question: Consider the following word groupings:..

In the United States District Court
for the District of North Carolina

Excellent answer.

To make it more clear...

The States United, within their respective districts, as opposed to, The United States Districts.

David Merrill
12-24-12, 02:23 PM
I still think it better, plainer, to say the city of Washington (overlaid fiction upon) in the State. Put this way it expresses a municipal jurisdiction that has been imposed upon the states for revenue purposes (http://img824.imageshack.us/f/1790districtsestablishe.jpg).

Further to clarify, the Act of 1790 was what obligated the State(s) through the imposed district(s) to collect revenue toward the debts of the city of Washington - the United States (one of the three USSC-acceptable definitions). However if you were to look into the Judiciary Act of 1789 (http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/834/judiciaryactof1789.pdf) you would likely find as according to Dr. Dale LIVINGSTON Esq. (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImRTBxUnpYQ3EycjQ) that was actually when the districts were formed.

Listen to the 8:00 Minute Mark there and get to the center of the delusion. The US government was never formed on a territorial jurisdiction; but rather a municipal jurisdiction of New York City. LIVINGSTON has organized this setting in his mind as based on a fraud but then again his ancestor NY Chief Justice Robert LIVINGSTON (Grand Master) was involved. He goes on to the 12:00 Minute Mark though to describe NY as the only state that did not want to get involved by sending its delegates to ratify. Then two minutes later (14:00) we find Alexander HAMILTON (the central banking advocate) is the only delegate for NY being two more delegates short. The 16:45 Minute Mark reveals that the Grand Master of the Masons swore in WASHINGTON, and that was done on the porch of the Lodge!

In modern times the same exercise of the Masons as Priests (http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/9579/templestonesmogandavid.jpg) is expressed through municipal home rule:


http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Resignation.gif

The priests' dominions are the cities and their suburbs - look at I Chronicles chapter 6. It takes quite a while to discover how clear and simple this all is. But well worth the journey for me especially being a Patroon and descended from the Patroon who built that wall around his estate on Manhattan that became Wall Street - where WASHINGTON was sworn in! Here is the Van Pelt Milestone as found today:


http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/3596/vanpeltmilestone.jpg

Notice with whom it sets in the Brooklyn Historical Society Museum. When destiny (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDlcM_DQBOc) and heritage (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlTZOIYYLNw)are coherent, there is peace.



Regards,

David Merrill.

shikamaru
12-24-12, 06:30 PM
Shik, re-read pages 6 and 7 of this doc: Lawful Money (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImZTc4MGNlZjMtMGRmMy00ZmJhLThlYWItZTVhZ jA0MzczODM4/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1)

I think there may be a distinction between "lawful money" and "lawful money of the U.S." That distinction being who issues it. Both may be lawful (authorized by law) but one is issued by a private bank and the other by the Treasury. I don't know for sure, but it seems to fit. At any rate does adding "of the U.S." make it any less effective?

Bank credit becomes legal tender when mandated by a government to be accepted for payment of debt by creditors.
Legal tender laws are an obligation on creditors, not debtors.

Lawful money has a wider significance than legal tender according to Shoonra the Useful :).

Keith Alan
12-25-12, 04:47 PM
Bank credit becomes legal tender when mandated by a government to be accepted for payment of debt by creditors.
Legal tender laws are an obligation on creditors, not debtors.

Lawful money has a wider significance than legal tender according to Shoonra the Useful :).

And creditors, having been obliged to receive legal tender, can then find remedy by demanding lawful money at any Federal Reserve bank. That much seems clear.

David Merrill
12-26-12, 09:52 AM
And creditors, having been obliged to receive legal tender, can then find remedy by demanding lawful money at any Federal Reserve bank. That much seems clear.

That sheds some great light, thank you.



Endorsers receive the benefit of being a creditor but never collect on the benefit (consideration) thus rendering the contract "naked".



http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_NameDefinition.jpg

Keith Alan
12-27-12, 03:49 AM
Yes I suppose it does strengthen the argument for demanding lawful money. The more I learn about this, the more I'm stymied by government's apparently deliberate obfuscation of what otherwise should be a clear and simple procedure.

They hide the remedy, withold US notes from circulation, and require unreasonable conditions to exercise what plainly is a civil right.

David Merrill
12-28-12, 09:57 AM
Yes I suppose it does strengthen the argument for demanding lawful money. The more I learn about this, the more I'm stymied by government's apparently deliberate obfuscation of what otherwise should be a clear and simple procedure.

They hide the remedy, withold US notes from circulation, and require unreasonable conditions to exercise what plainly is a civil right.


I think the government has been by and large replaced by a central banking cartel, a public trust, named the Federal Reserve System. It is as though Congress has become a subservient agent of the Fed.

Keith Alan
01-01-13, 05:00 PM
I think the government has been by and large replaced by a central banking cartel, a public trust, named the Federal Reserve System. It is as though Congress has become a subservient agent of the Fed.

That appears to be the case. It does literally look like the US went into receivership to the Fed, and is now working for the Fed collecting revenues.

David Merrill
01-01-13, 05:32 PM
Yes I suppose it does strengthen the argument for demanding lawful money. The more I learn about this, the more I'm stymied by government's apparently deliberate obfuscation of what otherwise should be a clear and simple procedure.

They hide the remedy, withold US notes from circulation, and require unreasonable conditions to exercise what plainly is a civil right.

It does literally look like the US went into receivership to the Fed, and is now working for the Fed collecting revenues.

That is probably the best mental model. Thanks!

To the dishonesty - I think it is our fault that we do not know how to access the law. I have the federal repository available and have learned a lot there. The real dishonesty would seem to be keeping the US notes pegged to a reserve currency when the US notes cannot be used for a reserve currency. Look a the statute and notes (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5115). They did this by bundling US notes into US currency notes, a larger package of lawful moneys.



(a) The Secretary of the Treasury may issue United States currency notes. The notes—


(1) are payable to bearer; and
(2) shall be in a form and in denominations of at least one dollar that the Secretary prescribes.


(b) The amount of United States currency notes outstanding and in circulation—


(1) may not be more than $300,000,000; and
(2) may not be held or used for a reserve.




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

Keith Alan
01-01-13, 07:55 PM
It does literally look like the US went into receivership to the Fed, and is now working for the Fed collecting revenues.

That is probably the best mental model. Thanks!

To the dishonesty - I think it is our fault that we do not know how to access the law. I have the federal repository available and have learned a lot there. The real dishonesty would seem to be keeping the US notes pegged to a reserve currency when the US notes cannot be used for a reserve currency. Look a the statute and notes (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5115). They did this by bundling US notes into US currency notes, a larger package of lawful moneys.

I've thought about this too, but when you demand redemption in lawful money today, perhaps you are receiving an entirely different kind of currency. It still looks like an FRN, but you're liening the Treasury's seal and signatures, not the Fed's credit. I'm kind of thinking out loud here, but clearly you're not receiving a US note.

Now if that's the case, what is it? It's not hard money, because it's pegged to a reserve currency. It must be another form of credit, but one where the liability for it is with the US, and not the holder.

PS - It just occurred to me: lawful money not in the form of US notes or other lawful money must be the fruit of a constructive trust. You're creating it by operation of law.

Working Dog
01-01-13, 09:12 PM
A thread of this nature always makes this definition from Webster's 1828 dictionary flash in my mind.

1828 Definition


FRAUD, n. [L. fraus.]


Deceit; deception; trick; artifice by which the right or interest of another is injured; a stratagem intended to obtain some undue advantage; an attempt to gain or the obtaining of an advantage over another by imposition or immoral means, particularly deception in contracts, or bargain and sale, either by stating falsehoods, or suppressing truth.


The last words - suppressing truth - seems to be what we are being exposed to. Congress started suppressing truth a long time ago. I believe truth is usually found at the beginning.

David Merrill
01-01-13, 10:08 PM
I've thought about this too, but when you demand redemption in lawful money today, perhaps you are receiving an entirely different kind of currency. It still looks like an FRN, but you're liening the Treasury's seal and signatures, not the Fed's credit. I'm kind of thinking out loud here, but clearly you're not receiving a US note.

Now if that's the case, what is it? It's not hard money, because it's pegged to a reserve currency. It must be another form of credit, but one where the liability for it is with the US, and not the holder.

PS - It just occurred to me: lawful money not in the form of US notes or other lawful money must be the fruit of a constructive trust. You're creating it by operation of law.

Federal Reserve Notes are also obligations of the United States. See the second sentence of §411. Therefore I think you are saying the same thing a different way. Pegging US notes to FRNs by bundling them into United States currency notes has never made sense in honor to me. I believe that they had to do that to call Title 31 positive law. But pegging a currency to a reserve currency that cannot be used for a reserve currency has never added up to me. I think that is where Congress went criminal syndicalism right there.

I would certainly appreciate anybody who can explain it so that it makes honest sense.



The last words - suppressing truth - seems to be what we are being exposed to. Congress started suppressing truth a long time ago. I believe truth is usually found at the beginning.


What he said!

Keith Alan
01-01-13, 10:28 PM
No doubt you understand it better than I do. I still want to believe they're following the law, but it may be criminal deceit. But if it's criminal, then I need a different strategy. If I can't expect them to follow the law, then going completely under the radar is better.

Until recently, I've believed they've been operating under the doctrine of necessity and warpowers, stretching meaning and intent as far as possible, but still in the guidelines provided in the Constitution. Which reminds me, a good book to look at is War Powers by William Whiting. It's available on google books for free. Very enlightening.

Treefarmer
01-02-13, 02:54 AM
After the last few years of research and first-hand IRS experiences, I have come to the conclusion that FRNs are considered Lawful Money, as explained here (http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_15197.htm).

Once this LM comes in to a PERSON's bank account, the IRS considers it taxable income, as explained here (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p2105.pdf).
What makes it "taxable income"?
Well, it "came in" and a PERSON is a taxpayer right?

I think it would help to watch the movie Idiocracy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Crdao-yNAIA) at this point, in order to understand the legal reasoning that's employed.
Words have obviously changed their meaning since the founding of this country.

The USA was sold to Rome for nothing, and US government has been reduced to administrative tribunals. All the politicians and judges are owned by Rome, and so are the banks of course, and most corporations, directly or indirectly.
Might makes it right, as there is no rule of law anymore. The law which once was has been quietly overridden by secret treaties with Rome, via the venue of the UN.
The law is whatever they tell a PERSON that it is, via executive order, which is why no government entity including the courts, will ever talk with a man/woman anymore, but only acknowledge PERSONS.
For now, Rome's voodoo (http://www.unidroit.org/english/members/main.htm) only works on PERSONS.

Rome will soon seek to change this, and will number men/women directly, which the Bible calls "the mark of the beast".

Brian
01-02-13, 07:41 AM
After the last few years of research and first-hand IRS experiences, I have come to the conclusion that FRNs are considered Lawful Money, as explained here (http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_15197.htm).

Once this LM comes in to a PERSON's bank account, the IRS considers it taxable income, as explained here (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p2105.pdf).
What makes it "taxable income"?
Well, it "came in" and a PERSON is a taxpayer right?

I think it would help to watch the movie Idiocracy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Crdao-yNAIA) at this point, in order to understand the legal reasoning that's employed.
Words have obviously changed their meaning since the founding of this country.

The USA was sold to Rome for nothing, and US government has been reduced to administrative tribunals. All the politicians and judges are owned by Rome, and so are the banks of course, and most corporations, directly or indirectly.
Might makes it right, as there is no rule of law anymore. The law which once was has been quietly overridden by secret treaties with Rome, via the venue of the UN.
The law is whatever they tell a PERSON that it is, via executive order, which is why no government entity including the courts, will ever talk with a man/woman anymore, but only acknowledge PERSONS.
For now, Rome's voodoo (http://www.unidroit.org/english/members/main.htm) only works on PERSONS.

Rome will soon seek to change this, and will number men/women directly, which the Bible calls "the mark of the beast".

Tree, yes I think they could be considered lawful money in that they ARE authorized by law. The tax is on the transfer of bank/fed credit into your account. These money subsitutes are not issued by the Treasury and their use is completely voluntary. Which is why I've added the "lawful money of the US", meaning issued by the treasury and not a private bank. As for how the bank handles it... does not matter to me. The key is demanding treasury issued coin or US currency notes.
Have you met resistence from the beast in your dealings with them?

David Merrill
01-02-13, 10:25 AM
After the last few years of research and first-hand IRS experiences, I have come to the conclusion that FRNs are considered Lawful Money, as explained here (http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_15197.htm).

Once this LM comes in to a PERSON's bank account, the IRS considers it taxable income, as explained here (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p2105.pdf).
What makes it "taxable income"?
Well, it "came in" and a PERSON is a taxpayer right?

I think it would help to watch the movie Idiocracy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Crdao-yNAIA) at this point, in order to understand the legal reasoning that's employed.
Words have obviously changed their meaning since the founding of this country.

The USA was sold to Rome for nothing, and US government has been reduced to administrative tribunals. All the politicians and judges are owned by Rome, and so are the banks of course, and most corporations, directly or indirectly.
Might makes it right, as there is no rule of law anymore. The law which once was has been quietly overridden by secret treaties with Rome, via the venue of the UN.
The law is whatever they tell a PERSON that it is, via executive order, which is why no government entity including the courts, will ever talk with a man/woman anymore, but only acknowledge PERSONS.
For now, Rome's voodoo (http://www.unidroit.org/english/members/main.htm) only works on PERSONS.

Rome will soon seek to change this, and will number men/women directly, which the Bible calls "the mark of the beast".



This perception is to be expected originating from Romans 13. Paul was living (maybe inventing) the Roman Taxpayer Dole - protective custody, the welfare state, whatever you want to coin it. Paul wrote all his letters of the New Covenant from house arrest in Rome. Paul spent the last five years of his life, living off the Roman taxpayers in protective custody from a contract on his life by the Sanhedrin for treason against Israel (purchasing Roman citizenship papers in Cyprus).

That is an interesting encryption - that Mnason (Mason) would testify in purjury on his behalf in Jerusalem.

David Merrill
01-02-13, 02:08 PM
After the last few years of research and first-hand IRS experiences, I have come to the conclusion that FRNs are considered Lawful Money, as explained here.

Once this LM comes in to a PERSON's bank account, the IRS considers it taxable income, as explained here.
What makes it "taxable income"?
Well, it "came in" and a PERSON is a taxpayer right?




All Persons are subject to the higher powers...

Keith Alan
01-03-13, 05:03 AM
All Persons are subject to the higher powers...

Roman Catholic Trinitarian dogma though has 1 God, existing in 2 natures, among 3 persons. Each person in the the Holy Trinity is in perfect agreement with the others.

I'm only pointing this out because of the discussion about Rome, and how it pertains to the theory of persons. It might be instructive to look into canon law and find out what persons are in the Roman Catholic Tradition. I think I'll try doing that. :)

David Merrill
01-03-13, 09:46 AM
Roman Catholic Trinitarian dogma though has 1 God, existing in 2 natures, among 3 persons. Each person in the the Holy Trinity is in perfect agreement with the others.

I'm only pointing this out because of the discussion about Rome, and how it pertains to the theory of persons. It might be instructive to look into canon law and find out what persons are in the Roman Catholic Tradition. I think I'll try doing that. :)


Thank you!

Keith Alan
01-03-13, 04:17 PM
Roman Catholic Trinitarian dogma though has 1 God, existing in 2 natures, among 3 persons. Each person in the the Holy Trinity is in perfect agreement with the others.

I'm only pointing this out because of the discussion about Rome, and how it pertains to the theory of persons. It might be instructive to look into canon law and find out what persons are in the Roman Catholic Tradition. I think I'll try doing that. :)

Well, it turns out that I gave myself a tall order. I cannot find any precise definition of what a person is, although there are several precise definitions of different kinds of persons. There are moral persons, physical persons, and juridic persons recognized in the Church, which also recognizes more kinds of persons subsisting outside of the Church. In other words, there appears to be an army of persons (according to the RCC) at work in the world and in heaven., but nowhere can I find what a person is.

However, there are many dissertations on what man and mankind are. I discovered there are four Constitutions of Church government, each purporting to define the role of the Church in the world, one of them being: DECLARATION ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM DIGNITATIS HUMANAE ON THE RIGHT OF THE PERSON AND OF COMMUNITIES TO SOCIAL AND CIVIL FREEDOM IN MATTERS RELIGIOUS PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON DECEMBER 7, 1965.

After reading this Constitution and the others, and after reading what I thought were the applicable codes in canon law, I have no choice but to infer that a person is that part of a being that relates to society, and may include groups of people and entities recognizable as one person.

Perhaps I should explain my thinking. On reading these documents (which is not my first time severally, but is my first time in reading them all concurrently) I was struck by the apparent harmony in their reasoning. Whatever people may think of the RCC, it must be acknowledged she is thorough and broad in her explanations of her mission. That being said, she leaves much for individuals in their own consciences to contemplate, leaving them free to accept or reject the Church's conclusions.

Personhood is a metaphysical question. In reading these Constitutions, I did come to a deeper understanding in my own mind about what personhood is. I apprehend better that: a person is a being's expression of self among a community. Self can include groups, or bodies as the Church calls them. The highest example of personhood is the RCC model of the Holy Trinity. One being - God - exists in three persons. These persons are the One's expression of self in the society of humanity. People like to say God is revealed in his persons, which is true.

It appears there is an over-arching system of metaphysical understanding that guides the RCC in her ministrations. It also appears that this understanding pervades other systems of law outside of the Church. While some people might find it offensive to be regarded in society as merely a person, it remains a metaphysical truth that one's being is unreachable to others. Society (other beings, individually or in groups) has no other choice but to see a being's person. So too, one being cannot reach other beings, except through their persons.

I suppose that - as this relates to demanding lawful money - an individual person's rank in society is the real thing at stake. David's comment that all persons are subject to higher powers is interesting in that, it acknowledges personhood as a creature of society, not of an individual being. The question is, is that personhood really subject to society?

If a person is a being's expression of self in society, and society's recognition of it in return, by what authority does society seek to impose its collective will on an individual being? All it can do is assert the collective will against the individual person. Money - in its broadest sense, a medium of exchange - courses through society, carrying with it obligations and benefits to persons. These obligations and benefits are sometimes ill defined, yet they exist ostensibly for the overall good of a society.

Demanding and receiving lawful money ought to be regarded as a person's attempt to assert one's human dignity in society. Moreover, it is not an advancement on or against society, but rather a firm expression of an individual being's existence as part of the divine order. The private credit regime seeks to depart from the divine order, by assuming the One's role as Creator - the regime did create the credit - and imposing private obligations on the holders of its credit. To enter into the private credit regime is to leave behind the One, and submit to the private credit society's collective will.

shikamaru
01-03-13, 10:25 PM
Roman Catholic Trinitarian dogma though has 1 God, existing in 2 natures, among 3 persons. Each person in the the Holy Trinity is in perfect agreement with the others.

I'm only pointing this out because of the discussion about Rome, and how it pertains to the theory of persons. It might be instructive to look into canon law and find out what persons are in the Roman Catholic Tradition. I think I'll try doing that. :)

Definition of person from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm

Keith Alan
01-04-13, 12:00 AM
Definition of person from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm

Definitions, yes. I hope you can indulge me in my exploration of persons. It's the way I learn things. I have an idea, then try to communicate it to someone. It's by organizing my thoughts for someone else that I learn more about my idea. Right now I'm seeing a person as something other than one's self, or being.

David Merrill
01-04-13, 12:22 AM
Definitions, yes. I hope you can indulge me in my exploration of persons. It's the way I learn things. I have an idea, then try to communicate it to someone. It's by organizing my thoughts for someone else that I learn more about my idea. Right now I'm seeing a person as something other than one's self, or being.


This might be the first formal person (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_East_India_Company) of any consequence today - I speak about my perpetual inheritance in the Patroons...

LearnTheLaw
01-04-13, 04:15 AM
Well, it turns out that I gave myself a tall order. I cannot find any precise definition of what a person is, although there are several precise definitions of different kinds of persons. There are moral persons, physical persons, and juridic persons recognized in the Church, which also recognizes more kinds of persons subsisting outside of the Church. In other words, there appears to be an army of persons (according to the RCC) at work in the world and in heaven., but nowhere can I find what a person is.

However, there are many dissertations on what man and mankind are. I discovered there are four Constitutions of Church government, each purporting to define the role of the Church in the world, one of them being: DECLARATION ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM DIGNITATIS HUMANAE ON THE RIGHT OF THE PERSON AND OF COMMUNITIES TO SOCIAL AND CIVIL FREEDOM IN MATTERS RELIGIOUS PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON DECEMBER 7, 1965.

After reading this Constitution and the others, and after reading what I thought were the applicable codes in canon law, I have no choice but to infer that a person is that part of a being that relates to society, and may include groups of people and entities recognizable as one person.

Perhaps I should explain my thinking. On reading these documents (which is not my first time severally, but is my first time in reading them all concurrently) I was struck by the apparent harmony in their reasoning. Whatever people may think of the RCC, it must be acknowledged she is thorough and broad in her explanations of her mission. That being said, she leaves much for individuals in their own consciences to contemplate, leaving them free to accept or reject the Church's conclusions.

Personhood is a metaphysical question. In reading these Constitutions, I did come to a deeper understanding in my own mind about what personhood is. I apprehend better that: a person is a being's expression of self among a community. Self can include groups, or bodies as the Church calls them. The highest example of personhood is the RCC model of the Holy Trinity. One being - God - exists in three persons. These persons are the One's expression of self in the society of humanity. People like to say God is revealed in his persons, which is true.

It appears there is an over-arching system of metaphysical understanding that guides the RCC in her ministrations. It also appears that this understanding pervades other systems of law outside of the Church. While some people might find it offensive to be regarded in society as merely a person, it remains a metaphysical truth that one's being is unreachable to others. Society (other beings, individually or in groups) has no other choice but to see a being's person. So too, one being cannot reach other beings, except through their persons.

I suppose that - as this relates to demanding lawful money - an individual person's rank in society is the real thing at stake. David's comment that all persons are subject to higher powers is interesting in that, it acknowledges personhood as a creature of society, not of an individual being. The question is, is that personhood really subject to society?

If a person is a being's expression of self in society, and society's recognition of it in return, by what authority does society seek to impose its collective will on an individual being? All it can do is assert the collective will against the individual person. Money - in its broadest sense, a medium of exchange - courses through society, carrying with it obligations and benefits to persons. These obligations and benefits are sometimes ill defined, yet they exist ostensibly for the overall good of a society.

Demanding and receiving lawful money ought to be regarded as a person's attempt to assert one's human dignity in society. Moreover, it is not an advancement on or against society, but rather a firm expression of an individual being's existence as part of the divine order. The private credit regime seeks to depart from the divine order, by assuming the One's role as Creator - the regime did create the credit - and imposing private obligations on the holders of its credit. To enter into the private credit regime is to leave behind the One, and submit to the private credit society's collective will.




Maybe this can be of some use:




Deceptive IRS Code Words
"PERSON"

People generally consider the term "person" to mean an individual only. But, IRC Section 7701, entitled "Definitions", includes a corporation, a trust, an estate, a partnership, an association, or company as being a "person". All of these legal entities are "persons" at law, so it is legally correct but very misleading when the federal income (excise) tax on corporations is described by the deceptive title of "Personal Income Tax". This misleading description leads most people to believe that it means a tax on individuals.

The legal term "person" has an even more restricted definition when used in IRC Chapter 75, which contains all the criminal penalties in the Code. In Section 7343 of that Chapter, a "person" subject to criminal penalties is defined as:

... [A]n officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who, as such officer, employee or member, is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.

An individual who is not in such a capacity is not defined as a "person" subject to criminal penalties. Unprivileged individuals, who do not impose the income (excise) tax upon themselves by filing returns, are not subject to the tax and they are not "persons" who can lawfully be subjected to criminal charges for not filing a return or not paying income tax.

Sections of the Code relating to the requirements for filing returns, keeping records, and disclosing information state that those sections apply to "every person liable" or "any person made liable". These descriptions mean "any person who is liable for the tax". They do not state or mean that all persons are liable. The only persons liable are those "persons" (legal entities such as corporations) who owe an income (excise) tax, and are therefore subject to the requirements of the IRC. If you substitute the word "corporation" for the term "person" (a corporation is a person at law) when reading the Code or other articles and publications relating to income tax, the true meaning of the Code becomes more apparent.


http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/pdf/append-g.pdf

shikamaru
01-04-13, 09:51 PM
Definitions, yes. I hope you can indulge me in my exploration of persons. It's the way I learn things. I have an idea, then try to communicate it to someone. It's by organizing my thoughts for someone else that I learn more about my idea. Right now I'm seeing a person as something other than one's self, or being.

If you want to study persons, you should start with Roman Civil Law.

Jural Relations: or, The Roman Law of Persons as subjects of Jural Relations (http://books.google.com/books?id=MfM_AAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=law+of+Persons&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8U3nUMznPM6tqAGZ7IGAAQ&ved=0CGEQ6AEwCA)
NOtes on Roman Law: Law of Persons, Law of Contracts (http://books.google.com/books?id=b7IMAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Roman+Law+law+of+persons&hl=en&sa=X&ei=h07nUPuEEIjkrQHi64CYAQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA)

A person is a capacity for rights and duties in relation to a society.

There is also status or estates.

Keith Alan
01-06-13, 04:22 AM
If you want to study persons, you should start with Roman Civil Law.

Jural Relations: or, The Roman Law of Persons as subjects of Jural Relations (http://books.google.com/books?id=MfM_AAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=law+of+Persons&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8U3nUMznPM6tqAGZ7IGAAQ&ved=0CGEQ6AEwCA)
NOtes on Roman Law: Law of Persons, Law of Contracts (http://books.google.com/books?id=b7IMAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Roman+Law+law+of+persons&hl=en&sa=X&ei=h07nUPuEEIjkrQHi64CYAQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA)

A person is a capacity for rights and duties in relation to a society.

There is also status or estates.

Great sources! Thank you very much! They ought to keep me busiy for a while.

Keith Alan
01-06-13, 04:23 AM
Maybe this can be of some use:




Deceptive IRS Code Words
"PERSON"

People generally consider the term "person" to mean an individual only. But, IRC Section 7701, entitled "Definitions", includes a corporation, a trust, an estate, a partnership, an association, or company as being a "person". All of these legal entities are "persons" at law, so it is legally correct but very misleading when the federal income (excise) tax on corporations is described by the deceptive title of "Personal Income Tax". This misleading description leads most people to believe that it means a tax on individuals.

The legal term "person" has an even more restricted definition when used in IRC Chapter 75, which contains all the criminal penalties in the Code. In Section 7343 of that Chapter, a "person" subject to criminal penalties is defined as:

... [A]n officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who, as such officer, employee or member, is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.

An individual who is not in such a capacity is not defined as a "person" subject to criminal penalties. Unprivileged individuals, who do not impose the income (excise) tax upon themselves by filing returns, are not subject to the tax and they are not "persons" who can lawfully be subjected to criminal charges for not filing a return or not paying income tax.

Sections of the Code relating to the requirements for filing returns, keeping records, and disclosing information state that those sections apply to "every person liable" or "any person made liable". These descriptions mean "any person who is liable for the tax". They do not state or mean that all persons are liable. The only persons liable are those "persons" (legal entities such as corporations) who owe an income (excise) tax, and are therefore subject to the requirements of the IRC. If you substitute the word "corporation" for the term "person" (a corporation is a person at law) when reading the Code or other articles and publications relating to income tax, the true meaning of the Code becomes more apparent.


http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/pdf/append-g.pdf

Thank you. I now have quite a lot on my plate.

BAMAJiPS
01-06-13, 05:04 PM
Maybe this can be of some use:




Deceptive IRS Code Words
"PERSON"

People generally consider the term "person" to mean an individual only. But, IRC Section 7701, entitled "Definitions", includes a corporation, a trust, an estate, a partnership, an association, or company as being a "person". All of these legal entities are "persons" at law, so it is legally correct but very misleading when the federal income (excise) tax on corporations is described by the deceptive title of "Personal Income Tax". This misleading description leads most people to believe that it means a tax on individuals.

The legal term "person" has an even more restricted definition when used in IRC Chapter 75, which contains all the criminal penalties in the Code. In Section 7343 of that Chapter, a "person" subject to criminal penalties is defined as:

... [A]n officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who, as such officer, employee or member, is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.

An individual who is not in such a capacity is not defined as a "person" subject to criminal penalties. Unprivileged individuals, who do not impose the income (excise) tax upon themselves by filing returns, are not subject to the tax and they are not "persons" who can lawfully be subjected to criminal charges for not filing a return or not paying income tax.

Sections of the Code relating to the requirements for filing returns, keeping records, and disclosing information state that those sections apply to "every person liable" or "any person made liable". These descriptions mean "any person who is liable for the tax". They do not state or mean that all persons are liable. The only persons liable are those "persons" (legal entities such as corporations) who owe an income (excise) tax, and are therefore subject to the requirements of the IRC. If you substitute the word "corporation" for the term "person" (a corporation is a person at law) when reading the Code or other articles and publications relating to income tax, the true meaning of the Code becomes more apparent.


http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/pdf/append-g.pdf

Excellent point. I have just been turned on to the fact that there IS no income tax requirement. NONE. I am studying law as fast as humanly possible so IF the occasion ever arises, I can properly defend myself in court. I can't believe the mass deception of our government! It truly is sickening. Breaking the conditioning is getting easier by the day. Is there any chance to revoke or cancel my subscription to my Socialist Security number?

shikamaru
01-06-13, 07:01 PM
Excellent point. I have just been turned on to the fact that there IS no income tax requirement. NONE. I am studying law as fast as humanly possible so IF the occasion ever arises, I can properly defend myself in court. I can't believe the mass deception of our government! It truly is sickening. Breaking the conditioning is getting easier by the day. Is there any chance to revoke or cancel my subscription to my Socialist Security number?

Studying law is a marathon run and not a sprint :).

You'll be studying for the rest of your life.

I'll opine that it is best to avoid court and avoid controversy, but don't sleep on your rights :).
It is best to slowly back out of the system giving time to adjust to the changes, in my opinion.
Eventually, you will be all out. It all depends on the actions you take along with their resulting footprints within various systems.

BAMAJiPS
01-07-13, 01:14 AM
Studying law is a marathon run and not a sprint :).

You'll be studying for the rest of your life.



For me understanding the law is becoming easier and easier, as if I don't grasp something, I just look it up. Civil procedure, rules and forming concise legal documents is proving to be a little more difficult. I am trying to file a motion for continuance (which would be due tomorrow morning) and actually applying what I know in court approved format is proving a little more challenging. The format issue has me boggled a bit and I am not sure of all the rules of procedure involved (like do I HAVE to send a copy to opposing counsel, etc). Trying to find templates to copy has proven to be difficult as there are several different ways to skin the cat as far as I can tell. I swore an oath to the clerk of the courts Friday and signed up to be in the online file system (which has automatic templates) but the bureaucracy is slow and I am not "in" the system yet, which would presumably eliminate all my guesswork for said action.

I am attempting to stave off the iron teeth of the government beast long enough to be able to assert my rights. Since I owe a veritable fortune to the "system" and have been denied due process once already by being hurled into the joint, I am planning a preemptive assault coming weeks/months. I plan on demanding my unalienable rights be respected before I am deprived of life and liberty next time... telling the system that they must adhere to the US Constitution and specifically these gems in the Alabama Constitution which says "no person shall be held in prison for a debt", "That the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate", "That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression"...

The sad fact is that I am already entangled with the court system and the beast. I'm trying as tactfully and skillfully to back out of what I think to be a near impossible situation. I have been walked over several times in the past due to ignorance. I do have concerns that if/when I try to buck the system and assert my rights the court is going to come back with a vengeance... thus me saying I am trying to absorb as much as I can as quickly as I can.

It doesn't matter what I study - here it was lawful money - it all leads in a circular loop that reinforces itself. From land patents, to contract law, to the fraud of the IRS and income taxes to tyrannical courts operating outside subject matter jurisdictions, corporate American jurisdictions and back to money. Its amazing that there is basically a whole other universe of "facts" that, all put together like a puzzle, fit far better than the "facts" as presented by school, media, etc.

David Merrill
01-07-13, 01:57 AM
I plan on demanding my unalienable rights be respected before I am deprived of life and liberty next time...


I strongly suggest that you find the oaths of office (or get certificates of fact in their absence) and study up on the Bills of Rights. If the actors have sworn properly (in proper form) to uphold your rights then so be it.

BAMAJiPS
01-07-13, 06:51 AM
I strongly suggest that you find the oaths of office (or get certificates of fact in their absence) and study up on the Bills of Rights. If the actors have sworn properly (in proper form) to uphold your rights then so be it.

Oh my! It just made sense!

http://judicial.alabama.gov/library/rules/mc14.pdf They actually sign this and I can use it to "remind" them and bind them to it, yes!?!?! Thank you David!

I have so many things going on simultaneously, I think it prudent to form a strategy and make a plan of action. I need to peel back the layers starting with the easier going to the harder.

-Continue to redeem lawful money.
-Keep the beast at bay on the child support issue until I am better versed in the law and can find remedy/recourse. (Circuit court)
-Get my suspended license back (My main source of income is in commercial driving) :/
-aaaaand the one I think I am going to try first - I want to try to get a void/nullified judgement on my total BS DUI due to no standing, no subject matter jurisdiction, no injured party, no corpus delecti, etc. (Municipal court)

I am told that jurisdiction can be challenged at ANY time. I have reservations because I took a plea deal and plead guilty (thanks attorney for wasting my time and money), but that shouldnt matter that I voiluntarily placed myself under the court's jurisdiction should it? Thats irrelevant that the court failed to gain subject matter jurisdiction correct?

I am anxious to start putting some of what I've learned to practice - take the plunge so to speak. I am also eager to start sharing documents, as I dont want to leech any more. I want to contribute experiences. Kind of scary, but kind of exhilarating.

David Merrill
01-07-13, 09:32 AM
Until you can avoid that jurisdiction by competent self-governance I would keep it simple.

IN GOD WE TRUST (Find that on the bill.)

SO HELP ME GOD (Find that on the Oath.)

That is a promise from the comptroller of the Treasury that you will be paid well if the officer violates his or her oath to preserve your rights. Until you can avoid or abate that jurisdiction effectively the best you can get is a proper court and your day in court. That is usually enough. You will probably find that the actors do not have Step One - the oath of office properly sworn before God and available to you by the prescribed clerk (county clerk or SoS).

It sounds like county to me.

So if the county clerk and recorder has no oath, get a Certificate of Fact that the judge or DA whoever, has no oath of office published there. File that into the case and it will probably go away. Avoidance and abatement because you are the only one standing competent to protect your unalienable rights. You become the author of your estate.

shikamaru
01-07-13, 09:09 PM
For me understanding the law is becoming easier and easier, as if I don't grasp something, I just look it up. Civil procedure, rules and forming concise legal documents is proving to be a little more difficult. I am trying to file a motion for continuance (which would be due tomorrow morning) and actually applying what I know in court approved format is proving a little more challenging. The format issue has me boggled a bit and I am not sure of all the rules of procedure involved (like do I HAVE to send a copy to opposing counsel, etc). Trying to find templates to copy has proven to be difficult as there are several different ways to skin the cat as far as I can tell. I swore an oath to the clerk of the courts Friday and signed up to be in the online file system (which has automatic templates) but the bureaucracy is slow and I am not "in" the system yet, which would presumably eliminate all my guesswork for said action.

I've found it best to study history and philosophy first followed by law afterwards.
You can do this in tandem.



I am attempting to stave off the iron teeth of the government beast long enough to be able to assert my rights. Since I owe a veritable fortune to the "system" and have been denied due process once already by being hurled into the joint, I am planning a preemptive assault coming weeks/months. I plan on demanding my unalienable rights be respected before I am deprived of life and liberty next time... telling the system that they must adhere to the US Constitution and specifically these gems in the Alabama Constitution which says "no person shall be held in prison for a debt", "That the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate", "That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression"...

The purpose of government is conquest, dominion, and subjugation.
The stuff about protecting the rights of citizens is poppycock.



It doesn't matter what I study - here it was lawful money - it all leads in a circular loop that reinforces itself. From land patents, to contract law, to the fraud of the IRS and income taxes to tyrannical courts operating outside subject matter jurisdictions, corporate American jurisdictions and back to money. Its amazing that there is basically a whole other universe of "facts" that, all put together like a puzzle, fit far better than the "facts" as presented by school, media, etc.

There is the option to come out of Babylon.

Settle and close all accounts. Simplify life.