PDA

View Full Version : Redeeming Lawful Money on Daily Paul



David Merrill
01-11-13, 05:14 PM
You might enjoy this recent comment. (http://www.dailypaul.com/254983/redeemed-lawful-money)


Click Here. (http://www.dailypaul.com/254983/redeemed-lawful-money#comment-2886253)

http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/5191/nonendorsementsignature.jpg

DebasedCurrency
01-12-13, 09:06 AM
The Dailypaul is where I first encountered you , Mr. Merril. You have set me on a new course. Thank you!

David Merrill
01-13-13, 12:05 AM
The Dailypaul is where I first encountered you , Mr. Merril. You have set me on a new course. Thank you!

Thank you! People benefitting from law and my intellectual property is quite rewarding.

mikecz
01-14-13, 10:23 PM
Ok, I found this site through DailyPaul and am beginning the process. By the way, this is incredibly exciting. (I have also posted the questions on DailyPaul, but haven't heard a reply, so here goes...)

1. If "in elastic" currency, us bank notes, is fixed at 300 million, what happens if/when there are enough suitors demanding their lawful money to exceed that number?

2. I receive personal checks/money orders etc in the line of business I am in, can these be redeemed with lawful money?

3. Can I write a check demanding the pay or redemption of said check be paid or disbursed in lawful money?

4. Now, I've heard it both ways... since Federal Reserve notes have a prior lien on them, people stamp all their cashed paychecks this way, and don't have to pay income tax because they aren't receiving real money. I've heard it the other way, people claim to be paid the demand that payment in lawful money, which cannot be withheld or used as payment for interest on the national debt, so therefore don't have to pay the IRS.

BAMAJiPS
01-15-13, 01:22 AM
10451046104710481049

I have been redeeming lawful money since early Dec 2012. I have not had a single question from any teller yet. They don't even blink! Once I started redeeming LM, my deposits started having different codes instead of saying "Deposit" there. It takes about 3-4 days but then it eventually reads "Deposit".
The officer who set up my bank account (from a business account transformed into a non-interest bearing customer account) said he wasn't sure if I could annotate the card. He is a 22 year old kid! He told me to ask the legal department who, when I got in touch with them OBVIOUSLY told me I can't do it... why would they want me to be able to deposit money they can't fractionally lend on??
Anyhow, here's what I need to put on the contract soon, or send a certified document stating thats how it will be. Either way, I ONLY deposit lawful money.

Picture of the disclaimer on the note was an actual 1990 series $20 FRN I had and am kicking myself for spending, as I used to use it to enlighten people. I CANNOT find a duplicate image showing the date on the web. I have found up to a 1960 or 1980 full disclaimer on the web. The bills with the full disclaimers appear to be a variation after 1960-1980 (not sure) as some have the full disclaimer and most do not, but it appears ALL had them 1960 and prior (This is anecdotal evidence from me searching).

BAMAJiPS
01-15-13, 01:46 AM
I also dont make "copies" of these. I use my iphone and snap a pic, front and back and have created a separate gmail accounts for all my documenting needs. I have one that is "income" only. Each account is a free 10gig storage space. I do the same for all my receipts, because if I dont get it logged IMMEDIATELY, it gets lost. Heres the contract and how I SHOULD'VE annotated it
1050

Keith Alan
01-15-13, 02:05 PM
Ok, I found this site through DailyPaul and am beginning the process. By the way, this is incredibly exciting. (I have also posted the questions on DailyPaul, but haven't heard a reply, so here goes...)

1. If "in elastic" currency, us bank notes, is fixed at 300 million, what happens if/when there are enough suitors demanding their lawful money to exceed that number?

2. I receive personal checks/money orders etc in the line of business I am in, can these be redeemed with lawful money?

3. Can I write a check demanding the pay or redemption of said check be paid or disbursed in lawful money?

4. Now, I've heard it both ways... since Federal Reserve notes have a prior lien on them, people stamp all their cashed paychecks this way, and don't have to pay income tax because they aren't receiving real money. I've heard it the other way, people claim to be paid the demand that payment in lawful money, which cannot be withheld or used as payment for interest on the national debt, so therefore don't have to pay the IRS.

Question #1 is interesting. My theory is, when demand is made, US notes are created by operation of law. The one making the demand invokes the remedy, and Treasury issues the currency, albeit indirectly. Just a thought. I'm sure others have better thoughts on that.

mikecz
01-15-13, 03:17 PM
Question #1 is interesting. My theory is, when demand is made, US notes are created by operation of law. The one making the demand invokes the remedy, and Treasury issues the currency, albeit indirectly. Just a thought. I'm sure others have better thoughts on that.

This is where the treasury secretary invokes the bank holiday, at least that is what I was thinking.

Any further answers on questions 2 - 4? The question regarding an IRS stance on lawful money I feel is important.

David Merrill
01-15-13, 11:26 PM
Ok, I found this site through DailyPaul and am beginning the process. By the way, this is incredibly exciting. (I have also posted the questions on DailyPaul, but haven't heard a reply, so here goes...)

1. If "in elastic" currency, us bank notes, is fixed at 300 million, what happens if/when there are enough suitors demanding their lawful money to exceed that number?

2. I receive personal checks/money orders etc in the line of business I am in, can these be redeemed with lawful money?

3. Can I write a check demanding the pay or redemption of said check be paid or disbursed in lawful money?

4. Now, I've heard it both ways... since Federal Reserve notes have a prior lien on them, people stamp all their cashed paychecks this way, and don't have to pay income tax because they aren't receiving real money. I've heard it the other way, people claim to be paid the demand that payment in lawful money, which cannot be withheld or used as payment for interest on the national debt, so therefore don't have to pay the IRS.

A specialized Libel of Review is in process demanding that the US note be unpegged from the FRN. Otherwise I agree that #1 would likely result in a bank holiday. Not so much because of the US note though, just because that is what state banks were about to do in 1933 causing that bankers' holiday.

#2. Because of confusion to newbees I think I should say that Congress has pegged the US note in value to the FRN. Therefore your act of redemption is limited to making your demand. Make your demand. I do not think there is anything anywhere saying you cannot demand stuff.

#3 Yes! That is what we are saying. Welcome and enjoy reading about it here on StSC.

#4 ??

Please try rephrasing that.

Keyser Soze
01-16-13, 06:12 AM
I believe the question for #4 is, "Is redeemed lawful money taxable income?"

Keith Alan
01-16-13, 01:15 PM
I believe the question for #4 is, "Is redeemed lawful money taxable income?"

I would like to see a discussion about that as well.

mikecz
01-16-13, 03:27 PM
I would like to see a discussion about that as well.


David,

Let me just say your responses on this site are extremely appreciated. I also apologize for asking maybe what seem to be obvious questions, but, I am in the process of trying to form a process flow chart with the 3 or 4 steps to begin this process. Each step will have links with supporting text / photos, but, I really want to wrap my head around this, so once again, thank you. Basically I find bits and pieces here on the site, but, a condensed version, bringing all the info together is my goal.

Yeah so question #4, I've heard stating all your income was in FRN and not really lawful money has been a claim to the IRS as a reason for not having to pay taxes. Well, because FRN's aren't lawful and not really anything of substance, therefore you never really received anything for pay and you can't be taxed on something that you didn't receive. So that is one side of the coin, and I thought I saw a thread describing exactly this reason was listed in a memo to IRS agents as a frivolous claim.

The other side of the coin, if all your income is in LAWFUL money, not FRN's, the IRS can't tax it. You can claim all your withholding's are due back to you. This is obviously the most interesting part, and I among others would like to hear a description as to why. I LOVE the idea of not allowing my bank to expand my money and will definitely pass on an interest bearing account if it is necessary to accomplish this end. So yeah, why can't the IRS tax lawful money?

I guess when a bank makes a loan through fractional reserve banking, the money has just been created, increasing the overall supply in the system. What I'm having a tough time wrapping my head around... Does it ever go the other way, does the supply shrink, because how I see it, this system has created a money spewing beast that never gets smaller and always creates interest for the money grabbing octopus we know as the federal reserve.

David Merrill
01-16-13, 06:23 PM
There is a passage in the Bible at James 1:25-28 or so about doing and hearing. You might have to trust me about this for the first step - make your demand. If you have direct deposit and your boss wont consider giving you a paper paycheck then it starts to get complicated but like Michael Joseph points out there are a lot of banks around for most people. Then you might consider changing your signature to "Lawful Money" or "Lawful Money Demanded"? - Just do that across the board. Tell your bank that your signature has changed and so you need to revise your Signature Card to your new signature.

People pay me cash and that is lawful money for all intents and purposes. Without Step 1 above though, evidence has convinced me, like with your post that the remedy will be evasive for you. What I just did was reduce it down to one simple execution but you are probably conditioned not to change your signature, aren't you? The people at your bank may be upset about it too, heaven forbid.

But this kind of thinking comes natural to me after sharing experiences with intelligent people like you who are coming out of bondage (conditioning).

My signature is David Merrill in paleo-Hebrew. I changed it to that a decade ago. But whenever somebody makes me sign for cash - like with a cash refund, and of course I want the cash I sign "Lawful Money". I do not even sign cursive. Hebrew by the way is all upper case and cursive is completely foreign to it. Punctuation and the vowel sounds (jots and tittles) were foreign to Hebrew in the time before Babylonian Captivity. Nebuchadnezzar knew how to discombooberate the Israelites - he captured the intellectuals into Babylon for seventy years and changed their alphabet and their names too!

Think that over. Your remedy is as simple as you making a simple demand. A principle behind this truth is, If you ask, it shall be delivered unto you. Or - Seek and you shall find.

Are you already demanding lawful money? Great! To your question then:

You want flowcharts? This is the Diagram for Are You Lost at C? (http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_AreYouLostAtSea.pdf)


http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Diagram1.jpg

That is probably too much to understand but the tax exemption is expressed in the IRC as Mandatory Exception in §508(c)(1) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/508?quicktabs_8=1#quicktabs-8).


(c) Exceptions

(1) Mandatory exceptions


Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply to—


(A) churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches, or

If you want to be the good church do not register for 501(c)(3) because that is a non-profit religious organization akin to the Olympic Committee for one example; the religion of sports competition? Hey! Whatever captures the minds as an opiate - in the modern rendition of Nebuchadnezzar!

A close semblance is corporation sole. Like a town mayor or the Pope. But I suggest you be like a corporation sole, not to register as one. [Eddie KAHN on Wesley SNIPES conviction served time in prison on this registered rendition of The Good Church (http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/1817/thegoodchurch.pdf).]]

So simply study what the church is as in ecclesia that is pleasing to God.


http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/6651/thegoodchurch.jpg

Here is an example of current bylaws for a 501(c)(3) church for contrast:


http://imageshack.us/a/img515/9324/restrictions.jpg

All the members are presumed to be 501(c)(3) churches as they await approval and the IRS awaits their applications! It is a nasty trick to pull but then again, it is easy to understand and avoid once you ask the Holy Spirit for direction. Here is a great lesson (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImYmU2N2YyMDEtM2QxYS00OTYwLWEwMTgtOGU0M 2Q0Y2ZhNGQ5/edit); the pastor saying this was packing in two weeks!

mikecz
01-16-13, 08:05 PM
David,

I think I lost you after Hebrew. Yes, I am going to change my signature card. I will talk to the bank, maybe get something in writing declaring my account as non-interest bearing. But, outside of filing myself as some sort of church/organization, I really was looking for someone's returns, or a sample of the law stating that lawful money isn't taxable.

Also, I'm assuming opening a evidence repository is solely for those interested in filing lawful money to the IRS as support of their claims. As well if the bank was to fractionally lend your account, this evidence repository could be used. Either way, I'm trying to boil this down into a pamphlet I could give my family, my friends to describe the process of demanding and why. The way I look at it, if this money is tax free, awesome, but the biggest part of this is the patriotic step of not increasing the debt.

Anyone else?

David Merrill
01-17-13, 12:00 AM
David,

I think I lost you after Hebrew. Yes, I am going to change my signature card. I will talk to the bank, maybe get something in writing declaring my account as non-interest bearing. But, outside of filing myself as some sort of church/organization, I really was looking for someone's returns, or a sample of the law stating that lawful money isn't taxable.

Also, I'm assuming opening a evidence repository is solely for those interested in filing lawful money to the IRS as support of their claims. As well if the bank was to fractionally lend your account, this evidence repository could be used. Either way, I'm trying to boil this down into a pamphlet I could give my family, my friends to describe the process of demanding and why. The way I look at it, if this money is tax free, awesome, but the biggest part of this is the patriotic step of not increasing the debt.

Anyone else?

It will be great to hear other explanations. Section 508 is about the clearest you will find at describing anything that exists outside the scope of the IR Code.

Mandatory Exception for churches.

Treefarmer
01-18-13, 02:24 AM
David,

I think I lost you after Hebrew. Yes, I am going to change my signature card. I will talk to the bank, maybe get something in writing declaring my account as non-interest bearing. But, outside of filing myself as some sort of church/organization, I really was looking for someone's returns, or a sample of the law stating that lawful money isn't taxable.

snip.....snip

Anyone else?

I have explored the idea that lawful money is not regarded as taxable income by the IRS in my own small way, via correspondence with the IRS, tax returns on "income" which was so low that the returns should have resulted in refunds no matter how one filed them, and other research and observation.

During the course of this experiment, I experienced the following:

Whenever I wrote letters to the IRS asking questions or making statements about LM, the IRS responded that it would not respond any further to my "frivolous correspondence".

The IRS does not seem to consider LM as anything other than taxable income, if an information return such as W-2 exists which states that a PERSON received so-called "wages or income", regardless of how the backs of paychecks had been endorsed or non-endorsed, and LM had been demanded.

I have a searchable text of the 1986 IRC, and I could not find the term "lawful money" in it.

The IRS doesn't seem to care about what men and women do with cash or FRNs on their own time, as long as this cash doesn't go through PERSONAL numbered bank accounts. Banking with numbered accounts involving SSN or TIN appears to be a "trade or business with the United States (http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Remedies/TradeOrBusinessScam.htm)".
DISCLAIMER:
I'm linking to the "trade or business scam" research at famguardian only for the discussion of the statutes and court cases which it offers, not for any ideas about remedy, which may or may not be contained therein.

I have observed that some restrictively endorsed (LM demanded) bank checks which were deposited in non-interest bearing accounts and on which no information returns had been filed with the IRS, were not considered "taxable income, gains, or wages" by the IRS.

CONCLUSION:
Based on my experiences, I concluded that the IRS regards amounts of dollar denominated fiat currency which a PERSON (FIRST M LAST, DOB, SSN) receives in the form of bank checks or direct deposits, and which are documented on information returns, such as W-2 or 1099-MISC, as taxable income, regardless of how the checks are non-/endorsed or the bank signature card is signed.

shikamaru
01-18-13, 01:48 PM
I have explored the idea that lawful money is not regarded as taxable income by the IRS in my own small way, via correspondence with the IRS, tax returns on "income" which was so low that the returns should have resulted in refunds no matter how one filed them, and other research and observation.

During the course of this experiment, I experienced the following:

Whenever I wrote letters to the IRS asking questions or making statements about LM, the IRS responded that it would not respond any further to my "frivolous correspondence".

The IRS does not seem to consider LM as anything other than taxable income, if an information return such as W-2 exists which states that a PERSON received so-called "wages or income", regardless of how the backs of paychecks had been endorsed or non-endorsed, and LM had been demanded.

I have a searchable text of the 1986 IRC, and I could not find the term "lawful money" in it.

The IRS doesn't seem to care about what men and women do with cash or FRNs on their own time, as long as this cash doesn't go through PERSONAL numbered bank accounts. Banking with numbered accounts involving SSN or TIN appears to be a "trade or business with the United States (http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Remedies/TradeOrBusinessScam.htm)".
DISCLAIMER:
I'm linking to the "trade or business scam" research at famguardian only for the discussion of the statutes and court cases which it offers, not for any ideas about remedy, which may or may not be contained therein.

I have observed that some restrictively endorsed (LM demanded) bank checks which were deposited in non-interest bearing accounts and on which no information returns had been filed with the IRS, were not considered "taxable income, gains, or wages" by the IRS.

CONCLUSION:
Based on my experiences, I concluded that the IRS regards amounts of dollar denominated fiat currency which a PERSON (FIRST M LAST, DOB, SSN) receives in the form of bank checks or direct deposits, and which are documented on information returns, such as W-2 or 1099-MISC, as taxable income, regardless of how the checks are non-/endorsed or the bank signature card is signed.

Interesting ...

Perhaps how one signs their W-4 would have some bearing?
The W-4 is a pledge or gift document.

Possessing an interest bearing bank account is public banking?

Chex
01-18-13, 03:51 PM
For what it's worth from Geri Powers

http://governmentprinciples.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/class-5-tax-forms/

(g) No books kept; no accounting period
Except as provided in section 443 (relating to returns for periods of less than 12 months), the taxpayer’s taxable year shall be the calendar year if—

And from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tips_and_tricks/message/14133

(1)the taxpayer keeps no books;

(2)the taxpayer does not have an annual accounting period; or

(3)the taxpayer has an annual accounting period, but such period does not qualify as a fiscal year.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/441

Found another http://www.freedomlaw.com/archives/oldsite/dismyths.html

mikecz
01-18-13, 06:05 PM
I think there may be something here

12 USC § 143 - Banks in Alaska and insular possessions; lawful money reserves

Every national banking association located in Alaska or in a dependency or insular possession or any part of the United States outside of the continental United States, and not a member of the Federal reserve system, shall at all times have on hand in lawful money of the United States an amount equal to at least 15 percent of the aggregate amount of its deposits in all respects. Whenever the lawful money of any such association shall fall below 15 percent of its deposits such association shall not increase its liabilities by making any new loans or discounts other than by discounting or purchasing bills of exchange payable at sight nor make any dividends of its profits until the required proportion between the aggregate amount of its deposits and its lawful money of the United States has been restored. And the Comptroller of the Currency shall notify any such association whose lawful money reserve shall be below the amount required to be kept on hand to make good such reserve, and if such association shall fail for thirty days thereafter so to make good its lawful money the Comptroller may, with the concurrence of the Secretary of the Treasury, appoint a receiver to wind up the business of the association as provided in section 192 of this title.

Here non-member banks, basically banks that aren't members of the federal reserve system, are required to hold 15% of their DEPOSITS in lawful money. Once again, this isn't a reserve requirement, this is a requirement in the type of deposits held. I have already sent an inquiry to ALLY bank, a non-member bank in Alaska. The point here is there is a difference in the type of deposits held. If indeed there is a difference, then it would be interesting to find out if they can use this "lawful money" in fractional banking...

David Merrill
01-18-13, 07:14 PM
Nice Find!!

What that means to me is when the FRNs in the vault fall below that portion the bank can no longer operate in elastic fashion. Ergo, lawful money.

mikecz
01-18-13, 07:35 PM
Nice Find!!

What that means to me is when the FRNs in the vault fall below that portion the bank can no longer operate in elastic fashion. Ergo, lawful money.


I think there is a distinction though, the bank can only hold a maximum of 85% of it's deposits in "non" lawful money (I take this as meaning FRNs, etc.) This code pertains not to the total reserves, but the type of reserves. Obviously if the total reserves fall below a prescribed %, the bank is at fault, and has to either get funds from somewhere, or decrease it's loans. In the description of that type, the code uses the term lawful money...


15% of deposits must be held in lawful money. If the FRN's in vault fall, that would just mean the bank would have a larger % of lawful money. Now that lawful money has been shown to be different, I wander if those members at the bank can demand their money to be held as such? (***edit - Yeah so i read an earlier thread of you already coming to this conclusion, the belief that coins are lawful money because they fill all the needed requirements, mainly because the are issued from the us treasury) Kind of makes you think about why the Federal Reserve is holding billions in 1 dollar coins? Is there a reserve requirement in written in requiring lawful money to be held in a % within the states?

Another point comes to mind. What if I deposit $1,000 in quarters. To my knowledge, coinage is handled by the US Mint, under US treasury, and not equivalent to FRNs. Would it be too much a request a bank not convert my coinage into FRNs? Are coins lawful money? Though not backed by anything, the fact that they originate from the gov't could be a factor.

David Merrill
01-21-13, 11:50 AM
I think there is a distinction though, the bank can only hold a maximum of 85% of it's deposits in "non" lawful money (I take this as meaning FRNs, etc.) This code pertains not to the total reserves, but the type of reserves. Obviously if the total reserves fall below a prescribed %, the bank is at fault, and has to either get funds from somewhere, or decrease it's loans. In the description of that type, the code uses the term lawful money...


15% of deposits must be held in lawful money. If the FRN's in vault fall, that would just mean the bank would have a larger % of lawful money. Now that lawful money has been shown to be different, I wander if those members at the bank can demand their money to be held as such? (***edit - Yeah so i read an earlier thread of you already coming to this conclusion, the belief that coins are lawful money because they fill all the needed requirements, mainly because the are issued from the us treasury) Kind of makes you think about why the Federal Reserve is holding billions in 1 dollar coins? Is there a reserve requirement in written in requiring lawful money to be held in a % within the states?

Another point comes to mind. What if I deposit $1,000 in quarters. To my knowledge, coinage is handled by the US Mint, under US treasury, and not equivalent to FRNs. Would it be too much a request a bank not convert my coinage into FRNs? Are coins lawful money? Though not backed by anything, the fact that they originate from the gov't could be a factor.


Check out this thread. (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?802-Consiquences-of-general-deposit-of-redeemed-lawful-money)

What I want to do then is go buy $100 in quarters and see if the bank selling me the quarters for one $100 FRN requires identification. A while ago I walked in a bank and wanted some of those Washington dollars with the IN GOD WE TRUST on the rim. The teller wanted ID and I declined the transaction and she reluctantly gave me back my $20 FRN. The security guard dogged me off the premises like I had committed a crime of not identifying myself to a bank teller!

My life is full of these kinds of twists and turns.

You bring to mind of course the Article from 1984 (http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/convincing.html) and its Timeline. I like Timelines. The one I am mentioning though is pegging the US note to the Fed note in value. The article amplifies an interim stage where the author was focused in 1984 exclusively on the distinction of coins.

The coins say nothing about the Federal Reserve System anywhere on them.

This is a key to understanding lawful money redemption. One day some folks interrelated to Red Shield - Rothschild - sent me a bundle of cash to publish some citizenship papers here in Colorado. [I have spoken of Colorado's role as War Chest, not quite a Territory.] I was smart enough to change the $4 in surcharges to quarters. After a big discussion about it the manager refused to publish (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImdURqTHhxcE11dDg/edit) the documents devaluing and rejecting the wad of $100's but being clever about it I kept the wad and left the $4 in coin on the counter. Listen to that link at about the 5:00 Mark about the $4 in quarters.

Interestingly while I was waiting for the manager to study up a fellow walked in and engaged my clerk in conversation about military flag protocols. Amazing - the timing!

Amazingly, while I was correctly under the impression the $4 would compel the county attorney to publish the papers within three days what he did instead was to use my process server, which must have come to mind by the clerks remembering all the times he has picked up documents directly to return the $4 in quarters. Within the three days my process server called and I went downtown and picked them up, confirming that attorneys know full well when under pressure about Refusal for Cause.


Regards,

David Merrill.

mikecz
01-21-13, 04:36 PM
Check out this thread. (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?802-Consiquences-of-general-deposit-of-redeemed-lawful-money)

What I want to do then is go buy $100 in quarters and see if the bank selling me the quarters for one $100 FRN requires identification. A while ago I walked in a bank and wanted some of those Washington dollars with the IN GOD WE TRUST on the rim. The teller wanted ID and I declined the transaction and she reluctantly gave me back my $20 FRN . The security guard dogged me off the premises like I had committed a crime of not identifying myself to a bank teller!

My life is full of these kinds of twists and turns.

You bring to mind of course the Article from 1984 (http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/convincing.html) and its Timeline. I like Timelines. The one I am mentioning though is pegging the US note to the Fed note in value. The article amplifies an interim stage where the author was focused in 1984 exclusively on the distinction of coins.

The coins say nothing about the Federal Reserve System anywhere on them.

This is a key to understanding lawful money redemption. One day some folks interrelated to Red Shield - Rothschild - sent me a bundle of cash to publish some citizenship papers here in Colorado. [I have spoken of Colorado's role as War Chest, not quite a Territory.] I was smart enough to change the $4 in surcharges to quarters. After a big discussion about it the manager refused to publish (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImdURqTHhxcE11dDg/edit) the documents devaluing and rejecting the wad of $100's but being clever about it I kept the wad and left the $4 in coin on the counter. Listen to that link at about the 5:00 Mark about the $4 in quarters.

Interestingly while I was waiting for the manager to study up a fellow walked in and engaged my clerk in conversation about military flag protocols. Amazing - the timing!

Amazingly, while I was correctly under the impression the $4 would compel the county attorney to publish the papers within three days what he did instead was to use my process server, which must have come to mind by the clerks remembering all the times he has picked up documents directly to return the $4 in quarters. Within the three days my process server called and I went downtown and picked them up, confirming that attorneys know full well when under pressure about Refusal for Cause.


Regards,

David Merrill.

David,

Apologize it advance, just trying to follow here... I thought you said $100 in quarters, why did the teller give you a $20 back You can't buy $100 in quarters with a $20 FRN or was this what you were trying to do? Do you mean 100 quarters, not $100 in quarters (I suspect this is the case)

Ok, so someone gave you money to publish an article about CO. Were the $4 in surcharges the cost to publish the article? I'm not sure why the manager refused the wad of cash as a form of payment (how much was it). I got a little lost in your story here and fail to see the importance. Where was the devaluation of the wad of cash?

Once again, I'm in pursuit of the truth, and if I'm clear, this story is proving a distinction in the value the two forms of "money" (coin and FRN). I think somewhere out there is an explanation why lawful money is pegged to the FRN, because it definitely isn't the other way around. Maybe we choose to accept the lawful money pegged to the FRN, when in reality it is worth far more then we suspect. I believe this is what your story is getting at, I'm just not quite getting the importance. Also, you have stated earlier about the us note being pegged to gold at 42/per troy ounce? Where is that information?

David Merrill
01-21-13, 05:41 PM
I am going to buy $100 in quarters tomorrow. The $20 in George Washington dollars happened a while back.


Where was the devaluation of the wad of cash?

It could not compel performance anymore. I was clever to leave the coins separate as I (my client) was only out the $4.

I think somewhere out there is an explanation why lawful money is pegged to the FRN, because it definitely isn't the other way around.

Thank you so much!

There is - the Congressional Record. I will get on that.

mikecz
01-21-13, 05:59 PM
I was driving home today and I just came to the stark realization that, at least I believe, everything in the United States purchased using FRNs, which is basically everything on the fruited plains, is owned by the federal reserve (at least they have 1st lien on it, ahead of anyone else).

I think about it like this, the treasury prints up 20 billion in bonds, the fed prints up 20 billion in notes and gives it to the treasury(who is charged interest payable only payable in gold (i read this online somewhere but couldn't confirm)), well say the treasury goes and buys a building with the money. Well, the treasury owes the federal reserve just like you owe your bank on your mortgage, if you don't pay, where does your house go. If the treasury doesn't pay, where does the building go. Instead of the treasury actually buying these things with the notes, well, they bestow this power to purchase things to us, the debt creators, and we happily oblige.

Damn. I feel a dark cloud above. This is some dark shit man...

(that 1984 article was a great read by the way), is there a way to value lawful money? It has to have some difference, and currency reserves in some non-member banks require it's possession.

martin earl
01-21-13, 06:30 PM
I was driving home today and I just came to the stark realization that, at least I believe, everything in the United States purchased using FRNs, which is basically everything on the fruited plains, is owned by the federal reserve (at least they have 1st lien on it, ahead of anyone else).

I think about it like this, the treasury prints up 20 billion in bonds, the fed prints up 20 billion in notes and gives it to the treasury(who is charged interest payable only payable in gold (i read this online somewhere but couldn't confirm)), well say the treasury goes and buys a building with the money. Well, the treasury owes the federal reserve just like you owe your bank on your mortgage, if you don't pay, where does your house go. If the treasury doesn't pay, where does the building go. Instead of the treasury actually buying these things with the notes, well, they bestow this power to purchase things to us, the debt creators, and we happily oblige.

Damn. I feel a dark cloud above. This is some dark shit man...

(that 1984 article was a great read by the way), is there a way to value lawful money? It has to have some difference, and currency reserves in some non-member banks require it's possession.

That also means there is no (or very limited) property ownership in the US. I would venture to say if one was IN the US and endorsing the Federal Reserve note, ownership of any property is not possible.

I would also say one cannot be "in" the US while demanding lawful money redemption, I always think of my demand as a passing of a port.

mikecz
01-21-13, 06:55 PM
I think this to be a more pertinent issue when applying to taxes then the whole freeman movement. I've done quite a bit of research in that field, and I think both subjects do have some points of intersection, but coming to the realization is mind boggling.

I've read an SDR is a basket of currencies, 4 in particular (the euro, yen, pound, and the dollar). I wander if the value of an SDR is based on lawful money?

Also, have you read anything about the Federal Reserve demanding payment of interest in gold?

martin earl
01-21-13, 07:35 PM
I think this to be a more pertinent issue when applying to taxes then the whole freeman movement. I've done quite a bit of research in that field, and I think both subjects do have some points of intersection, but coming to the realization is mind boggling.

I've read an SDR is a basket of currencies, 4 in particular (the euro, yen, pound, and the dollar). I wander if the value of an SDR is based on lawful money?

Also, have you read anything about the Federal Reserve demanding payment of interest in gold?

I have not seen anything about the Fed demanding gold, although if they did, they could not touch the 300 million in gold coins (at face value) held by the Treasury in trust for backing "lawful money" in circulation.

These coins were issued to the public, taken back to fund the War of Federal aggression (Civil War), Gold certificates issued for them were redeemed after the War.

Those same coins were "seized" again in 1933-34 under the "New Deal" of FDR. If any commodity is demanded by the FED for payment, it would be gold (in any form) issued and sold commercially and not the 300 million backing my (our) demand for lawful money, it is a matter of Federal by law those Gold coins cannot be touched.

The FED only has a first lien on "all good and services" "specifically held" to back the Feds credit. That is the essence of redemption, once redeemed, it is no longer backing the Federal Reserve (not just money, but the people as well).

Chex
01-21-13, 09:36 PM
Gold Banks
Associations may be organized under the National Banking Act for the purpose of issuing bank notes payable in gold. (See " Circulation.") Such banks are known as "National Gold Banks," or " Gold Banks," and to take out such circulation must deposit with the Treasurer of the United States, in the same manner as prescribed for the taking out of ordinary circulation, United States bonds bearing interest but payable in gold,1 but not exceeding eighty per cent, of the par value of the bonds deposited. These notes are payable upon presentation at the bank of issue in gold coin of the United States and shall be so redeemable.

1 While the 2% Consols of 1930 are the only bonds which are payable.

While Section 5185 of the United States Revised Statutes, authorizing the organization of "gold banks" has not actually been repealed, practically this result was obtained, however, by the Act of Feb. 14, 1880, authorizing the conversion of " gold banks" into " currency banks." As a result, there are, to-day, no "gold banks" in existence.

Read more: http://chestofbooks.com/finance/investments/Money-Investments/Gold-Banks.html#ixzz2IeFecgVi

Special Depository - Specialties

Special Depository
This will be understood by reading "United States Depository."
Special Indorsement

One which specifies the person or to the order of whom payment shall thereafter be made, and which calls for the indorsement of the party to whom it was made payable before it can be further negotiated; as, for example, suppose a note is made payable to Henry Adams. He makes a "special indorsement " by writing across the back "Pay to James Frazer or order," and then signing his own name below; i. e. "Henry Adams." By this form James Frazer is specified as the person to whose order the paper shall afterward be paid, and he must indorse it before it can be further negotiated.

Read more: http://chestofbooks.com/finance/investments/Money-Investments/Special-Depository-Specialties.html#ixzz2IeEGr186

United States Depository
The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to appoint any national bank as a "depository" for the moneys of the United States Government. This is a method which the Government adopts in order that a portion, at least, of the large sums of money which it often accumulates may get into use. It is conceivable that the Government receipts might be so large that an enormous amount of money could go into its hands and thus out of circulation, making such a contraction that there would be a scarcity of money for actual use, and it is to prevent such contingencies to even a small degree that this plan has been adopted.

The Government does employ national banks as depositories for other reasons than the above. It has what are called "permanent depositories," in localities where the principal offices of internal revenue collectors are located, or where sales of public lands occur, for the purpose of receiving the proceeds of such collections or sales; also " special depositories " in which post-office money-orders and United States Court funds are kept.
Any bank accepting the appointment, as above, must give satisfactory security by the deposit with the Treasury Department of United States Government bonds and otherwise.

The Secretary of the Treasury at one time construed the law as permitting him, at his discretion, to accept other than Government bonds, which may, in his judgment, furnish sufficient security. There is an impression among many leading financiers that this is a bad precedent, and might, sometime, lead to an abuse of the privilege.1

Read more: http://chestofbooks.com/finance/investments/Money-Investments/United-States-Depository.html#ixzz2IeEST9FF

mikecz
01-21-13, 10:27 PM
Ok,

With this I take issue.

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/28/137394348/-1-billion-that-nobody-wants

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

I'm thinking now United States currency notes are indeed lawful money, but, there are other types of lawful money. Coin being one of them. Now, the law doesn't state you can only have 300,000,000 in lawful money, its only 300,000,000 in United States currency notes. Therefore, I'm finding it difficult to connect lawful money as being inelastic. In the article above, "they say" there is 1 billion in coin, which is well above the inelastic 300,000,000 number. Could it be construed that these 1 dollar coins aren't in circulation?

Thanks

David Merrill
01-22-13, 12:26 AM
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/bulletin/1108assets.htm
Damn. I feel a dark cloud above. This is some dark shit man...

(that 1984 article was a great read by the way), is there a way to value lawful money? It has to have some difference, and currency reserves in some non-member banks require it's possession.

I believe that at the Amendments to the Bretton Woods Agreements (Secret Jamaica Rambouillet Accord included) the IMF Trust Fund was established at the current earmark of international gold. Look at the Footnotes.



I have not seen anything about the Fed demanding gold, although if they did, they could not touch the 300 million in gold coins (at face value) held by the Treasury in trust for backing "lawful money" in circulation.

These coins were issued to the public, taken back to fund the War of Federal aggression (Civil War), Gold certificates issued for them were redeemed after the War.

Those same coins were "seized" again in 1933-34 under the "New Deal" of FDR. If any commodity is demanded by the FED for payment, it would be gold (in any form) issued and sold commercially and not the 300 million backing my (our) demand for lawful money, it is a matter of Federal by law those Gold coins cannot be touched.

The FED only has a first lien on "all good and services" "specifically held" to back the Feds credit. That is the essence of redemption, once redeemed, it is no longer backing the Federal Reserve (not just money, but the people as well).

I am quickly being convinced that I have found the gold coins (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/bulletin/1108assets.htm). This is a fascinating journey. Those coins are located in the American Numismatic Association museum on the SE Corner of the Golden Rectangle (http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/4255/monumentsfibonaccispira.jpg). Like I tell in my first video (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImYmZlMTU5ZGQtYTIyZi00NjZjLWIyMzctOWFkZ jhhZDM1MGEy/edit) that whole Rectangle exploration came to me in a dream.

The dream went like this. I had discovered a "map" composed of the Masonic monuments here in Colorado Springs. I went to the middle of the symbol (I did not get the shape until I went to the monuments with GPS equipment) and was in a grove of trees. Most of the area in the Rectangle is Open Spaces like found in the 1313 METRO thread. In the middle of the trees the ground was soft and sandy - easy digging. I found an old wooden chest buried and opened it to find it filled with gold coins! It was one of the best dreams of my life! I found a movie called Bloodline (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImOThlYzJkOWEtNmMyOS00NTE2LTg5NzQtNGNjN TBlZTQwMjM4/edit) with a similar scene as my dream.


Ok,

With this I take issue.

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/28/137394348/-1-billion-that-nobody-wants

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

I'm thinking now United States currency notes are indeed lawful money, but, there are other types of lawful money. Coin being one of them. Now, the law doesn't state you can only have 300,000,000 in lawful money, its only 300,000,000 in United States currency notes. Therefore, I'm finding it difficult to connect lawful money as being inelastic. In the article above, "they say" there is 1 billion in coin, which is well above the inelastic 300,000,000 number. Could it be construed that these 1 dollar coins aren't in circulation?

Thanks

Yes. United States currency notes are all forms of lawful money. United States notes were not included in the United States currency notes until Congress decided to do that in order for Title 31 to be reenacted into positive law. Look at the Notes in the Section you cite (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5115).

I thought Congress simply changed the name of United States notes to coerce this pegging to the FRN in value. Oddly I got a call from two women who were both attorneys by their knowledge of Code. They instructed me where to look to discover for myself that United States notes were bundled into United States currency notes. I could probably find that citation, I am sure I still have it but have to remember key words and where I would have saved it.

mikecz
01-22-13, 12:49 AM
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/bulletin/1108assets.htm

I believe that at the Amendments to the Bretton Woods Agreements (Secret Jamaica Rambouillet Accord included) the IMF Trust Fund was established at the current earmark of international gold. Look at the Footnotes.




I am quickly being convinced that I have found the gold coins (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/bulletin/1108assets.htm). This is a fascinating journey. Those coins are located in the American Numismatic Association museum on the SE Corner of the Golden Rectangle (http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/4255/monumentsfibonaccispira.jpg). Like I tell in my first video (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImYmZlMTU5ZGQtYTIyZi00NjZjLWIyMzctOWFkZ jhhZDM1MGEy/edit) that whole Rectangle exploration came to me in a dream.

The dream went like this. I had discovered a "map" composed of the Masonic monuments here in Colorado Springs. I went to the middle of the symbol (I did not get the shape until I went to the monuments with GPS equipment) and was in a grove of trees. Most of the area in the Rectangle is Open Spaces like found in the 1313 METRO thread. In the middle of the trees the ground was soft and sandy - easy digging. I found an old wooden chest buried and opened it to find it filled with gold coins! It was one of the best dreams of my life! I found a movie called Bloodline (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImOThlYzJkOWEtNmMyOS00NTE2LTg5NzQtNGNjN TBlZTQwMjM4/edit) with a similar scene as my dream.



Yes. United States currency notes are all forms of lawful money. United States notes were not included in the United States currency notes until Congress decided to do that in order for Title 31 to be reenacted into positive law. Look at the Notes in the Section you cite (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5115).

I thought Congress simply changed the name of United States notes to coerce this pegging to the FRN in value. Oddly I got a call from two women who were both attorneys by their knowledge of Code. They instructed me where to look to discover for myself that United States notes were bundled into United States currency notes. I could probably find that citation, I am sure I still have it but have to remember key words and where I would have saved it.


Assuming these 1 dollar coins are us currency notes, how is it possible to possess 1 billion in 1 dollar coins at the fed?

(also thank you for the link referencing the $42/troy ounce..obviously earmarked for "international" trade...)

Boom... http://chestofbooks.com/finance/banking/Banking-Principles-And-Practice-2/The-Redemption-Fund.html#.UP33MmdtedM..

Required redemption fund for banks...

http://chestofbooks.com/finance/banking/Banking-Principles-And-Practice-2/Method-Of-Note-Redemption.html#.UP3-qWdtedM

David Merrill
01-22-13, 04:38 AM
I do not equate it that way. There may not be a full $300M in US notes extant. So let's just guess that vault has $150M in value, in gold coins.

Chex
01-22-13, 04:48 PM
In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0jpso4jDC4

This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard. http://constitution.org/mon/greenspan_gold.htm

mikecz
01-22-13, 07:44 PM
I guess what I'm getting at, really, I'm trying to get my credit union to admit in writing we can demand lawful money, that they carry lawful money differently on their books (not as big a point, but this is why we need proof, and why we should open an evidence depository), that lawful money is not taxable, and to convince enough people to use lawful money to crash the Federal Reserve system. That is not too much to ask right?

I did find blatant hypocrisy on the Federal Reserve websites...

http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section13.htm

"Any Federal reserve bank may receive from any of its member banks, or other depository institutions, and from the United States, deposits of current funds in lawful money, national-bank notes, Federal reserve notes, or checks, and drafts, payable upon presentation, or other items, and also, for collection, maturing notes and bills;

Then here

http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_15197.htm

"Federal and state courts since then have repeatedly held that Federal Reserve notes are also "lawful money." Milam v. U.S., 524 F.2d 629 (9th Cir. 1974), is typical of the federal and state court cases holding that Federal Reserve notes are "lawful money"."

In the first quotes, then why specify a difference, if lawful money and federal reserve notes are the same, WTF. Oh yeah, because they are not the same. The only distinction I see is that on 12 USC § 411, it states "Federal reserve notes". In the first link, it is also "Federal reserve notes". But, in the second link, in the description, that are called "Federal Reserve notes." Is there a difference in a Federal reserve note and a Federal Reserve note?

Side note, treasury bonds are lawful money, according to investopedia... These are the bonds the fed purchases with their worthless notes.

David Merrill
01-23-13, 01:27 AM
I love using Milam to make that point!



http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/237/publicmoneycase1opinion.jpg


Presuming that you are being genuine about not getting it I suppose I can understand why it is so frustrating trying to figure it out from my posts.


http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/6635/publicmoneycase1title.jpg

The reason I feel you are disingenuous is that Milam does not say what you say it says! It does not say that FRNs are lawful money.

MILAM thought he could redeem for metal. The only significant thing Milam says to me is that the justices acknowledge his right to redeem.

mikecz
01-23-13, 03:14 PM
No, no. Not disingenuous. I just didn't convey the message. What I was trying to say was the Federal Reserve is clearly making an untrue statement on their website by stating that their notes are lawful money. They are twisting the Milam case. Trust me, I'm completely on board with you.

What I was also was attempting to point out was on another page within a federal reserve website, they make a distinction between Federal Reserve notes and lawful money. I guess what I was trying to say was that if Federal Reserve notes were truly lawful money, why would they separate the two when describing types of deposits made. It's like saying you can deposit apples and oranges, why wouldn't they say you can deposit fruit. Lawful money and federal reserve notes are different, so they can't be combined, they are 2 separate things.

Funny thing is my credit union manager never got back to me. I will be stopping by today for a followup. Also, believe it or not, I have a personal connection to 2 people who actually owned member banks. We aren't talking Bank of America here, just smaller independent banks, but member banks indeed. If you had 3-5 questions to drill them with, what would they be? Keep in mind, 1 has sold his bank since, therefore has no personal ties to it. Thanks again David.

martin earl
01-23-13, 07:46 PM
Ok,

With this I take issue.

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/28/137394348/-1-billion-that-nobody-wants


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

I'm thinking now United States currency notes are indeed lawful money, but, there are other types of lawful money. Coin being one of them. Now, the law doesn't state you can only have 300,000,000 in lawful money, its only 300,000,000 in United States currency notes. Therefore, I'm finding it difficult to connect lawful money as being inelastic. In the article above, "they say" there is 1 billion in coin, which is well above the inelastic 300,000,000 number. Could it be construed that these 1 dollar coins aren't in circulation?

Thanks

The amount is for paper money (called then US Bank Notes) the "coins" in questions were not only 1 dollar coins, but all the gold coins in circulation from the US Mint in the 1800s up till 1933.

The Federal statute from above is specific to "United States currency Notes" which never were Federal Reserve notes. The clad coins today are only lawful money in that they are:

1. Issued by the US Treasury and contain some material that is consideration.

2. Valued at face value.

3. Coined by the power granted to congress in the Constitution and to set the value there of.

US Notes (paper currency) have always been BACKED by actual gold or silver reserves and sometimes redeemable directly for that gold or silver at face value. The US has suspended the direct redeem-ability of US Notes in any form in times of emergency. Such is the case since 1933.

The US Notes are still backed by lawful money (in fact, the exact same Coins are backing them, I believe) but the notes are not being directly redeemed for those coins. This is why the recorded Demand for lawful money per 12-USC 411
is so powerful.

That demand puts the US government in very dangerous position of NOT obeying its own law (12 USC 411 "shall be redeemed on demand). And it puts the one demanding the redemption in the position of the Creditor and the US in the position of the DEBTOR and the one with the obligation to pay.


You have to be careful to watch the words being used, because not all rules on lawful money or currency apply both coins and/or paper.

martin earl
01-23-13, 07:50 PM
No, no. Not disingenuous. I just didn't convey the message. What I was trying to say was the Federal Reserve is clearly making an untrue statement on their website by stating that their notes are lawful money. They are twisting the Milam case. Trust me, I'm completely on board with you.

What I was also was attempting to point out was on another page within a federal reserve website, they make a distinction between Federal Reserve notes and lawful money. I guess what I was trying to say was that if Federal Reserve notes were truly lawful money, why would they separate the two when describing types of deposits made. It's like saying you can deposit apples and oranges, why wouldn't they say you can deposit fruit. Lawful money and federal reserve notes are different, so they can't be combined, they are 2 separate things.

Funny thing is my credit union manager never got back to me. I will be stopping by today for a followup. Also, believe it or not, I have a personal connection to 2 people who actually owned member banks. We aren't talking Bank of America here, just smaller independent banks, but member banks indeed. If you had 3-5 questions to drill them with, what would they be? Keep in mind, 1 has sold his bank since, therefore has no personal ties to it. Thanks again David.

Paper is divided by borders, lines on paper mean things. Look at any map of the US or any legal document, lines separate things on paper. There are US Notes in circulation, they are hidden in plain view and they are NOT Federal Reserve Notes, they do reside very close to Federal Reserve Notes.

"Similar things are not the same."

mikecz
01-23-13, 08:20 PM
The amount is for paper money (called then US Bank Notes) the "coins" in questions were not only 1 dollar coins, but all the gold coins in circulation from the US Mint in the 1800s up till 1933.

The Federal statute from above is specific to "United States currency Notes" which never were Federal Reserve notes. The clad coins today are only lawful money in that they are:

1. Issued by the US Treasury and contain some material that is consideration.

2. Valued at face value.

3. Coined by the power granted to congress in the Constitution and to set the value there of.

US Notes (paper currency) have always been BACKED by actual gold or silver reserves and sometimes redeemable directly for that gold or silver at face value. The US has suspended the direct redeem-ability of US Notes in any form in times of emergency. Such is the case since 1933.

The US Notes are still backed by lawful money (in fact, the exact same Coins are backing them, I believe) but the notes are not being directly redeemed for those coins. This is why the recorded Demand for lawful money per 12-USC 411
is so powerful.

That demand puts the US government in very dangerous position of NOT obeying its own law (12 USC 411 "shall be redeemed on demand). And it puts the one demanding the redemption in the position of the Creditor and the US in the position of the DEBTOR and the one with the obligation to pay.


You have to be careful to watch the words being used, because not all rules on lawful money or currency apply both coins and/or paper.


Sooo, the reason we can't redeem our US notes in gold is because of an emergency? I've read little on this. Where is the emergency per se, or what document specifies that, I would love to dig into it. Sooo, to be clear, US Bank notes are backed by gold (possibly the same gold coins). The US treasury can mint coins, but those coins, even though considered lawful money, aren't backed by gold...

I also have read a little bit on the trading with the enemy act from Woodrow Wilson. Somewhere I read FDR took the act even further, claiming all US Citizens were now considered the enemy. Can't back that one up though... http://www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/enemy.html

martin earl
01-23-13, 09:23 PM
Sooo, the reason we can't redeem our US notes in gold is because of an emergency? I've read little on this. Where is the emergency per se, or what document specifies that, I would love to dig into it. Sooo, to be clear, US Bank notes are backed by gold (possibly the same gold coins). The US treasury can mint coins, but those coins, even though considered lawful money, aren't backed by gold...

I also have read a little bit on the trading with the enemy act from Woodrow Wilson. Somewhere I read FDR took the act even further, claiming all US Citizens were now considered the enemy. Can't back that one up though... http://www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/enemy.html

The reason we cannot redeem the gold directly is because those coins are held in trust for all those demanding lawful money redemption. With over 300 million people in the US, it would be impossible to keep the coins actually circulating. With the FRN price of gold, they would be quickly destroyed for their gold and not traded at face value.

All US minted coins are valuable, they do not need to be backed per se, because they are their own consideration (value).

As for the states of emergency, they are many and varied.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Emergencies_Act#State_of_National_Emergen cy_in_effect_since_November_1979

There are a few, with citations, there.

The US has been under "emergency powers" since Abe Lincoln was President. As for the trading with the enemy act, it is clear that even Abe considered international Banks a more dangerous threat to the rule of law than the Southern states.

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." - Thomas Jefferson.

"I have two great enemies, the southern army in front of me and the financial institutions, in the rear. Of the two, the one in the rear is the greatest enemy..... I see in the future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of the war." - Abraham Lincoln

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation then by deflation, the banks and the corporations will grow up around them, will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." -Thomas Jefferson, The Debate Over The Recharter Of The Bank Bill, (1809)

"Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce." - President James A. Garfield (1831-1881)
http://newsmiths.blogspot.com/2008/11/us-federal-reserve-banking-banker.html

Simply put, if you are NOT demanding redemption of lawful money per 12 USC 411, you ARE "trading with the enemy".

shikamaru
01-23-13, 09:51 PM
I'm thinking now United States currency notes are indeed lawful money, but, there are other types of lawful money. Coin being one of them.

US Treasuries and agency treasuries are considered lawful money.

In fact, these are the underpinnings of FRNs currently.

Essentially, commercial paper issued by the Department of the Treasury and other US governmental agencies are the lawful money supporting the issuing of FRNs.

martin earl
01-23-13, 10:34 PM
US Treasuries and agency treasuries are considered lawful money.

In fact, these are the underpinnings of FRNs currently.

Essentially, commercial paper issued by the Department of the Treasury and other US governmental agencies are the lawful money supporting the issuing of FRNs.

It is debatable that paper issued (by anyone) backed by nothing but future promise of people endorsing it and continuing to support a system of theft and deception can be considered "lawful".

What is the underpinning of the FRN is the ignorance of the State Peon.

allodial
01-24-13, 01:12 AM
It might be worthwhile comparing..


Pay ten U.S. dollars lawful money
To the order of John Doe ...

to


PAY TO
ORDER OF John Doe

ten .... DOLLARS


As in it seems worth noting the nature of an underlying instrument and that they print the checks for you so that you can make them out for, say, "one hundred DOLLARS" instead of "U.S. dollars" or "lawful money of the United States". Perhaps contrast with a promissory note associated with a mortgage which would likely be "...in the lawful money of the United States of America".

Anthony Joseph
01-24-13, 03:14 AM
It is the difference between "lawful money" and "lawful money of the United States" we should discuss.

The former is issued by any source (conventionally and presently the private Federal Reserve Bank) declared by Congress to be "lawful money". The latter can ONLY BE issued SOLELY by the United States Treasury and it is inelastic, conforming to the biblical law of just weights and measures.

Do you endorse the former, or demand the latter?

That is the issue and it is a matter of trust.

David Merrill
01-24-13, 02:58 PM
It is the difference between "lawful money" and "lawful money of the United States" we should discuss.

The former is issued by any source (conventionally and presently the private Federal Reserve Bank) declared by Congress to be "lawful money". The latter can ONLY BE issued SOLELY by the United States Treasury and it is inelastic, conforming to the biblical law of just weights and measures.

Do you endorse the former, or demand the latter?

That is the issue and it is a matter of trust.

That is a good distinction and I also want to throw in a third thought system.

Money of Account.

There is also no definition of money of account, even though Congress will sometimes refer to it. This precept stands in case law on an interesting post-Civil War case called Trebilcock v. Wilson (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/79/687/case.html). It develops a subsequent doctrine that if you tender legal tender to me and I refuse to accept it, then I have waived your obligation to perform. - Meaning you get the goods or services already tendered for free. Look carefully at this Public Office Money Certificate (http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/9008/pomc.jpg).

Oops! Small image - it says, The Undersigned will Pay To__________________ DOLLARS of the Money of Account of the United States, as Required by Law at 31 USC §371 Pending Official Determination of the Substance of Said Money.

This plays integral role in your point AJ as §371 has been repealed in order to peg US notes to the FRNs in value.


http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/9008/pomc.jpg

allodial
01-25-13, 12:12 AM
Yes good points. Consider USA Constitution Article I, Section 10, Clause 1:


No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.

A restriction on States clearly. However, is the term "State" referring to members of the confederation "The United States of America" or does it mean State as territorial-State of the United States or something else? On one hand, seems the confederation members are being restricted to gold and silver coin but not so with the territorial-states or the singular state called "the United States" or "the United States of America" ? (Consider also the Coinage Act of 1792.)

USA Constitution Article I, Section 8:


The Congress shall have Power To ...
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

Note the lack of restriction on the type of "Money" for the Territorial (U.S.) Government.

The prospect of there being at least a territorial currency and a non-territorial currency seems worth pondering. The prospect of there being two types of territorial money (i.e. one 'lawful' and the other merely 'legal') might be worth considering as well. Redemption for lawful money may very well result in changing of character of the ledgering and underwriting for any given bill in circulation.

***

On topic of money of account or accounting units (http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/International+Accounting+Unit) vs lawful money, it might be worth considering: trade dollar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_Dollar_(United_States_coin)) vs unit of account.

allodial
01-25-13, 04:25 AM
Definitions of dollar.


Definition of "Dollar"

Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856 Edition
DOLLAR, money. A silver coin of the United States of the value of one hundred
cents, or tenth part of an eagle.
2. It weighs four hundred and twelve and a half grains. Of one thousand parts,
nine hundred are of pure silver and one hundred of alloy. Act of January 18,
1837, ss. 8 & 9, 4 Sharsw. Cont. of Story's L. U. S. 2523, 4; Wright, R. 162.
3. In all computations at the custom-house, the specie dollar of Sweden and
Norway shall be estimated at one hundred and six cents. The specie dollar of
Denmark, at one hundred and five cents. Act of May 22, 1846.
CENT, money. A copper coin of the United States of the value of ten mills; ten
of them are equal to a dime, and one hundred, to one dollar. Each cent is
required to contain one hundred and sixty-eight grains. Act of January 18th,
1837, 4 Sharsw. cont. of Story',s L. U. S. 2524.

Blacks Law Dictionary, 1st Edition (1891)
DOLLAR. The unit employed in the United States in calculating money values. It
is coined both in gold and silver, and is of the value of one hundred cents.
CENT. A coin of the United States, the least in value of those now minted. It
is the hundredth part of a dollar. Its weight is 72 gr., and it is composed of
copper and nickel in the ratio of 88 to 12.

Blacks Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition (1933)
DOLLAR. The unit employed in the United States in calculating money values. It
is coined both in gold and silver, and is of the value of one hundred cents.
Thompson v. State, 90 Rex. Cr. R. 125, 234 S. W. 406, 408.

Blacks Law Dictionary, 4th Edition (1951)
DOLLAR. The unit employed in the United States in calculating money values. It
is coined both in gold and silver, and is of the value of one hundred cents.
People v. Alba 46 Cal.App.2d 859, 117 P.2d 63. Money or currency issued by
lawful authority and intended to pass and circulated as such. Neufield v.
United States, 118 f,2d 375, 387, 73 App.D.C. 174. The dollar of nine-tenths
fine consisting of the weight determined under the 31 U.S.C.A. § 321, shall be
the standard unit of value, and all forms of money issued or coined shall be
maintained at a parity of value with this standard. 31 U.S.C.A. § 314.

Blacks Law Dictionary, 4th Edition Revised (1957)
DOLLAR. The unit employed in the United States in calculating money values. It
is of the value of 100 cents. People v. Alba, 46 Cal.App.2d 859, 117 P.2d 63.
Money or currency issued by lawful authority and intended to pass and circulated
as such. Neufield v. United States, 118 f,2d 375, 387, 73 App.D.C. 174.

Blacks Law Dictionary, 5th Edition (1968)
Dollar. The money unit employed in the United States of the value of one
hundred cents, or any combination of coins totalling one hundred cents.

Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th Edition (1979)
Dollar. The money unit employed in the United States of the value of one
hundred cents, or any combination of coins totalling one hundred cents.

Cent. A coin of the United States, the least in value of those now minted. It
is the hundredth part of a dollar.

Blacks Law Dictionary, 7th Edition (current edition)
(No definition for "dollar" or "cent" found)

Ballentines Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition (1930 & 1948)
Dollar (dol'ar). " There is no ambiguity about the word 'dollar'." If any word
has a settled meaning at law, and in the courts, it is this. It can only mean
the legal currency of the United States, not dollars vested in lands. A dollar
is the volume of money, and is by law made a money unit value of the value of
one hundred cents. See State v. Downs, 148 Ind. 324, 327.

Ballentines Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition (1969)
dollar. The legal currency of the United States; State v Downs, 148 Ind 324,
327; the unit of money consisting of one hundred cents. The aggregate of
specific coins which add up to one dollar. 36 Am J1st Money § 8. In the
absence of qualifying words, it cannot mean promissory notes, bonds, or other
evidences of debt. 36 AM J1st Money § 8. (Emphasis Added)

American Jurisprudence, Volume 36, § 8
[T]he term "dollar" means money, since it is the unit of money in this country,
and in the absence of qualifying words, it cannot mean promissory notes or bonds
or other evidences of debt. The term also refers to specific coins of the value
of one dollar. (27 Ohio Jur pp. 125, 126, § 3), (United States v. Van Auken, 96
US 366, 24 L ed 852)

Black's Law, Second Pocket Edition (1996)
Federal Reserve Note
Federal reserve note. The paper currency in circulation in the United States.
The notes are issued by the Federal Reserve Banks, are effectively
non-interest-bearing promissory notes payable to bearer on demand, and are
issued in denominations of $1, $5, $10, $20, $50, $100, $500, $1,000, $5,000,
and $10,000. (Emphasis Added)

Title 18 § 8. - Obligation or other security of the United States defined
The term ''obligation or other security of the United States'' includes all
bonds, certificates of indebtedness, national bank currency, Federal Reserve
notes, Federal Reserve bank notes, coupons, United States notes, Treasury notes,
gold certificates, silver certificates, fractional notes, certificates of
deposit, bills, checks, or drafts for money, drawn by or upon authorized
officers of the United States, stamps and other representatives of value, of
whatever denomination, issued under any Act of Congress, and canceled United
States stamps. (Emphasis Added)

mikecz
01-25-13, 04:48 PM
That is a good distinction and I also want to throw in a third thought system.

Money of Account.

There is also no definition of money of account, even though Congress will sometimes refer to it. This precept stands in case law on an interesting post-Civil War case called Trebilcock v. Wilson (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/79/687/case.html). It develops a subsequent doctrine that if you tender legal tender to me and I refuse to accept it, then I have waived your obligation to perform. - Meaning you get the goods or services already tendered for free. Look carefully at this Public Office Money Certificate (http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/9008/pomc.jpg).

Oops! Small image - it says, The Undersigned will Pay To__________________ DOLLARS of the Money of Account of the United States, as Required by Law at 31 USC §371 Pending Official Determination of the Substance of Said Money.

This plays integral role in your point AJ as §371 has been repealed in order to peg US notes to the FRNs in value.


http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/9008/pomc.jpg



http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tips_and_tricks/message/17135

I found above on POMC.

In the link the user states this is what it really means... ”I’m willing to pay what you allege I owe if you will tell me how to do such without breaking the law.” Really it is not allowing them to break the law and demand private money when by law they can only demand public money. " I'm assuming this only works when paying tickets, court fees, etc...

I'm just looking for clarity here, in the statute, it prohibits the courts from keeping their proceedings in anything but the money of account of the United States. Ok, well, this is the part I'm trying to understand. Obviously you can't just rip this off on a printer and hand it to someone, it has to draw the funds from somewhere, correct? Is this offered in conjunction with a FRN? Is this a contract.. that if someone accepts it, then they agree to be paid at some point in the future in this form? Subsequent currency must be in this form? By accepting this negotiable contract, they agree to discharge (in this case "pay for" because your not paying for a debt with a debt?) the debt. I'm guessing it is a catch 22, because law requires them to accept it, yet since the form of the account of the united states really doesn't exist, or it is extremely difficult to obtain and it forces them into using lawful money or the united states, the services are accepted with no actual payment. Maybe a little more on the statement, "tender legal tender?" Boy, I know I was all over the place, I actually bought the miracle on main street for further understanding, but, a few sentences to explain further what is going on here would be much appreciated...

allodial
01-26-13, 02:36 AM
(Corrected and clarified earlier post moreso. Had network issues.)

David Merrill
01-26-13, 03:03 AM
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tips_and_tricks/message/17135

I found above on POMC.

In the link the user states this is what it really means... ”I’m willing to pay what you allege I owe if you will tell me how to do such without breaking the law.” Really it is not allowing them to break the law and demand private money when by law they can only demand public money. " I'm assuming this only works when paying tickets, court fees, etc...

I'm just looking for clarity here, in the statute, it prohibits the courts from keeping their proceedings in anything but the money of account of the United States. Ok, well, this is the part I'm trying to understand. Obviously you can't just rip this off on a printer and hand it to someone, it has to draw the funds from somewhere, correct? Is this offered in conjunction with a FRN? Is this a contract.. that if someone accepts it, then they agree to be paid at some point in the future in this form? Subsequent currency must be in this form? By accepting this negotiable contract, they agree to discharge (in this case "pay for" because your not paying for a debt with a debt?) the debt. I'm guessing it is a catch 22, because law requires them to accept it, yet since the form of the account of the united states really doesn't exist, or it is extremely difficult to obtain and it forces them into using lawful money or the united states, the services are accepted with no actual payment. Maybe a little more on the statement, "tender legal tender?" Boy, I know I was all over the place, I actually bought the miracle on main street for further understanding, but, a few sentences to explain further what is going on here would be much appreciated...

What a Post! You sound like a child on Christmas morning...

There is a lot there alright! Gobs of presents just waiting to be unwrapped.

These instruments work but the consideration is "money on account". That is why the statute cited has been repealed and US notes were bundled into United States currency notes, in order to legitimize (criminal syndacalism) Title 31 is now positive law, and rationalize pegging the inelastic US note to the elastic FRN in value. It was only when I tried to set up an account with the City of XXXXX/METRO for future parking tickets etc. that the DA had a handle on Theft and Forgery charges. I had to depose the DA (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImMmIzMDdiNmUtMzY2Yy00MzgzLTkxYTEtNzZmZ jU1MmJkYTdl/edit) to get out from under that dog pile.

allodial
01-26-13, 03:17 AM
1077

In a game called Runescape, there is an area called "the Wildy" or "the Wilderness". The rules that normally apply in the game dont apply. Things that can get accounts banned or blocked or guards sent after you in the regular part of the game dont necessarily apply. The same model might have applicability as to what might fly in the territories might not fly in America. The while there might be a lawful money of the United States there might also be the prospect of being finagled by someone dishonest--by some kind of criminal syndicate. As in the differences in currencies might be more easily comprehended in terms of what can be gotten away with and where. Of course, then there is the matter of exigent circumstances. Gilpin was, afterall a Territorial Governor. Of course, a sovereign might not be able to dabble in certain activities due to prescriptive duties, a private syndicate might not be subject to such limitations.

mikecz
01-26-13, 04:41 AM
What a Post! You sound like a child on Christmas morning...

There is a lot there alright! Gobs of presents just waiting to be unwrapped.

These instruments work but the consideration is "money on account". That is why the statute cited has been repealed and US notes were bundled into United States currency notes, in order to legitimize (criminal syndacalism) Title 31 is now positive law, and rationalize pegging the inelastic US note to the elastic FRN in value. It was only when I tried to set up an account with the City of XXXXX/METRO for future parking tickets etc. that the DA had a handle on Theft and Forgery charges. I had to depose the DA (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImMmIzMDdiNmUtMzY2Yy00MzgzLTkxYTEtNzZmZ jU1MmJkYTdl/edit) to get out from under that dog pile.


Soo, tell me what happened here. You tried to create and account in "the account of united states", they charged you with theft and forgery. You charged him for not completing an oath...(within 30 days?) Did you win? Was he ousted? (please answer)

Also, there is definitely a disconnect here between the US note and the FRN, I guess that is where the POMC struck a chord. I for some reason can't believe they've covered all the bases, there has to be something out there to let us realize the true value of this note... (anything further?)

allodial
01-26-13, 05:15 AM
No doubt David Merrill would be best to reply. From what I recall he deposed the District Attorney. What he was aiming to do makes perfect sense. David Merrill, did the Letter of Credit come after the POMC?

Franco
01-26-13, 05:36 AM
Dave, I have been reading here and there on your site. Lots of good information. I still don’t understand it all very well, especially the Trust section. Presently, I am receiving retirement benefits from Social security. I receive the benefits by law through direct deposit in a bank here in Texas. I know that :
1. The Social Security Trust Funds are the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds.
2. They are managed by Department of Treasury.
3. A Board of Trustees oversees the financial operations of the trust funds. The Board reports annually to the Congress on the financial status of the trust funds.
4. By law trust funds must be invested in securities that guarantee both principal and interest.
5. Would that prevent me from demanding lawful money. I don’t get my check in the mail anymore. Because of new federal law I had to put my check in a bank through direct deposit. This prevents me from signing for non-indorsement on the check. Can I sign for non-indorsement on the withdrawal slip ?
Thank you Franco
p.s. if i posted in wrong place or some other error . i have lots to learn.

David Merrill
01-26-13, 01:21 PM
At the risk of sounding arrogant, you guys are all getting it fine. I really do change my belief sets as new information comes in! If and only if the new intelligence meets general rules of evidence. I have to get consent to prepare an evidence package (sanitized to the suitor's satisfaction) but here is some Crosstalk - a preview hopefully:


Went to court today to inquire about the docket. Nothing scheduled for True Name or Legal Name.

So far, so good. I'm getting the hang of this.

Picture attached. Of police officers/cars at traffic stop.



Thank You!

----- Original Message -----
From: David Merrill < >
To:
Sent: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 17:29:52 -0000 (UTC)
Subject: RE: dumb question

The Chief of Police and your evidence repository.
Call me for instructions please.


-----Original Message-----

From:
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 201310:01 AM
To: David Merrill
Subject: dumb question

R4C'ing a traffic citation - do you recommend returning it to...

1. address on envelope provided by officer.
2. organization (city police) the officer works for, or
3. court address (court where any agreed hearing would likely be held) ?

thank you,

Nickname

Sure enough I found the R4C in the evidence repository all marked up by the US clerk of court. The suitor was carrying a certified copy in case there was an appearance required. The traffic stop - speeding and illegal lane change for over $200. He would have gone into the courtroom and when his case was called he would have appeared restricted (Rule E(8)) to prevent fraud on the court - which is to say the chief of police had not sent the R4C to the court too. If the CoP had sent the R4C then the judge would have had to decide whether or not the suitor had a right of refusal.

Like he says though; So far, so Good. Nothing will really be proven until next time he is out and gets stopped. We always hope he stays out of trouble but this sort of thing happens.

When he was stopped with a driver license signed in his true name he informed the officer that he was not using the Card for identification purposes - competence only. The officer began asking about his mental competence and called an ambulance! The EMT's cleared him after asking about psychiatric history and medications. The officers issued the ticket anyway and apparently in vain as the clerk of court (city attorneys) have rejected the cause from the chief of police.

The Libel of Review is integral as it makes his ongoing demand for lawful money clearly on the "exclusive original cognizance" of the United States government. The clerk instruction is on the R4C on the original ticket. So the clerks who view it can look it up on PACER and see that it really is on the record. All that is left to try is the suitor's right of refusal and since he is out of contract with the Fed that will get sticky. All officers are trained to testify on the witness stand under oath about in personam jurisdiction - How did the defendant identify himself? The attorney in the black robe is trained to listen for it from the arresting officer.

[Looking at the docket report of his LoR however shows that he has saved well over the $350 filing fee in R4C's.]


Soo, tell me what happened here. You tried to create and account in "the account of united states", they charged you with theft and forgery. You charged him for not completing an oath...(within 30 days?) Did you win? Was he ousted? (please answer)

Also, there is definitely a disconnect here between the US note and the FRN, I guess that is where the POMC struck a chord. I for some reason can't believe they've covered all the bases, there has to be something out there to let us realize the true value of this note... (anything further?)

I won my freedom. There have never been any consequences of any slurs on "my record" and if there are I will show the potential employer etc. how SUTHERS was running a vacant office. A friend of his reported that he was cleaning out his office the next morning. He had been voted out after eight years anyway but left the office six weeks early. The newspapers asked him why he was leaving early and he gave no comment.

That is important, to keep honor and peace. If I had gone public with the Certificate of Fact then eight years of convictions would have potentially and probably been reversed, up for retrial. Technically they still can be and civil suits would stack up behind my $20M Lien that came to cure while SUTHERS was and is the State Attorney General. My perception is that he let things cool off while at the Department of Corrections in Florence. Then he moved for AG. Look how perfect his oath is now!

Disconnect between the FRN and US note? That is my standing accusation! Allodial wrote a significant post about that though - so you all see it too - the connection between "money on account" and "lawful money" in America.

Look at the dates:


http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_John_Suthers'_AG_oath.jpg

http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/6152/suthersfungiblefidelity.jpg

His first oath of 2005 is bogus as he does not conform to statute or even law, considering that swearing means that you hold a competent witness (the ever-living God). If you swear that means you make yourself accountable to the Witness in Authority - God.


http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/6332/formofoath.jpg

They leave me alone anymore - but then I stay out of trouble too. - Always wise to be a peaceful minister of the public trust. I teach peace too. That is how come I have peace. But every conviction since January 13, 2009 (http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/7770/danmaydaoathandinsuranc.pdf) around here is in jeopardy so it is no big surprise they leave me to my teaching here and on the brain trust. [Just look at the current DA's signed confession! He knows he is outside the IN GOD WE TRUST (on the money) and SO HELP ME (the very same monothiesm) GOD (which is not on his (Dan MAY, the current DA around here) oath of office like statute requires because he bought a $5K insurance policy instead!] Dan MAY knows that he is not covered by the Comptroller of the State Treasury.



No doubt David Merrill would be best to reply. From what I recall he deposed the District Attorney. What he was aiming to do makes perfect sense. David Merrill, did the Letter of Credit come after the POMC?

The Letter of Credit was already in place. That particular POMC (and about five others) worked great. The Forgery charge was that I made them POMC look too much like a regular bank check. The Theft charge was that I was trying to set up moneys in an account for my use to pay off future tickets and court fines. I was in violation of the general trust agreement.

http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/9008/pomc.jpg
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/3385/letterofcredit1.jpg
http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/4481/letterofcredit2.jpg

Because I spent 72 days in jail about it I cannot suggest people try this.



Dave, I have been reading here and there on your site. Lots of good information. I still don’t understand it all very well, especially the Trust section. Presently, I am receiving retirement benefits from Social security. I receive the benefits by law through direct deposit in a bank here in Texas. I know that :

1. The Social Security Trust Funds are the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds.
2. They are managed by Department of Treasury.
3. A Board of Trustees oversees the financial operations of the trust funds. The Board reports annually to the Congress on the financial status of the trust funds.
4. By law trust funds must be invested in securities that guarantee both principal and interest.
5. Would that prevent me from demanding lawful money. I don’t get my check in the mail anymore. Because of new federal law I had to put my check in a bank through direct deposit. This prevents me from signing for non-indorsement on the check. Can I sign for non-indorsement on the withdrawal slip ?

Thank you Franco

p.s. if i posted in wrong place or some other error . i have lots to learn.


You seem to have answered your own question. I went over this with a new suitor yesterday and it is the same conditioning that affects a limited displacement hysteria about Signature Cards. I will try to clarify:

People around here feel the bank is being unresponsive to your demand for lawful money? - To the contrary! Especially folks who have letters from the bank... You have proof of service that you made your demand right there in your hand! Can you stop your whirring mind long enough to let that sink in?

[If I posted that on the wrong place or some other error...] Get it? That is conditioning too; but I plan to try clawing my way through this disguise (Re: The Wall) around here with some forceful posts in appropriate threads soon.

Do you USE your SSN for insurance policy identification/claim only?

If I ask you, Do you have a Social Security Number? - Would you answer, Yes?

Why would you say that to me?

Are you making a claim on an insurance policy with me?

Answer: No. I do not have a Social Security Number (for you, David Merrill).

mikecz
01-26-13, 03:31 PM
David,

Slow clap (hopefully others joining in). Nice work. OK, I get the oath I get the clerk stating he was occupying a vacant office (that had to feel good while getting noterized).

Now, what's with the 20 million dollar lien. Wtf, was this against the DA? I see Greenspan on there, just wanted to know how/why you did that? For damages? Also, I read through the default judgment, its all in there, and as with no response within a given time frame, it can be ...insert your case here. I'm learning a lot here and am enjoying hearing others posts as well...but, can you elaborate on the lien?

allodial
01-26-13, 04:57 PM
The reason we cannot redeem the gold directly is because those coins are held in trust for all those demanding lawful money redemption. With over 300 million people in the US, it would be impossible to keep the coins actually circulating. With the FRN price of gold, they would be quickly destroyed for their gold and not traded at face value.

If one looks at the reasons for taking silver out of coinage it evidences indirect holding (see UCC Article 8). The concern was that coins were being taken out of circulation for their intrinsic value (Coinage Act of 1965 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coinage_Act_of_1965)).


1. The Social Security Trust Funds are the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds.
2. They are managed by Department of Treasury.
3. A Board of Trustees oversees the financial operations of the trust funds. The Board reports annually to the Congress on the financial status of the trust funds.
4. By law trust funds must be invested in securities that guarantee both principal and interest.
5. Would that prevent me from demanding lawful money. I don’t get my check in the mail anymore. Because of new federal law I had to put my check in a bank through direct deposit. This prevents me from signing for non-indorsement on the check. Can I sign for non-indorsement on the withdrawal slip ?

The Social Security Administration invests in U.S. Treasury securities and are one of the biggest investors in the United States Government and likely the tune of over $2T per year.

shikamaru
01-26-13, 06:34 PM
Social Security "trust fund" is a misnomer.

Excise (FICA) taxes collected for Social Security go into the general fund of government.

The dollars collected from SS aren't even earmarked in any way.

allodial
01-27-13, 12:58 AM
Consider the Federal Reserve Systems custodial role the Federal Reserve System might have as pertains to U.S. Treasury Securities per Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

David Merrill
01-27-13, 01:48 AM
David,

Slow clap (hopefully others joining in). Nice work. OK, I get the oath I get the clerk stating he was occupying a vacant office (that had to feel good while getting noterized).

Now, what's with the 20 million dollar lien. Wtf, was this against the DA? I see Greenspan on there, just wanted to know how/why you did that? For damages? Also, I read through the default judgment, its all in there, and as with no response within a given time frame, it can be ...insert your case here. I'm learning a lot here and am enjoying hearing others posts as well...but, can you elaborate on the lien?

Once you have the court established properly - that is to say that the oaths are in order, then the actors are bonded by the comptroller of the Treasury.

mikecz
01-27-13, 04:37 AM
The federal reserve note is a dual purpose note. By endorsing you claim in to be one thing, by not, you claim it to be another.

All you need is documentation of you claim, and you have tax free money. David, this is about taxes...right?

Separating the two currencies, and their value, is a whole other battle, this is about waging a personal war with the IRS. I think I get it...You have setup a default judgement, a LoR (for all past personal conduct), a evidence repository (for future proof of non endorsement), a refusal for cause as a first line of defense, and a signature card with the bank. Well done.

David Merrill
01-27-13, 05:08 AM
The federal reserve note is a dual purpose note. By endorsing you claim in to be one thing, by not, you claim it to be another.

All you need is documentation of you claim, and you have tax free money. David, this is about taxes...right?

Separating the two currencies, and their value, is a whole other battle, this is about waging a personal war with the IRS. You have setup a default judgement, a LoR, a evidence repository, and a signature card with the bank. Well done.

Redemption is claim upon the original estate as heir apparent - at least to me. It follows a redemption model like found in the Bible.

If I had 30% of my year's wages tied up on account then it would be about taxes - at least for me.

Remedy is between your ears.

I am rethinking the Signature Card from the bank. It seems to me that the OCC has sent out a memorandum, but not publicly. If so publicly I might have missed it. But the banks are starting to refuse the novation to the Signature contract. No problem. That is easy to get around if the banks are refusing across the board. Serve the nearest Fed bank. Then serve that Proof of Service on your bank and forget about the Signature Card. Keep non-endorsing your paychecks when you can but your demand is already properly done.

You have summarized some points but I disagree about waging a personal war with the IRS or anybody. There is a battlefield and you want to extract yourself by execution of law. This thing about oaths is getting your day in court - but only after assuring that the court is competent and the actors are bound to abide in the (state and federal) bills of rights.

mikecz
01-27-13, 02:37 PM
David,

I agree on the waging a war part, that might have been the knob creek talking.

I was wandering if you could clear something up. Can I legally refuse legal tender (in this case FRNs)? I run a real estate business, rent/sell homes, and get paid in cash and check. I know tender laws are there for a reason, the main example I've seen is if someone is at a restaurant, and finishes the meal, then the owner demands to be paid in yen. The client doesn't have it, so whatever, he goes to jail. A debt is established, legal tender must be accepted.

But for something like a service, like a bus station, or convenience store, since no debt is present prior to the transaction, the owner can refuse payment. I'm just wandering if it's even worth trying to get a few of my tenants paying me in lawful money? I guess it's not really important, the biggest part of it being documentation at the bank, but, it would be something to be paid in lawful money. Probably for the land contracts I have, a debt is established, so we can just chalk that up as no. But for the rentals, that is a little different, I could put that in the lease to be paid in such a way...

shikamaru
01-27-13, 02:58 PM
I was wandering if you could clear something up. Can I legally refuse legal tender (in this case FRNs)? I run a real estate business, rent/sell homes, and get paid in cash and check. I know tender laws are there for a reason, the main example I've seen is if someone is at a restaurant, and finishes the meal, then the owner demands to be paid in yen. The client doesn't have it, so whatever, he goes to jail. A debt is established, legal tender must be accepted.

My opinion: No.

Legal tender laws are obligations on creditors. Creditors must accept the tender of FRNs by debtors.

There is also the problem of your profession. I'm sure real estate is a "covered employment" as well as a public interest attaching thereto.

If you are incorporated, there is another latch as well.
I'm sure you are insured as well......

David Merrill
01-27-13, 03:12 PM
David,

I agree on the waging a war part, that might have been the knob creek talking.

I was wandering if you could clear something up. Can I legally refuse legal tender (in this case FRNs)? I run a real estate business, rent/sell homes, and get paid in cash and check. I know tender laws are there for a reason, the main example I've seen is if someone is at a restaurant, and finishes the meal, then the owner demands to be paid in yen. The client doesn't have it, so whatever, he goes to jail. A debt is established, legal tender must be accepted.

But for something like a service, like a bus station, or convenience store, since no debt is present prior to the transaction, the owner can refuse payment. I'm just wandering if it's even worth trying to get a few of my tenants paying me in lawful money? I guess it's not really important, the biggest part of it being documentation at the bank, but, it would be something to be paid in lawful money. Probably for the land contracts I have, a debt is established, so we can just chalk that up as no. But for the rentals, that is a little different, I could put that in the lease to be paid in such a way...

HJR-192 is the non-law (resolution) that made it illegal to stipulate a gold clause but that has been rescinded with the Emergency. So you can make payment whatever you like in the contract. Going to a Chinese restaurant in America I doubt they could do anything if you offered FRNs even if they preferred yen; even if they put up a notice you pay in yen. Speaking of that I got paid in some barter points on a private currency system and there were a bunch of local professionals and merchants participating. The Chinese restaurant was sold and I did not see the sign that they were not honoring the barter system, the new owners. So it came time to pay and the animated new owners were very annoyed that I did not notice the sign. So I paid them in cash. I argued that they had bought into the barter system when they bought the restaurant. They did not see it that way at all.

As I live this vicariously through suitors I believe the big part is not the doumentation at the bank, it is keeping a record of your demand. It would seem with electronic deposit anymore that a Notice and Demand is best made directly to the nearest Fed Bank and that proof of service published in the USDC (hopefully you can get a $46 Miscellaneous Case opened; we are working on that) and then you simply serve that on your bank and forget about the Signature Card if you like one of the banks that does not like non-endorsement. They are served and your demand is clear. You have done your part.

So the Lesson Plan is still:



1) learn your identity
2) record forming
3) redeeming lawful money



It would seem this is no silver bullet but it consistently improves your ability to Refuse for Cause unwanted presentments, including innovations to current contracts. Like you point out, the Constitution and natural law both protect the obligations of contract.

Imposing certain payment, like in gold or silver coin etc. on tenants sounds like a bad idea. If you maintain rental properties you already have your hands full keeping tenants happy.

shikamaru
01-27-13, 03:27 PM
HJR-192 is the non-law (resolution) that made it illegal to stipulate a gold clause but that has been rescinded with the Emergency.

HJR-192 was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Perry v. U.S. (1935 (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/294/330/case.html)).

The real substance of the confiscation of gold was was the power of condemnation/eminent domain.

mikecz
01-27-13, 05:10 PM
By documentation, I meant the record or paper trail is kept of your demand.

I still need to understand this refusal for cause a little better. What thread would you recommend?

in what form of payment can the united states pay its interest on debt?

Franco
01-27-13, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by Franco:
Dave, I have been reading here and there on your site. Lots of good information. I still don’t understand it all very well, especially the Trust section. Presently, I am receiving retirement benefits from Social security. I receive the benefits by law through direct deposit in a bank here in Texas. I know that :
1. The Social Security Trust Funds are the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds.
2. They are managed by Department of Treasury.
3. A Board of Trustees oversees the financial operations of the trust funds. The Board reports annually to the Congress on the financial status of the trust funds.
4. By law trust funds must be invested in securities that guarantee both principal and interest.
5. Would that prevent me from demanding lawful money. I don’t get my check in the mail anymore. Because of new federal law I had to put my check in a bank through direct deposit. This prevents me from signing for non-indorsement on the check. Can I sign for non-indorsement on the withdrawal slip ?
Thank you Franco
p.s. if i posted in wrong place or some other error . i have lots to learn.
Merrill” You seem to have answered your own question.
1. I guess you are right I did answer my own question. “In the United States, the Social Security Trust Fund is a fund operated by the Social Security Administration into which are paid payroll tax contributions from workers and employers. Out of this funds the benefit payments are made to retirees, survivors, and the disabled, and for general administrative expenses. The fund also earns interest…”
2. So as I understand it it’s supported by taxes.(payroll taxes).
3. This taxes are invested in securities. (I.O.U. s)
4. The monies to cover benefits payments from trust fund come from redemption or sale of securities. (I.O.U.s)
5. So to make a demand for lawful monies on my social security benefits would be like asking to prevent paying taxes on a tax.
6. The social security act also states that I have no accrued property right on the benefits I receive.
“I went over this with a new suitor yesterday and it is the same conditioning that affects a limited displacement hysteria about Signature Cards.
I will try to clarify: People around here feel the bank is being unresponsive to your demand for lawful money? – To the contrary! Especially folks who have letters from the bank... You have proof of service
that you made your demand right there in your hand! Can you stop your whirring mind long enough to let that sink in?”
a. I have yet to approach the bank to make a demand for lawful monies.
b. I was also provided information that making a demand for lawful monies at the bank for social security benefits is not advised, especially if I am already receiving direct deposit.
c. IRS is already getting ready to garnish $49,000.00 I don’t have; so I want to understand what I am doing here before I make a mistake and it results in me owing more. I already went through CTC that’s how i ended up with a big liability. The only way I slowed them down to this point in time was by showing the U.S. Tax court some constant procedure violations made by the “service”.
[If I posted that on the wrong place or some other error...] Get it?
That is conditioning too; but I plan to try clawing my way through this disguise (Re: The Wall) around here with some forceful posts in appropriate threads soon.
Do you USE your SSN for insurance policy identification/claim only? no
If I ask you, Do you have a Social Security Number? – Would you answer, Yes? My answer would be “No” unless you are making a request under a lawfully applied to you.
Why would you say that to me? Well every Tom, Dick and Harry request it now days, but
According to law only specific agencies can ask for it.
Are you making a claim on an insurance policy with me?
Answer: No. I do not have a Social Security Number (for you, David Merrill).
Thank you for listening and providing information. Franco

Franco
01-27-13, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by Franco:
Dave, I have been reading here and there on your site. Lots of good information. I still don’t understand it all very well, especially the Trust section. Presently, I am receiving retirement benefits from Social security. I receive the benefits by law through direct deposit in a bank here in Texas. I know that :
1. The Social Security Trust Funds are the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds.
2. They are managed by Department of Treasury.
3. A Board of Trustees oversees the financial operations of the trust funds. The Board reports annually to the Congress on the financial status of the trust funds.
4. By law trust funds must be invested in securities that guarantee both principal and interest.
5. Would that prevent me from demanding lawful money. I don’t get my check in the mail anymore. Because of new federal law I had to put my check in a bank through direct deposit. This prevents me from signing for non-indorsement on the check. Can I sign for non-indorsement on the withdrawal slip ?
Thank you Franco
p.s. if i posted in wrong place or some other error . i have lots to learn.
Merrill” You seem to have answered your own question.
1. I guess you are right I did answer my own question. “In the United States, the Social Security Trust Fund is a fund operated by the Social Security Administration into which are paid payroll tax contributions from workers and employers. Out of this funds the benefit payments are made to retirees, survivors, and the disabled, and for general administrative expenses. The fund also earns interest…”
2. So as I understand it it’s supported by taxes.(payroll taxes).
3. This taxes are invested in securities. (I.O.U. s)
4. The monies to cover benefits payments from trust fund come from redemption or sale of securities. (I.O.U.s)
5. So to make a demand for lawful monies on my social security benefits would be like asking to prevent paying taxes on a tax.
6. The social security act also states that I have no accrued property right on the benefits I receive.
“I went over this with a new suitor yesterday and it is the same conditioning that affects a limited displacement hysteria about Signature Cards.
I will try to clarify: People around here feel the bank is being unresponsive to your demand for lawful money? – To the contrary! Especially folks who have letters from the bank... You have proof of service
that you made your demand right there in your hand! Can you stop your whirring mind long enough to let that sink in?”
a. I have yet to approach the bank to make a demand for lawful monies.
b. I was also provided information that making a demand for lawful monies at the bank for social security benefits is not advised, especially if I am already receiving direct deposit.
c. IRS is already getting ready to garnish $49,000.00 I don’t have; so I want to understand what I am doing here before I make a mistake and it results in me owing more. I already went through CTC that’s how i ended up with a big liability. The only way I slowed them down to this point in time was by showing the U.S. Tax court some constant procedure violations made by the “service”.
[If I posted that on the wrong place or some other error...] Get it?
That is conditioning too; but I plan to try clawing my way through this disguise (Re: The Wall) around here with some forceful posts in appropriate threads soon.
Do you USE your SSN for insurance policy identification/claim only? no
If I ask you, Do you have a Social Security Number? – Would you answer, Yes? My answer would be “No” unless you are making a request under a lawfully applied to you.
Why would you say that to me? Well every Tom, Dick and Harry request it now days, but
According to law only specific agencies can ask for it.
Are you making a claim on an insurance policy with me?
Answer: No. I do not have a Social Security Number (for you, David Merrill).
Thank you for listening and providing information. Franco

David Merrill
01-27-13, 11:21 PM
HJR-192 was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Perry v. U.S. (1935 (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/294/330/case.html)).

The real substance of the confiscation of gold was was the power of condemnation/eminent domain.

That is very interesting but you need to supply more dots for me to connect?

allodial
01-28-13, 06:21 PM
[**wrong thread**]

Chex
01-28-13, 07:05 PM
I think David shikamaru is trying to take you here: http://www.reformation.org/roosevelt_confiscates_gold.html

Page 92 @ http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-1992/pdf/GPO-CONAN-1992-10-6.pdf

Taxation.—In laying taxes, the Federal Government is less narrowly restricted by the Fifth Amendment than are the States by the Fourteenth. The Federal Government may tax property belonging to its citizens, even if such property is never situated within the jurisdiction of the United States, 100 and it may tax the income of a citizen resident abroad, which is derived from property located at his residence. 101

The difference is explained by the fact that protection of the Federal Government follows the citizen wherever he goes, whereas the benefits of state government accrue only to persons and property within the State’s borders. The Supreme Court has said that, in the absence of an equal protection clause, ‘‘a claim of unreasonable classification or inequality in the incidence or application of a tax raises no question under the Fifth Amendment.

The government paid the "official" price of $20.67 per ounce in 1933. What would a "just" price be for "numismatic" gold coins? To administrate the grading and pricing of each individual coin would present a monumental task. Since the purpose of the recall was to force the citizens back into the banking system it made no sense to worry about "a pimple on the elephant." Most of the gold was now in the hands of the government. They had increased their holdings from $4 billion to $7 billion and laid off "paper money" on the citizens in exchange.

This was a sad day for freedom in America. Whatever happened to the laws laid down by our founding fathers? As they stated in the Constitution of the United States of America, Art 1 sec. 8 and 10, "The Congress shall have the power...to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures... No states shall make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payments of debts."

"You're the target because you're where the money is."

By stripping our money of a gold backing we created the seeds of inflation. The government was free to create money at will without discipline. Politicians quickly learned how to "buy votes" with borrowed money - called deficit spending these days. The unavoidable result was massive government debt. We are now facing a debt crisis, one you could argue was caused ultimately by the confiscation of gold. And it is aimed at us!

shikamaru
01-28-13, 09:21 PM
That is very interesting but you need to supply more dots for me to connect?

Read the case above I presented, then read this:

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?494-Campbell-v-Chase-National-Bank-of-New-York-%281933%29&highlight=eminent+domain

HJR-192 is "watch the birdie" while we do our real stuff over here.

More dots ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Clause_Cases
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?404-LAW-states-registration-not-required&p=5827&viewfull=1#post5827

David Merrill
01-29-13, 10:20 AM
The people filled the bill for what was under charter "state banks".



Since the purpose of the recall was to force the citizens back into the banking system...


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


This endorsement of salary checks was (and still is) voluntary but the relenquishing of the gold was not. Lately on the brain trust we are examining that question - where is Our Gold?


...What I am getting at upon the scriptural premise below is that the gold is held in trust for only as long as the trustees are in honor – abiding in state law. When they violate the state law, the law of resulting trusts abounds. I accepted the position of Trustee for the State of Colorado when the Secretary of State violated trust with a man on the Colorado Republic – and that is what accomplished (after three attempts and rejections) publication of my $20M lien. Some of you may remember how the SoS sent Articles of Incorporation for Donald DREW’s corporation with my second or third rejection to publish? I sent it on to the Republic completing what the Secretary was obligated to do, formally accepting the position of Trustee for the resulting public trust. Read it for yourself (http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/6715/20mlien22.jpg). Here is how I sent that last page (http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/9166/20mlien23assent.jpg) of the Lien. I am the trustee because of these various conflicts of interest evolving around the Bar. The original Thirteenth Amendment attached to all our Libels of Review express how on the not-quite Territory of Colorado the Titles of Nobility are forbidden in de jure government. So we find the incompetent defaulting into admiralty and municipal home rule of non-organized METRO organization…

Well I have that handled too through my perpetual inheritance (http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/544/charteroffreedomsandexe.pdf) (Section VI):



http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/4227/freedomsandexemptions1.jpg

David Merrill
01-29-13, 11:06 AM
P.S. A response read like this:


DM wrote:


but more that you might understand our role as the brain trust in taking a rightful position globally of Trustee for the Resulting Public Trust. – Even above the United Nations combinatorial mathematics and non-organizations of major creditors like the Club of Paris; even above fraternal societies like the Masons, Skull and Bones and the Club of Rome.



I believe I'm beginning to see your point here David.


I don't know how this will play out in the reality show that is life on earth, but I can see how it may possibly fit into the plan of R4Cing the mark of the beast, when the time comes.


For the new suitors who may not know where I'm coming from with this, but would like to know, read this (http://reg6.com/) to see what I mean by R4C the mark of the beast.


I wish to amplify my historicism - rather than the stated futurism, "when the time comes". That is to say the prophecies of Daniel, like all true prophecy manifest in an initial fulfilment, an ongoing fulfilment and may manifest yet (futurism) in a final fulfilment. Therefore there may be a Great Tribulation, time will tell. For me then the Book of Revelation explains how God will behave in response to our communication and creation (including "miscreations" from fear-based thought). He (God) has always been like this, behaving like this and responding like this. This is an examination of God's law. The point being applied here that one best learn non-endorsement and refusal for cause (complete with record-forming) now, rather than when it hits the fan. Applied then I would say that God is calling people out of mammon represented by a municipal (City of Babylon) world-wide harlot.

Elsewhere I have pointed out the research of Dr. Dale LIVINGSTON, Esquire who clarifies the faulty nature of George WASHINGTON's inauguration (including the faulty ratification with only Alexander HAMILTON signing for New York) on the steps of the Mason Lodge by his ancestor Robert LIVINGSTON, chief justice of NY and current Grand Master of the Lodge.


My point under discussion with the brain trust is that the only legal condition would be that the gold is being held in trust by government. Now it appears that government has gone municipal - or maybe a better mental model is democracy operating on a republic - and in doing so that government has breached trust. An example is to ask yourself about only hours after my $20M lien was published as linked above the judiciary here in the not-quite territorial capital of the war chest (gold in Auraria and Central City - 59'ers) converted to bogus oaths, across the board. Examine the local District Attorney (http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/7770/danmaydaoathandinsuranc.pdf) - see how it is complete with an admission that he deviates from the IN GOD WE TRUST trust on the money by avoiding the SO HELP ME GOD trust required by statute on the Oaths of Office by including the $5K Traveler's Insurance policy on his oath? The de jure trusts (oaths) I mention here (until my lien was published) bond with the state treasury - like a couple days before with my $20M lien based on proper oaths conforming to statute (http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/6332/formofoath.jpg).

I am sure that most or all constitutions, like the Colorado constitution guarantee a republican form of government so this move toward global municipality (METRO) is fraud and breach of trust. Therefore the opportunity to be the trustee for the Resulting Trust presented itself and I took it. This is ongoing and if you are competent (suitors for example) then you may participate as you wrap your minds around it - you become trustee of the original estate too. The Secretary sent the correspondence to me with the second rejection of publishing my lien. Look at why the Secretary was reluctant to communicate directly - the Notice on Page 2:


http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/6262/20mlien16.jpg

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/9568/20mlien17.jpg

David Merrill
01-29-13, 03:16 PM
P.P.S.

In a quick summary, this collection in a Treasury vault (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImbTlZVjBCM081dFE/edit) on the SE Corner of the Golden Rectangle (http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/710/monumenttended.jpg) (capitol survey - territorial capital is bristling with military might to protect the utilitarian capitol in Littleton, the Federal Center (http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/4333/federalcenter.jpg)) is or represents that metal from the 49'ers diverted into a War Chest (http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/533/gilpinswarmeasureszoom.jpg) for use in fiat, and subsequently elastic currency.

http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/5409/gilpinswarmeasuresp44.jpg


I have attached some other images from the Money of the Civil War exhibit:

Chex
01-29-13, 05:46 PM
see how it is complete with an admission that he deviates from the IN GOD WE TRUST trust on the money by avoiding the SO HELP ME GOD trust required by statute on the Oaths of Office

I am sure that most or all constitutions, like the Colorado constitution guarantee a republican form of government so this move toward global municipality (METRO) is fraud and breach of trust.

I agree.

Background: from http://www.academicamerican.com/revolution/topics/northwestord.htm

During the American Revolution the Americans resolved not to treat their territories as colonies. Following the war Congress sold millions of acres of land to large companies, but those companies had trouble attracting settlers. Congress therefore realized that some form of control was necessary in the territories that were not yet states.

Some historians have claimed that the principles established in the Northwest Ordinance are so important that they actually form part of the Constitution. The reason is that the Northwest Ordinance promised a republican form of government for inhabitants of those territories.


"It guaranteed that residents in the territories of the United States would not be treated as second class citizens, and that when they were eventually admitted as states, they would enter under the same terms as those states that were already part of the union."
The principle behind the Northwest Ordinance was carried into the Constitution in Article IV, Section 4, which states:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”

Provisions for Admission to Statehood for New Territories was, aside from winning the war, the greatest achievement of the Confederation. Gradually all western lands were ceded to government and quickly became states. The Indian inhabitants were unfortunately forced to move farther westward.

There is a Lawsuit Attacks Republican Form of Government: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/08/13/lawsuit-attacks-republican-form-of-government/

Robb Ryder touched upon the Northwest Ordinance. http://robcourtofrecord.wordpress.com/?s=%27The+Northwest+Ordinance%27

And in the end most of the the preambles to the current constitution are in God and to a Republican Form of Government: http://www.usconstitution.net/states_god.html

I saw that money before:

10881089

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGziXjCfTmM&feature=em-share_video_user

allodial
01-29-13, 06:00 PM
Perhaps this is like unto David Merrill's notion of breech of trust and resulting trust. Imagine being on a cruise ship and the entire crew is extremely drunk, fallen ill or stricken with debilitating sickness--the same with those who are on just for the ride. The ship is headed for a big, big, big rock. Only a handful of you are sober or competent enough to take any action. What do you do? What do you do? What *can* you do? Maybe the crew and others might shout and demand: "Get drunk like us!" "Get sick like us!" Is it a question of what do you do when the rock hits the fan or what do you do Right now whether its to redirect the ship or to save yourselves?!

One issue with oaths of office (http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2011/06/our-experiences-discovering-valid-oaths-of-office-of-state-us-judges-with-links-to-the-most-relevant.html) is it seems that most everyone should be verifying all government officers as to whether they have an oath of office on file. If there is any official in a given forum required to see to it that offices are held only in respect to a valid oath of office, that official could be put on the hot seat for allowing any office to be 'held' without the oath (http://legalbearsblog.com/2010/04/what-does-it-mean-when-a-judge-fails-to-file-his-oath/) OR their superior could simply be held accountable for the misdeeds of any person lacking a proper oath of office. It seems that any city clerk or county clerk would have the responsibility of seeing to it that an office is not held without a valid oath of office being taken and held by the holder. The question begs: who is allowing persons to hold office conformity to relative laws?

itsmymoney
01-30-13, 10:28 PM
I am rethinking the Signature Card from the bank. It seems to me that the OCC has sent out a memorandum, but not publicly. If so publicly I might have missed it. But the banks are starting to refuse the novation to the Signature contract. No problem. That is easy to get around if the banks are refusing across the board. Serve the nearest Fed bank. Then serve that Proof of Service on your bank and forget about the Signature Card. Keep non-endorsing your paychecks when you can but your demand is already properly done.

As I live this vicariously through suitors I believe the big part is not the doumentation at the bank, it is keeping a record of your demand. It would seem with electronic deposit anymore that a Notice and Demand is best made directly to the nearest Fed Bank and that proof of service published in the USDC (hopefully you can get a $46 Miscellaneous Case opened; we are working on that) and then you simply serve that on your bank and forget about the Signature Card if you like one of the banks that does not like non-endorsement. They are served and your demand is clear. You have done your part.

David, a composite of your comments above.

Some thoughts here if the bank refuses your novation and a strike-thru of W-9 verbiage (declaring 'U.S. person or U.S. citizen), relative to presenting your FRB lawful-money demand letter/proof-of-service:

If your lawful money demand is consistently executed and your record-keeping is pristine in that regard, would you think there is still any conflict with signing to that W-9 verbiage i.e. 'U.S person/citizen'?

As you have mentioned on many occasions the remedy necessary as written in law, I would think your demand and proper execution of that demand would supercede signing to that 'U.S. person/citizen' declaration (under duress no less).

Would like your thoughts (and others) relative to this example. I'm embarking on a new account and trying to cover my tracks and know the law.

Keith Alan
01-30-13, 11:56 PM
I believe the question for #4 is, "Is redeemed lawful money taxable income?"

Or is it even income in the first place?

I'm beginning to think it's merely receiving payment, and not the fruit of an investment.

shikamaru
01-31-13, 12:25 AM
Or is it even income in the first place?

I'm beginning to think it's merely receiving payment, and not the fruit of an investment.

Income is property and not property.
Income, in general understanding, is property. For purposes of taxation, it is not property.

Income tax is an excise tax. It is an event tax. It is a tax on a privilege, benefit, or occupation.
Income tax is a burden assessed against the person.

David Merrill
01-31-13, 12:53 AM
David, a composite of your comments above.

Some thoughts here if the bank refuses your novation and a strike-thru of W-9 verbiage (declaring 'U.S. person or U.S. citizen), relative to presenting your FRB lawful-money demand letter/proof-of-service:

If your lawful money demand is consistently executed and your record-keeping is pristine in that regard, would you think there is still any conflict with signing to that W-9 verbiage i.e. 'U.S person/citizen'?

As you have mentioned on many occasions the remedy necessary as written in law, I would think your demand and proper execution of that demand would supercede signing to that 'U.S. person/citizen' declaration (under duress no less).

Would like your thoughts (and others) relative to this example. I'm embarking on a new account and trying to cover my tracks and know the law.

I am transformed daily.

The items founded in fact and law seem stable enough but new nuances and colors form so that the impression I get from your post is to explain that the SSN is a key component to the W-4 and any other income tax form. Whether Social Security is a valid income tax like the Supreme Court said back in what (New Deal) 1938, or it is nothing more than a latent insurance policy about old age and disability; that is between your ears.

What do you think?

I believe that is very important - what you think. Make your demand and presume that you have done all you can do. What you think about the SSN as contractual nexus will decide how you handle somebody using the W-4 against you.

Some people have made their demand on the W-4 successfully and filed accordingly. No refund though because the boss sent no withholdings. But I don't like when people involve their bosses like that. One nasty call from the IRS and your boss will send withholdings with no exemptions and next layoffs you will be on the tip of the pink slips.

allodial
01-31-13, 01:34 AM
The items founded in fact and law seem stable enough but new nuances and colors form so that the impression I get from your post is to explain that the SSN is a key component to the W-4 and any other income tax form. Whether Social Security is a valid income tax like the Supreme Court said back in what (New Deal) 1938, or it is nothing more than a latent insurance policy about old age and disability; that is between your ears.

I know of at least one situation where someone got a job without an SSN between 2002 and present. The company put 000-00-0000 in for SSN on checks and such but still withheld FICA. A US passport was the sole ID used for the job--the I-9 instructions at least then indicated a US passport suffices as a stand-alone document.

Regarding territories of the United States, it might be important to consider Social Security Districts as territories or states of the United States.This might have significance with regard to FICA.

itsmymoney
01-31-13, 02:03 AM
Mr Merrill wrote: The items founded in fact and law seem stable enough but new nuances and colors form so that the impression I get from your post is to explain that the SSN is a key component to the W-4 and any other income tax form. Whether Social Security is a valid income tax like the Supreme Court said back in what (New Deal) 1938, or it is nothing more than a latent insurance policy about old age and disability; that is between your ears.

I'm thinking more of the 'U.S. person' declaration (under duress) with respect to that being a 'Federal privilege' therefore the 'income' you receive as that 'person' is administered/taxed via the excise tax it is intended to be. Employment tax (W-4) as you know is in a different Subtitle (C) than 'income' tax (A). The W-4 (Employment tax on 'wages') allows them to ALSO withhold against any potential 'income' tax liability under (A). The key is potential liability. If ALL pay was 'income' (which is what most people think) regardless of deductions or not, then 'wages' would be written as such under Subtitle A but it is not. 'Wages' is also not listed within Sec 61 as a source of 'Gross Income'.

However, by your research on this subject relative to lawful money, it would appear that 'wages' BECOMES 'income' under Subtitle A when you DO NOT restrict the payment in lawful money, which also supports the theory that if you do not redeem in lawful money then the 'U.S. person' comes into play by signing that W-9 or equivalent, therefore you have exacted 'Federal privilege' and now you must report that income as 'income', i.e. 'taxable income'.

Keith Alan
01-31-13, 03:06 AM
Income is property and not property.
Income, in general understanding, is property. For purposes of taxation, it is not property.

Income tax is an excise tax. It is an event tax. It is a tax on a privilege, benefit, or occupation.
Income tax is a burden assessed against the person.

I find that interesting. If I trade you an apple for a pear, did either of us have income? If the taxable event is our trade, how can the trade be quantified, since we didn't use FRN's?

In the same manner, if someone is receiving lawful money, he isn't receiving income, at least to the way I'm understanding it today. He is merely being paid.

I think people dealing in FRN's are in reality factoring agents for their principal, the Fed. Everything they do is meant to generate a profit to the Fed in the overall scheme of things. The money they generate from their dealings is income, and the Fed wants a percentage returned.

martin earl
01-31-13, 04:06 AM
My opinion: No.

Legal tender laws are obligations on creditors. Creditors must accept the tender of FRNs by debtors.

There is also the problem of your profession. I'm sure real estate is a "covered employment" as well as a public interest attaching thereto.

If you are incorporated, there is another latch as well.
I'm sure you are insured as well......

I do not agree that one has to accept FRNs for payment, if that was true, then our demands for lawful money would hold no legal standing. The demand for lawful money, is, in fact, a refusal of FRNs.

"There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise." http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/currency/pages/legal-tender.aspx

I always demand lawful money and when I pay in cash, I tell the other party I am using lawful money to pay. Simply putting up a NOTICE in any Corporation:

"Only Lawful money accepted for payments" will suffice. There is no law that requires one to accept FRNs as payment, there are court cases that denote US Bank notes must be accepted, but never have I seen one that rules FRNs must be accepted.

mikecz
01-31-13, 05:57 PM
Ok, some insights on the 42.22 dollars per ounce of gold held at the treasury. Last definition of the dollar is 42.22, so assume that is the price...

http://goldcoin.org/gold/the-united-states-federal-reserve%E2%80%99s-gold-holdings/2974/


On the first of June, 2011, testimony by Scott G. Alvarez, General Counsel, and Thomas C. Baxter Jr., General Counsel, Federal Reserve (formal testimony here) before the Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology, Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., of which Dr Paul was the Chairman, on Federal Reserve Lending Disclosures, exposed the nature of the “gold certificate account” in exchanges between Dr Paul and Mr Alvarez.

Crucially, it transpires that these certificates are not even claims to the actual gold that the Treasury confiscated. Said Mr Alvarez: “No we have no interest in the gold that is owned by the Treasury. We have simply an accounting document that is called gold certificates that represents the value at a statutory rate that we gave to the Treasury in 1934.?

In a fascinating analysis of this extraordinary statement, GoldNews.Com discusses what this means in terms of the relationship between the Treasury and the Federal Reserve: “The Treasury, however, in a desire to realize the value of the gold without selling it, used their gold as collateral against gold certificate issuance to the Fed in exchange for fresh cash for the Treasury to spend. The Treasury is able to print as many gold certificates as they choose, under one restriction from the Gold Reserve Act: the amount of gold certificates outstanding shall at no time exceed the value of gold held by the Treasury, priced at the statutory rate. This meant any increase in the value of the Treasury’s gold could be matched by printing gold certificates and those certificates could be used to acquire new Federal Reserve Notes (dollars) from the Fed.”

This is Quantitative Easing with a vengeance! In order to have more money to spend, the Fed is asked to print more notes, in return for which, and in order, presumably, not to disturb the “statutory” price recorded on the Fed’s accounts, the Treasury then prints more gold certificates.

An upshot of this is that the dollar is worth a good deal less than is assumed. And a corollary of this is that the manner in which the Treasury acquired the gold and its subsequent valuation as “gold certificates” would explain why, as noted above, the U.S. insisted on maintaining the dollar price at $35 for so long: it was an accountancy exercise and no more, and continues as such to this day.


http://www.eutimes.net/2011/06/federal-reserve-admits-having-no-gold-at-all/

This article clears it up...

Also, http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section16.htm

There is some good stuff about lawful money in the above webpage, most interesting though is #5. A federal reserve bank, here I assume any member, can reduce it's liability of outstanding notes (which why would they ever) by turning in their FRNs, gold certificates, sdrs, or LAWFUL MONEY. The agent receives the deposit and lowers their liability. These gold certificates seem to float inter Federal Reserve bank as currency. Good as gold right...the problem is, if gold goes down.

mikecz
01-31-13, 05:58 PM
This one is for you David,

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5117

(B)

I found it!

(b) The Secretary shall issue gold certificates against gold transferred under subsection (a) of this section. The Secretary may issue gold certificates against other gold held in the Treasury. The Secretary may prescribe the form and denominations of the certificates. The amount of outstanding certificates may be not more than the value (for the purpose of issuing those certificates, of 42 and two-ninths dollars a fine troy ounce) of the gold held against gold certificates. The Secretary shall hold gold in the Treasury equal to the required dollar amount as security for gold certificates issued after January 29, 1934.


Sorry for the long post, but, disseminate as you wish.

David Merrill
01-31-13, 11:54 PM
Thanks for the insightful links, research and conclusions.

The way I understand it is that the price was stabilized until the Amendments to the Bretton Woods Agreements around 1976. That was when gold was transferred to the IMF Trust Fund. Ergo we still find international gold earmarked at that $42.22/troy ounce.

Chex
02-01-13, 01:33 AM
The quota system

Each member of the IMF is assigned a quota, based broadly on its relative size in the world economy, which determines its maximum contribution to the IMF’s financial resources. Upon joining the IMF, a country normally pays up to one-quarter of its quota in the form of widely accepted foreign currencies (such as the U.S. dollar, euro, yen, or pound sterling) or Special Drawing Rights (SDRs). The remaining three-quarters are paid in the country’s own currency.

Quotas are reviewed at least every five years. Ad hoc quota increases of 1.8 percent were agreed in 2006 as the first step in a two-year program of quota and voice reforms. Further ad hoc quota increases were approved by the Board of Governors in April 2008, resulting in an overall increase of 11.5 percent. The 2008 reform came into effect in March 2011 following ratification of the amendment to the IMF’s Articles by 117 member countries, representing 85 percent of the IMF’s voting power.

The Fourteenth General Review of Quotas was completed two years ahead of the original schedule in December 2010, with a decision to double the IMF’s quota resources to SDR 476.8 billion. Members have committed to using best efforts to making quotas under the Fourteenth Review effective in October 2012.

Earlier reviews concluded in January 2003 and January 2008 resulted in no change in quotas.

Gold holdings: http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/finfac.htm

The recent decision by the members of the IMF to establish a trust fund for the benefit of the poorest countries financed by the sale of IMF gold was the second. http://www.princeton.edu/rpds/papers/WP_67.pdf

Role of gold. The Second Amendment to the Articles of Agreement in April 1978 fundamentally changed the role of gold in the international monetary system by eliminating the use of gold as the common denominator of the post-World War II exchange rate system and as the basis of the value of the Special Drawing Right (SDR). It also abolished the official price of gold and ended the obligatory use of gold in transactions between the IMF and its member countries. It furthermore required that the IMF, when dealing in gold, avoid managing its price or establishing a fixed price. http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/gold.htm

EZrhythm
02-01-13, 01:48 PM
Some thoughts here if the bank refuses your novation and a strike-thru of W-9 verbiage (declaring 'U.S. person or U.S. citizen), relative to presenting your FRB lawful-money demand letter/proof-of-service:

If your lawful money demand is consistently executed and your record-keeping is pristine in that regard, would you think there is still any conflict with signing to that W-9 verbiage i.e. 'U.S person/citizen'?



The W-9 section on the bank signature card is a permission granting the bank to share your account information with the IRS. In my experience it requires a separate initialing or signature on the form. I merely refused to sign it. The bank clerk then said that the account would not be able to received any interest on deposits. EXACTLY! That's what I asked for in the first place. "Do you offer any non-interest bearing checking accounts?"

They wanted me to sign the e-pad but I insisted on placing wet ink on paper. They said that after I sign the e-pad that they could print me a copy. I said I would be happy to have a copy of my wet ink signature on paper. ;-) They gave in.

David Merrill
02-02-13, 12:21 AM
The W-9 section on the bank signature card is a permission granting the bank to share your account information with the IRS. In my experience it requires a separate initialing or signature on the form. I merely refused to sign it. The bank clerk then said that the account would not be able to received any interest on deposits. EXACTLY! That's what I asked for in the first place. "Do you offer any non-interest bearing checking accounts?"

They wanted me to sign the e-pad but I insisted on placing wet ink on paper. They said that after I sign the e-pad that they could print me a copy. I said I would be happy to have a copy of my wet ink signature on paper. ;-) They gave in.

Very agile. That is the kind of de-conditioning I like to hear about!

allodial
02-02-13, 12:27 AM
Here here!

gdude
02-02-13, 07:55 PM
Great job EZ!

In my experience, the W9 was included as part of the signature card.

Goldi
02-27-13, 04:09 AM
[QUOTE=David Merrill;9600]

This plays integral role in your point AJ as 31 USC §371 has been repealed in order to peg US notes to the FRNs in value.
[QUOTE]

Actually David, 31 USC §371 has NOT been repealed. It has been moved, albeit circuitously. It was restated in the Revised Statute 3563 and then renumbered as 31 USC 5101.

mikecz
02-27-13, 04:56 PM
[QUOTE=David Merrill;9600]

This plays integral role in your point AJ as 31 USC §371 has been repealed in order to peg US notes to the FRNs in value.
[QUOTE]

Actually David, 31 USC §371 has NOT been repealed. It has been moved, albeit circuitously. It was restated in the Revised Statute 3563 and then renumbered as 31 USC 5101.

Umm.. this actually might be a big deal.

The only change I see between it and 371 is...

" and all accounts in the public offices and all the proceedings in the courts shall be kept and held in conformity to this regulation"

That is the part we need to find...

Chex
02-27-13, 06:12 PM
That is the part we need to find...

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title12/USCODE-2011-title12-chap3-subchapX-sec371a/content-detail.html

David Merrill
03-01-13, 10:43 PM
Thank you Chex!



[QUOTE=Goldi;10078][QUOTE=David Merrill;9600]

This plays integral role in your point AJ as 31 USC §371 has been repealed in order to peg US notes to the FRNs in value.


Umm.. this actually might be a big deal.

The only change I see between it and 371 is...

" and all accounts in the public offices and all the proceedings in the courts shall be kept and held in conformity to this regulation"

That is the part we need to find...





http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title12/USCODE-2011-title12-chap3-subchapX-sec371a/content-detail.html

Goldi
03-02-13, 12:42 AM
[QUOTE=Goldi;10078][QUOTE=David Merrill;9600]

This plays integral role in your point AJ as 31 USC §371 has been repealed in order to peg US notes to the FRNs in value.


Umm.. this actually might be a big deal.



The only change I see between it and 371 is...

" and all accounts in the public offices and all the proceedings in the courts shall be kept and held in conformity to this regulation"

That is the part we need to find...

Here's how I see it. When you look up 31 USC 5101, it shows the authority as R.S. 3563. Revised statutes are to be nothing more than a restatement of the statute. How do I know this? I have a copy of Title 31 from 1940 [31 USC 371] showing the exact language of 1 stat 250-251, and it's source of authority in that version was 1 stat 250 and R.S. 3563. This was a restatement of section 20 of the 1792 coinage act @ 1 stat 250-251. So what we have here is a distinct modification of language of the original source in the current code, by the use of simply dropping a bunch of words from it. And you know what? They can drop all the words they want, but if you cite the origin of the code, you got them by the nuts. So don't cite the code, cite the source/authority for the code.

Goldi
03-02-13, 01:20 AM
I found an interesting case on a subscription based website and when I went to PACER to locate it in the 11th circuit, it cannot be found.
The following is a summary and it cannot be accessed without additional charges:

Appellant's Reply Brief

Gary A. GOLDMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Respondent-Appellees.United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit.April 07, 1999No. 98-09451.1999 WL 33646074

1. Whether Goldman has a right to redeem his Federal Reserve notes for lawful money? 2. Whether Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta is Government Agency like CIA? Appellee Federal Reserve Bank...

...tangible interest in redeeming his personal Federal Reserve notes, on demand, for lawful money, from the Bank. All this Court must do is decide...

...has a right to redeem his Federal Reserve notes, on demand, for lawful money, and that it is the private corporation Federal Reserve Bank...

...Appellant's right to redeem his particular Federal Reserve notes, on demand, for lawful money, is a claim specific, and standing to adjudicate this controversy...

...right to demand redemption of this Federal Reserve notes, on demand for lawful money, and the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta has a duty...

Goldi
03-02-13, 01:27 AM
Hehe David, I also see a couple of libel of review actions have been filed associated with the demand for lawful money. Michael-Guy MALLONEE out of Wash, Jeffrey DAVID out of North Carolina and Victor E. NISKA out of Minnesota. Wanna update us on the outcomes of those 3 cases?

David Merrill
03-02-13, 02:46 AM
Suitors who understand the Libel of Review know the outcome is an evidence repository in the "exclusive original cognizance" of the United States government.

Study the template (http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/9462/libelofreview52012.pdf). Especially pay attention to the Instructions at the end, and the sample clerk instruction in the middle. That is what makes the LoR worthwhile. All the LoRs get dismissed.

Chex
03-05-14, 11:27 PM
Scott County District Judge Caroline Lennon (http://www.mylawnetwork.com/courts.php?court=18441) said through a court official that she did. Myser believes he has proof that she didn’t, and took his evidence to the attorney general, the governor, the Legislature, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, which accepted the case even though lower courts have already ruled in Lennon’s favor.

“This is a massive coverup. The law is very clear,” said Myser, 55, a Mendota Heights resident and former Silicon Valley executive who now volunteers his time in conflict resolution. “Every case that she’s touched is tainted.”

State law requires judges to take an oath before entering the duties of the office (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/453)and file that oath with the secretary of state. If judges refuse or neglect to take an oath, the office is vacated. Lennon was appointed to the bench by Gov. Tim Pawlenty in 2008, then elected in 2010.

“I went to the secretary of state to see if she had an oath of office to see if she was following that rule,” said Myser. The office sent him letter dated Jan. 2, 2013, that said: “Oath for Caroline Lennon not found.”

http://www.startribune.com/local/248301011.html?page=all&prepage=1&c=y#continue=

“The courts don’t want this exposed. It’s that serious,” said MacDonald. “The damages could be enormous.”

Oath of Office for judges (https://custhelp.courts.wa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/1433/~/oath-of-office-for-judges)

Michael Joseph
03-06-14, 01:54 AM
Scott County District Judge Caroline Lennon (http://www.mylawnetwork.com/courts.php?court=18441) said through a court official that she did. Myser believes he has proof that she didn’t, and took his evidence to the attorney general, the governor, the Legislature, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, which accepted the case even though lower courts have already ruled in Lennon’s favor.

“This is a massive coverup. The law is very clear,” said Myser, 55, a Mendota Heights resident and former Silicon Valley executive who now volunteers his time in conflict resolution. “Every case that she’s touched is tainted.”

State law requires judges to take an oath before entering the duties of the office (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/453)and file that oath with the secretary of state. If judges refuse or neglect to take an oath, the office is vacated. Lennon was appointed to the bench by Gov. Tim Pawlenty in 2008, then elected in 2010.

“I went to the secretary of state to see if she had an oath of office to see if she was following that rule,” said Myser. The office sent him letter dated Jan. 2, 2013, that said: “Oath for Caroline Lennon not found.”

http://www.startribune.com/local/248301011.html?page=all&prepage=1&c=y#continue=

“The courts don’t want this exposed. It’s that serious,” said MacDonald. “The damages could be enormous.”

Oath of Office for judges (https://custhelp.courts.wa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/1433/~/oath-of-office-for-judges)


Hey Chex, thanks for this post. You know this goes directly to IMPLIED trust. Now consider carefully where you are in terms of VENUE when you endorse the Federal Reserve. Does the Judge require and Oath? Answer = no. He sits in bank to collect for his Masters.

You cannot have it both ways - the Debtor is SLAVE to the Lender.

Now if the judge sits in banc, then, he is biased as a taxpayer. As such, if you don't utter a peep, then it is IMPLIED that you WANT judgment. So what is it? You are the master of your domain so what is it? Will you stake your claim, or consent to be ruled?

THE SYSTEM IS VOLUNTARY. AND if you endorse the Federal Reserve there is NOTHING in that Constitution that can help you. Consider and you will see!

Google search: Federal Reserve cities and districts - it is an eye opener.

Have you been RE--VENUE --ED?

Shalom,
MJ

walter
03-06-14, 05:31 PM
Canadian Law Dictionary 5th

1585

The depositor is the customer who is buying credits in exchange for money.