I redeemed $1000 in Lawful Money today!

I took a check endorsed "Redeemed in Lawful Money, pursuant to Title 12USC411, John Smith; dba JOHN SMITH" to cash/redeem at Bank of America today. The teller kid wanted to throw some FRN's at me right away, so I told him I want lawful money and talk to the supervisor. I gave the sup. copy of 12USC411 and he went to check it out. Later he told me that he was there 20 years and never seen that. I guess this country is FULL of ignorant sheeple, which is why it's in such a trouble now.



I also told him that I want him to acknowledge that what he's giving me is lawful money. When he came back 15 minutes later, he said that he'll cash it but can't acknowledge anything, regarding the lawful money part. I asked him if he's refusing to redeem in LM, and he said the same thing. So they accepted my 'redeemed in LM' endorsement, but wouldn't acknowledge that what they're giving me is lawful money, and gave me regular FRN's, in lieu of LM.



But since they're the banking experts, their acceptance of that endorsement is a prima facie evidence that I redeemed that check/FRNs in lawful money. In other words, I got now $1000 worth of Lawful money, which I believe is NON-TAXABLE. I'll just have to send the IRS an affidavit at the end of the year, stating that I redeemed all my payments/checks in lawful money, in order to claim tax exempt status.


And this is the rubber stamp I'll be getting to stamp all my lawful money with, since carrying around regular FRN's is evidence that you're a law merchant, Matrix slave, since FRN's aren't real money, only obligations (IOU's) of United States. Sovereigns have lawful/real money, corporate slaves use FRN's.


So anyone now can redeem their FRN's/paychecks in lawful money, and become REAL SOVEREIGN, since sovereigns have real/lawful money. You'll just have to assert that status with claim of right or affidavit declaring your use of lawful money, since lawful money is in PRIVATE (common law), where the corporate gov'ts of the Matrix have NO AUTHORITY!

http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/6...eemedbills.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaro

I took a check endorsed "Redeemed in Lawful Money, pursuant to Title 12USC411, John Smith; dba JOHN SMITH" to cash/redeem at Bank of America today. The teller kid wanted to throw some FRN's at me right away, so I told him I want lawful money and talk to the supervisor. I gave the sup. copy of 12USC411 and he went to check it out. Later he told me that he was there 20 years and never seen that. I guess this country is FULL of ignorant sheeple, which is why it's in such a trouble now.



I also told him that I want him to acknowledge that what he's giving me is lawful money. When he came back 15 minutes later, he said that he'll cash it but can't acknowledge anything, regarding the lawful money part. I asked him if he's refusing to redeem in LM, and he said the same thing. So they accepted my 'redeemed in LM' endorsement, but wouldn't acknowledge that what they're giving me is lawful money, and gave me regular FRN's, in lieu of LM.



But since they're the banking experts, their acceptance of that endorsement is a prima facie evidence that I redeemed that check/FRNs in lawful money. In other words, I got now $1000 worth of Lawful money, which I believe is NON-TAXABLE. I'll just have to send the IRS an affidavit at the end of the year, stating that I redeemed all my payments/checks in lawful money, in order to claim tax exempt status.


And this is the rubber stamp I'll be getting to stamp all my lawful money with, since carrying around regular FRN's is evidence that you're a law merchant, Matrix slave, since FRN's aren't real money, only obligations (IOU's) of United States. Sovereigns have lawful/real money, corporate slaves use FRN's.


So anyone now can redeem their FRN's/paychecks in lawful money, and become REAL SOVEREIGN, since sovereigns have real/lawful money. You'll just have to assert that status with claim of right or affidavit declaring your use of lawful money, since lawful money is in PRIVATE (common law), where the corporate gov'ts of the Matrix have NO AUTHORITY!

http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/6...eemedbills.jpg

---

Kudos on your entheusiasm Jaro!


I think you should evaluate the term endorsement. I call it non-endorsement, your demand. You kept a copy of both sides of the paycheck or withdrawal slip? That will suffice instead of an affidavit.

I think if you contemplate the remedy from elastic currency, much of the sovereign baggage will fall away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Kudos on your entheusiasm Jaro!


I think you should evaluate the term endorsement. I call it non-endorsement, your demand. You kept a copy of both sides of the paycheck or withdrawal slip? That will suffice instead of an affidavit.

I think if you contemplate the remedy from elastic currency, much of the sovereign baggage will fall away.

---

Yep, I made copies of both sides, but you do need an affidavit, since that is the best form of notifying the tax collectors and such about your non-use of FRN's. Otherwise they'll presume that you do use FRN's and so have tax liabilities. Plus you need an affidavit to show the cops, so they also can't presume that your property they seek to regulate, was acquired using FRN's and so is subject to their statutes.

You see, whatever you buy with lawful money, you TRULY own, not just possess, as is the case with buying stuff with FRN's. And what you trully own is NOT subject to statutes of the corporate State. The reason they can regulate or ban ownership of certain things, is because people who pay with FRN's only acquire POSSESSION, not OWNERSHIP, since the debt was only discharged, not paid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaro

Yep, I made copies of both sides, but you do need an affidavit, since that is the best form of notifying the tax collectors and such about your non-use of FRN's. Otherwise they'll presume that you do use FRN's and so have tax liabilities. Plus you need an affidavit to show the cops, so they also can't presume that your property they seek to regulate, was acquired using FRN's and so is subject to their statutes.

You see, whatever you buy with lawful money, you TRULY own, not just possess, as is the case with buying stuff with FRN's. And what you trully own is NOT subject to statutes of the corporate State. The reason they can regulate or ban ownership of certain things, is because people who pay with FRN's only acquire POSSESSION, not OWNERSHIP, since the debt was only discharged, not paid.

---

Look at the money - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

The obligations are against the Secretary and the US Treasurer - look at the signatures. While I agree you have perfected the highest title to the things that you own, you do not have a perfected title because ownership is a benefit you derive from the social structure around you - society.

The best example of the boundary you defy would be owning your car. Great! If you own your property (lawful money purchase) you can drive your car around on your property with complete immunity. If you take it on the public roadways, you need to be responsible by having a bond ($30K liquid bond) or an insurance policy on the car. It does not have to be on the State's car - like you point out but you need to make right if you hit the child on the bicycle and break his arm to the tune of $12K in hospital bills.

Here is a very special trust, for the Fraternal Order of Police, benefitting from the Impound Yard (Conflict of Interest) but they had to state the source of their authority in doing so - benefits of State.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Look at the money - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

The obligations are against the Secretary and the US Treasurer - look at the signatures. While I agree you have perfected the highest title to the things that you own, you do not have a perfected title because ownership is a benefit you derive from the social structure around you - society.

The best example of the boundary you defy would be owning your car. Great! If you own your property (lawful money purchase) you can drive your car around on your property with complete immunity. If you take it on the public roadways, you need to be responsible by having a bond ($30K liquid bond) or an insurance policy on the car. It does not have to be on the State's car - like you point out but you need to make right if you hit the child on the bicycle and break his arm to the tune of $12K in hospital bills.

Here is a very special trust, for the Fraternal Order of Police, benefitting from the Impound Yard (Conflict of Interest) but they had to state the source of their authority in doing so - benefits of State.

---

Well David, I think I'm ahead of you on this one. Ownership isn't a benefit, it is an unalienable right. Only legal ownership is a benefit, and that is when you use legal tender FRN's. Lawful money buys REAL, lawful ownership, which is NOT subject to statutes, as legal ownership is. Also, there's no such thing as "you need to be responsible by having a bond ($30K liquid bond) or an insurance policy on the car" under common law. The insurance requirement is STATUTORY, issued by State of XYZ corporation, which only applies to citizens of the corporate Democracy (in public), NOT to Citizens of the Republic (in private/common law).

You see we've been in bankruptcy since 1933, where no one has any real money so they're not entitled to real laws like Hale v Henkel. We're in commerce where law merchant rules and laws of the Republic don't apply. But when you've got lawful money, then you're no longer insolvent, subject to corporate statutes, but protected by the laws of the Republic, because you've got REAL ASSETS, which puts you outside of this bankrupt corporate Matrix. Why do you think lawful money isn't subject to taxation? Because it's outside of corporate State's jurisdiction, and so is EVERYTHING it buys.

BTW, the fringed flags in courtrooms signify the law of the executive, i.e. the king's law, which only applies to king's subjects who use HIS 'money', the FRN's. Those who have REAL/lawful money, aren't subjects to king's law (statutes), they're protected by the laws of the Republic, like Hale v Henkel.

BTW, the last line here should tell you that under common law, there's no such thing as car insurace requirement:

Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1906)
"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights."

At the end of the day, civil infrastructure gives you the benefit of exclusive usage. The trustee owns your stuff.

Public roads belong to the People. They use them BY RIGHT since they're part-owners. It's not a government-given benefit. There's a ton of USSC quotes about that. It's just that those laws of the Republic don't apply to most people today, since they're participating in the bankruptcy, and as such aren't protected by those laws, but are subject to corporate statutes, since they've got no real money.

It's still true that 'whoever has the gold makes the rules', and having LM is like having gold; i.e. you make the rules regarding your property.

Exclusive control of property depends on responsibility to your fellow man. If you show competence and the ability to make whole any injury, then I agree with you; I agree with your illusion that you can own things. The example of course being that you own both your car and the roadways - ergo you may take your car about freely among the other people in society.

If you have a pile of cash in your glove box to show the police officer - specifically $30K - to hand over to somebody who feels you injured them, you might have a chance of surviving the roadside trial. More likely though, you will be robbed pretty quickly if you advertise that kind of cash and likely you will even find a statute that an honest cop will be compelled to at least detain you on - just for having that kind of cash handy.

So the State provides for you not to have an insurance policy if you prefer that. You can post a bond with the State, through your bank or the State treasury. You have your $30K setting in escrow so to speak. And you show that bond to the police officer - self-insurance. To show compentency you take the driving tests and get a license. Sign the card with your true name:

Officer, I am only showing you that card for competency purposes. I am not showing it to you for identification purposes.

If you show responsibility, you show your authority - like you say. So I am not going to argue with you. Have a listen to the audio snippet attached. Somalia has been promoting a prominent political policy called piracy for several years now. Irresponsible - to just take by force. It has become an industry. But listen as justice takes its course...

The point to the torture - of hearing this morning's news about people in Somalia, is also that they own all sorts of stuff, they just have no usage because they are dying. There is no governmental infrastructure to fight for their rights of ownership. Ergo, the ability to own is a benefit of society; to have any time to utilize what you own for your own benefit anyway. Without the benefit of society, you simply own the weapons you use to protect your arsenal.



Regards,

David Merrill.

BTW, the fringed flags in courtrooms signify the law of the executive, i.e. the king's law, which only applies to king's subjects who use HIS 'money', the FRN's. Those who have REAL/lawful money, aren't subjects to king's law (statutes), they're protected by the laws of the Republic, like Hale v Henkel.

“The Good Faith and Credit for the US Dollar - Gone!”

Are we under the maritime law of contracts and not common law?

Does this relate to why the U.S. flags in official buildings fly the gold tassel and fringe, indicating a state of martial law in a perpetual national emergency?

The Congressional Record is public property, Traficant had his eyes open, which is probably why he went to prison.

James Traficant's U.S. Bankruptcy Speech

The Bankruptcy of The United States

United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303
Speaker-Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House:

"Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11. Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any Bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government. We are setting forth hopefully, a blueprint for our future. There are some who say it is a coroner’s report that will lead to our demise.

It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent. H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress m session June 5, 1933 - Joint Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard and Abrogate The Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States Governmental Offices, Officers, and Departments and is further evidence that the United States Federal Government exists today in name only.

The receivers of the United States Bankruptcy are the International Bankers, via the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. All United States Offices, Officials, and Departments are now operating within a de facto status in name only under Emergency War Powers.

With the Constitutional Republican form of Government now dissolved, the receivers of the Bankruptcy have adopted a new form of government for the United States. This new form of government is known as a Democracy, being an established Socialist/Communist order under a new governor for America.

This act was instituted and established by transferring and/or placing the Office of the Secretary of Treasury to that of the Governor of the International Monetary Fund. Public Law 94-564, page 8, Section H.R. 13955 reads in part: "The U.S. Secretary of Treasury receives no compensation for representing the United States."
Gold and silver were such a powerful money during the founding of the united states of America, that the founding fathers declared that only gold or silver coins can be "money" in America.

Since gold and silver coinage were heavy and inconvenient for a lot of transactions, they were stored in banks and a claim check was issued as a money substitute. People traded their coupons as money, or "currency." Currency is not money, but a money substitute. Redeemable currency must promise to pay a dollar equivalent in gold or silver money. Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) make no such promises, and are not "money."

A Federal Reserve Note is a debt obligation of the federal United States government, not "money."

The federal United States government and the U.S. Congress were not and have never been authorized by the Constitution for the united states of America to issue currency of any kind, but only lawful money, gold and silver coin.

It is essential that we comprehend the distinction between real money and paper money substitute. One cannot get rich by accumulating money substitutes, one can only get deeper into debt. We the People no longer have any "money."

Most Americans have not been paid any "money" for a very long time, perhaps not in their entire life.

Now do you comprehend why you feel broke? Now, do you understand why you are "bankrupt," along with the rest of the country?

Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) are unsigned checks written on a closed account. FRNs are an inflatable paper system designed to create debt through inflation (devaluation of currency). when ever there is an increase of the supply of a money substitute in the economy without a corresponding increase in the gold and silver backing, inflation occurs.

Inflation is an invisible form of taxation that irresponsible governments inflict on their citizens. The Federal Reserve Bank who controls the supply and movement of FRNs has everybody fooled. They have access to an unlimited supply of FRNs, paying only for the printing costs of what they need. FRNs are nothing more than promissory notes for U.S. Treasury securities (T-Bills) - a promise to pay the debt to the Federal Reserve Bank.
There is a fundamental difference between "paying" and "discharging" a debt.

To pay a debt, you must pay with value or substance (i.e. gold, silver, barter or a commodity). With FRNs, you can only discharge a debt. You cannot pay a debt with a debt currency system.

You cannot service a debt with a currency that has no backing in value or substance.

No contract in Common law is valid unless it involves an exchange of "good & valuable consideration." Unpayable debt transfers power and control to the sovereign power structure that has no interest in money, law, equity or justice because they have so much wealth already.

Their lust is for power and control. Since the inception of central banking, they have controlled the fates of nations.

The Federal Reserve System is based on the Canon law and the principles of sovereignty protected in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In fact, the international bankers used a "Canon Law Trust" as their model, adding stock and naming it a "Joint Stock Trust." The U.S. Congress had passed a law making it illegal for any legal "person" to duplicate a "Joint Stock Trust" in 1873.

The Federal Reserve Act was legislated post-facto (to 1870), although post-facto laws are strictly forbidden by the Constitution. [1:9:3]

The Federal Reserve System is a sovereign power structure separate and distinct from the federal United States government. The Federal Reserve is a maritime lender, and/or maritime insurance underwriter to the federal United States operating exclusively under Admiralty/Maritime law.

The lender or underwriter bears the risks, and the Maritime law compelling specific performance in paying the interest, or premiums are the same.

Assets of the debtor can also be hypothecated (to pledge something as a security without taking possession of it.) as security by the lender or underwriter. The Federal Reserve Act stipulated that the interest on the debt was to be paid in gold. There was no stipulation in the Federal Reserve Act for ever paying the principle.

Prior to 1913, most Americans owned clear, allodial title to property, free and clear of any liens or mortgages until the Federal Reserve Act (1913)
"Hypothecated" all property within the federal United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, -in which the Trustees (stockholders) held legal title.

The U.S. citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a "beneficiary" of the trust via his/her birth certificate. In 1933, the federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets and labor of their "subjects," the 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, to the Federal Reserve System.

In return, the Federal Reserve System agreed to extend the federal United States corporation all the credit "money substitute" it needed. Like any other debtor, the federal United States government had to assign collateral and security to their creditors as a condition of the loan. Since the federal United States didn’t have any assets, they assigned the private property of their "economic slaves", the U.S. citizens as collateral against the unpayable federal debt.

They also pledged the unincorporated federal territories, national parks forests, birth certificates, and nonprofit organizations, as collateral against the federal debt. All has already been transferred as payment to the international bankers.

Unwittingly, America has returned to its pre-American Revolution, feudal roots whereby all land is held by a sovereign and the common people had no rights to hold allodial title to property.

Once again, We the People are the tenants and sharecroppers renting our own property from a Sovereign in the guise of the Federal Reserve Bank.

We the people have exchanged one master for another.

This has been going on for over eighty years without the "informed knowledge" of the American people, without a voice protesting loud enough. Now it’s easy to grasp why America is fundamentally bankrupt.

Why don’t more people own their properties outright?

Why are 90% of Americans mortgaged to the hilt and have little or no assets after all debts and liabilities have been paid? Why does it feel like you are working harder and harder and getting less and less?

We are reaping what has been sown, and the results of our harvest is a painful bankruptcy, and a foreclosure on American property, precious liberties, and a way of life.

Few of our elected representatives in Washington, D.C. have dared to tell the truth.

The federal United States is bankrupt. Our children will inherit this unpayable debt, and the tyranny to enforce paying it.

America has become completely bankrupt in world leadership, financial credit and its reputation for courage, vision and human rights.

This is an undeclared economic war, bankruptcy, and economic slavery of the most corrupt order!

Wake up America! Take back your Country."

The Bankruptcy of The United States - James Traficant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek_3X2ONCx0

Jack Webb Explains HJR192: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRYAqekvj4I

Be very careful when copying and pasting quotes that propagate around the internet.

I visited http://thomas.loc.gov to find the actual Congressional record of Traficant's words as said on the House floor:

Quote:

---

Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].

(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11.

Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government.

We are setting forth hopefully a blueprint for our future. There are some who say it is a coroner's report that will lead to our demise.

I am going to support the rule. I am not sure yet if I will support this budget. I want to hear an awful lot more, not being a member of the committee, and I am not going to vote for things I do not understand or do not like, but let there be no mistake. After 12 years of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, we are standing here.

Let me say this to the minority party. Every program that Ronald Reagan wanted in 1981, he got. Reagan got it. There was a Republican Senate majority and there were 70 Democrats in this House that might as well have been Republicans, and we have the program.

The major assumption was very simple. We are going to cut taxes, put money in the pockets of the American people, and when they spend this money our gross national product is going to rise so great that even though we reduced your tax liability on a percentile basis, we will balance the budget, quoting Ronald Reagan, in 1982. It is going to take the fall of our Congress, I think, for that to happen.

Mr. Speaker, let us give this new administration a chance. Democrats gave Ronald Reagan a chance.

But let me give one word of caution here today. America already has race wars, let us be honest about it. We already have gender wars, let us be honest about it. We already have age wars, let us be honest about it.

One thing this Congress had better not get involved in and get trapped into is a class war on money. In America, if you can not earn all that you can, there is something wrong and there is no more a spirit of free enterprise.

I want to say this to the Members. We may talk about taxing the rich, but the rich people have already taken their companies and their jobs out of America. Be careful that the rich people do not take their money out of America, because the government already raises our kids, defends our families, educates our kids, feeds our kids, houses our kids, and the government it doing a very poor job of it. I think mom and dad would be better utilized there once again.

So I am going to listen to the debate. I do not know if I will vote for this budget.

Finally, I do not know if the budget makes one damn bit of difference, because we waive it all the time and I do not think we have ever followed it. I think we have an excellent chairman who worked hard. If we are going to have budget, we should follow it. If not, we once again as Members waste both our time and the people's time.

Let me say this just in closing. Today is not the mother of all debates and the mother of all decisions. When that tax package comes, you will have the mother of all votes on the floor.

Let me say this, I am not for voting any more taxes on the backs of the American people, because I believe the tax of 1990 put on right here today, and I am very concerned about the tax package being discussed in this Congress.

I am one Democrat who believes we should stimulate the private sector. We already have more government jobs than factory jobs, and I think that is an indictment of our Congress.

One basic tenet to this Constitution is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and there can be no life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness in America without job.

I would like to see the mother of all debates center around the jobs bill.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], the distinguished minority whip.

Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak, and I appreciate my friend, the gentleman from Florida, yielding me this time.

...

---

Thanks RA for the update and the truth: Is this why he was incarcerated?

The part of Mr. Traficant’s political moxi that irked other politicians was his open door policy . He would listen to just about anyone’s concerns . If your issue was valid in his eyes he would champion the cause .

As a Sheriff he refused to sign foreclosure deeds and serve eviction notices on the unemployed being foreclosed. That earned him a 100 day sentence for contempt of court . He was released after three days on a stay appeal and with the agreement to comply with the local court orders to sign and serve . He immediately sought a 60 day moratorium on foreclosures , and was denied .

He was shortly thereafter charged with RICO violations involving received bribery , false tax returns and I forget what else . He defended Pro Se and won .

The next year he ran as an independent Democrat and went to the House .

When he got to D.C. he maintained his openness . Individuals from outside of his representative District could easily get his ear . Even people who were not from Ohio could send a letter and not be rebuffed .
Bringing up bankruptcy the way he did was maybe the last straw . His little speeches were already quite popular with the “voting public” , causing questions to be raised all over the country .

Might find these sites interesting :

http://www.jim-traficant.com/

http://privateattorneygeneral.spruz....nt--speaks.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trust Guy

The part of Mr. Traficant’s political moxi that irked other politicians was his open door policy . He would listen to just about anyone’s concerns . If your issue was valid in his eyes he would champion the cause .

As a Sheriff he refused to sign foreclosure deeds and serve eviction notices on the unemployed being foreclosed. That earned him a 100 day sentence for contempt of court . He was released after three days on a stay appeal and with the agreement to comply with the local court orders to sign and serve . He immediately sought a 60 day moratorium on foreclosures , and was denied .

He was shortly thereafter charged with RICO violations involving received bribery , false tax returns and I forget what else . He defended Pro Se and won .

The next year he ran as an independent Democrat and went to the House .

When he got to D.C. he maintained his openness . Individuals from outside of his representative District could easily get his ear . Even people who were not from Ohio could send a letter and not be rebuffed .
Bringing up bankruptcy the way he did was maybe the last straw . His little speeches were already quite popular with the “voting public” , causing questions to be raised all over the country .

Might find these sites interesting :

http://www.jim-traficant.com/

http://privateattorneygeneral.spruz....nt--speaks.htm

---

Thanks!

I grabbed a .pdf compilation from my TRAFICANT directory:

http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/4400/traficant.pdf

You're welcome David . He is certainly an interesting personality , and a decent Jeffersonian Populist in my eye .

I have a book in my archives early 1800's - the book is about the State of the Union address. It is really interesting to see a President addressing the Republic. Especially since the de-jure officers in Congress today are running a Democracy.

Since the Democracy sprang out of the Republic - who Granted its existence? Why don't you get a look at all those Committees!

Imagine a Trust where the Grant is made to a Board of Trustees who hold the estate for the benefit of a Public. But the Public, while it can Grant to the Estate and add to the Trust Corpus, it can only do so from a position of Irrevocable Grant or Gift. Furthermore, the trust is set up for Beneficiaries who may hold the cestui que use - maybe - but the interest of the Beneficiary is in personalty.

Therefore the estate held in fee simple might be personal property only.

I hear a lot of claims that using private trust law claiming lawful money somehow gives one just title or perfect title. If I am with perfect title then Nobody can take the estate from me period - absent force in arms. Metes/Bounds/Survey/Claim/Use/Estate....and you think Property issuing from a closed boundary can somehow be yours?

That's a tall claim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael Joseph

I have a book in my archives early 1800's - the book is about the State of the Union address. It is really interesting to see a President addressing the Republic. Especially since the de-jure officers in Congress today are running a Democracy.

---

There are no de-jure officers in Congress today, which is why they needed a corporate citizenship (14th Amendment) and had to convert de jure Citizens of the Republic into corporate strawman US citizens with Birth Certificates. After 1860 Congress no longer had power to make law which would bind sovereign State Citizens.

They still don't which is why having lawful money will make you EXEMPT OF TAXES and exempt from their statutes as well. Corporate US just doesn't have any authority under common law/laws of the Republic. Corporations including the governmental ones, ONLY have authority through CONTRACT, like using their PRIVATE FRN's. When you got LM, there's no contract, you got ONCE AGAIN unalienable rights, and "laws" (=statutes) of the corporate Democracy have no authority over you, provided you know who you are, i.e John of family Smith and not their corporate strawman JOHN SMITH.

And in order to have de jure officers, they'd have to act in their sovereign capacity, which they can't since they weren't elected by de jure Citizens of the Republic, but by corporate US citizens.

and corporations are artificial legal entities that can contract only with other legal entities by the hand of living agents, and only with full disclosure between the agents thereof, full disclosure of the definition of all words, the assumption that those definitions rest upon, and the implications that extend there from of all clauses of such contracts in order to claim authority, power or control over those contracting parties, and;

Thanks TG and DM for Mr. Traficant’s profile, we need more leaders like him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

At the end of the day, civil infrastructure gives you the benefit of exclusive usage. The trustee owns your stuff.

---

I think Ben Franklin co-signs with you on your point.

Quote:

---

The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets, tho' only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted. They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law.

All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.
-The Writings of Benjamin Franklin. Edited by Albert Henry Smyth. 10 vols. New York: Macmillan Co., 1905--7.

---

I think we begin to focus clearly on the Oaths of Office then. A4V as a fungible fidelity bond. Then bill; if they do not pay the bill, lien them.

The government became the guardian of your rights to property - the trustee of the Public Trust. The Oath of Office is the security agreement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaro

There are no de-jure officers in Congress today, which is why they needed a corporate citizenship (14th Amendment) and had to convert de jure Citizens of the Republic into corporate strawman US citizens with Birth Certificates. After 1860 Congress no longer had power to make law which would bind sovereign State Citizens.

They still don't which is why having lawful money will make you EXEMPT OF TAXES and exempt from their statutes as well. Corporate US just doesn't have any authority under common law/laws of the Republic. Corporations including the governmental ones, ONLY have authority through CONTRACT, like using their PRIVATE FRN's. When you got LM, there's no contract, you got ONCE AGAIN unalienable rights, and "laws" (=statutes) of the corporate Democracy have no authority over you, provided you know who you are, i.e John of family Smith and not their corporate strawman JOHN SMITH.

And in order to have de jure officers, they'd have to act in their sovereign capacity, which they can't since they weren't elected by de jure Citizens of the Republic, but by corporate US citizens.

---

In regard to the Republic, there are no de-jure officers. Framing JARO, framing......Trustees

Private FRN's or USN's.....both exist within an Estate. What makes that estate mine? With specificity, please. Again, a lot of claims.....

The Sovereign to any trust is its Settlor. The Trustees are NOT sovereign.

Who gave grant to the Colonies? Is there not still and Heir on the Throne of that Grantor and/or successors in interest?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

I think we begin to focus clearly on the Oaths of Office then. A4V as a fungible fidelity bond. Then bill; if they do not pay the bill, lien them.

The government became the guardian of your rights to property - the trustee of the Public Trust. The Oath of Office is the security agreement.

---

I believe that is a method to keep the Trustees from breach? I accept your Oath of Office as a contract between you and I. In other words the Oath of Office is transferred into Trust as Security Agreement upon default. You could go even further as to make the Judge produce his bond so that you could perfect the Surety. For the Record......

And Since most are running vacant offices, being insured by bond - Replevin Bonds. They will fall back on an insurance company that can pay in Notes because it is all wrapped up in Trust. You are standing before a Trustee; however, if you are shown to be a Constructive Trustee or "de son Tort Trustee" - then that is another story.

And if the trustee acts in breach, then there is a convenient bond to pay you with State property. Such that what you buy with that State property [Notes] is just that State property, but you have the cestui que use and the State is with the cestui que use trust.

And the Statute of Uses (Henry VIII) is avoided because the trustees work overtime to ensure they are constantly busy.

Obama speaking - Government created XXXX jobs this quarter - Board of Trustees or Agents to trustee.

And those Trustees ARE de-jure to a particular estate.

Framing....that is.....where are you and what office do you hold?

I believe it was David, king of Judah/Israel who said "let him be stripped of his office"

Psa 109:8 Let his days be few; and let another take his office.

Act 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

There is nothing new under the sun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael Joseph

In regard to the Republic, there are no de-jure officers. Framing JARO, framing......Trustees

Private FRN's or USN's.....both exist within an Estate. What makes that estate mine? With specificity, please. Again, a lot of claims.....

The Sovereign to any trust is its Settlor. The Trustees are NOT sovereign.

Who gave grant to the Colonies? Is there not still and Heir on the Throne of that Grantor and/or successors in interest?

---

Republic is de jure by definition, and so are its officers. And 'Sovereign to any trust is its Settlor'??? What does that supposed to mean? You need to check definition of sovereignty. And I won't even touch that 'heir on the throne' confusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chex

and corporations are artificial legal entities that can contract only with other legal entities by the hand of living agents, and only with full disclosure between the agents thereof, full disclosure of the definition of all words, the assumption that those definitions rest upon, and the implications that extend there from of all clauses of such contracts in order to claim authority, power or control over those contracting parties, and;

Thanks TG and DM for Mr. Traficant’s profile, we need more leaders like him.

---

That full disclosure ONLY applies in the real world, under common law. INSIDE the corporate world we are now in, there are no men and women, only artificial persons, and those are subject to Law Merchant/UCC, where acceptance of a benefit equals acceptance of obligation/contract, with no disclosure required. You're free to accept it or not, but if you do, you've accepted the contract as well. You guys need to stop thinking that the laws of the Republic/common law, apply in this corporate Matrix, where exist ONLY artificial persons.

It's a make-believe virtual world where everything is imaginary and exists ONLY on paper and as concepts in the minds of men.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

I think we begin to focus clearly on the Oaths of Office then. A4V as a fungible fidelity bond. Then bill; if they do not pay the bill, lien them.

The government became the guardian of your rights to property - the trustee of the Public Trust. The Oath of Office is the security agreement.

---

You can forget oaths of office; those are required by the Constitutions, which are real law of the Republic, not statutes, and as such don't apply to/protect US citizens/strawmen. It'd be like claiming Hale v Henkel, that also is real law which is ignored in today's corporate Matrix courts. BTW, when I was in jail on traffic charges I told my public pretender that I want to fight those charges on constitutional grounds. He was enthusiastic about that, but when I told him I want to challenge the judge's oath because it doesn't match the required oath, he got all scared.

As to the government becoming the guardian of your rights to property, see my Excalibur letter :-)