I like this explanation about lawful money too. It helps one understand why a new suitor files a Libel of Review in admiralty - "common law counterclaim in admiralty".
Printable View
I like this explanation about lawful money too. It helps one understand why a new suitor files a Libel of Review in admiralty - "common law counterclaim in admiralty".
Hey David, This is the same guy I linked in this thread: http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...hlight=lockean
Wages, hours of labor: page 2249 might be of interest to you.
For the Oregon part (pg 2259) today I journeyed to the library and found that, that law still exists now as ORS 652.110.
I find it highly interesting that they use the term "lawful money of the United States". They also added some squishy language and UCC'ish stuff in there from the looks of it compared to the old language.
Beautiful! Synchronicity is the conscious memory that everything is happening all at once; time being an illusion.
Been trying for two days now to listen to StormThunder site. Tried with Firefox,Chrome and Safari. FF & C show it but can't find it.Safari can't even find an address. Just a heads up. Listened and read it many times in the past couple weeks. Excellent explanation. The audio is especially useful when my eyes start blurring from so much reading. Thank you to everyone involved with this website, Rodney.http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/image...s/rolleyes.png
recently I was negotiating an easement for property held in trust. What was interesting to me was that I challenged the language "($10.00) dollars and other valuable consideration" as being too vague. Since I, as Agent for Trustee am making the Deed, I shall choose to make a use of my own terms. So I replaced this queer language with: "for $12,456.00 United States Dollars (demanded lawful money in accord with and per United States Code Title 12 Section 411) paid to the Grantor, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged".
I received an immediate call from the Attorney asking was I wanting Cash. I told him to relax and that I was fulfilling the law in love and that the law ONLY requires that I make a demand - what I receive is of no consequence - at least in my mind. And it is my mind that counts. Therefore the soon to be RECORDED AND REGISTERED Deed shall reflect a Demand for Lawful Money.
And Moses' staff turned into a Serpent and ate up their staffs. Or you might say - Dan is a Serpent in the Way - he bites the heels of the Horse [pale] and causes his rider to be cast into the Sea. Take your pick - they mean the same thing!
Did you catch the trick in language. And other valuable consideration - there must be VALUABLE consideration.
Shalom,
MJ
David, Something else I should say about the above mentioned statute is that is was initially created to prevent companies from paying employees in company credit redeemable only at the company store and other similar situations.
I don't see a difference in being paid in XYZ company credit and being paid (discharged) by the Federal Reserve Corporation. Whats the difference? They are both private companies.
So surfing the UCC laws recently I also meandered upon this neat little piece. "Negotiable instruments do not include money"
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/negotiable_instruments
But "Federal Reserve Notes" is not moneyQuote:
Originally Posted by Brian
The constitution defines money as such:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coinage_Act_of_1792
As we keep going on to say:Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnTheLaw
Caveat: The credit to this link is http://www.zerohedge.com/news/histor...reserve-system Submitted by Tyler Durden and TruthInSunshine on 07/05/2012 21:31.
The Non-Federal Reserve-less Non-Bank is just the latest entity & iteration of the literal Ponzi scam that perpetuates pure fiat monetary systems (see remarks/footnotes below regarding Plaza Accord and Nixon Shock, which closed the Bretton Woods pact) that some refer to as fractional reserve banking (see Modern Monetary Theory as described and admitted to in their own publication, 'Modern Money Mechanics' - Modern Money Mechanics is a booklet produced and distributed free by the Public Information Center of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago; MODERN MONEY MECHANICS*) , whereby this non-bank entity and front for The Money Masters uses taxpaying slaves, many of whom ostensibly believe they are free and sovereign citizens of a sovereign "nation," as collateral, to conjure what they claim is 'money,' but that which is really debt (since there is nothing of inherent value backing it), from thin air, leveraging it up by many multitudes (money multiplier/deposit multiplier, derivative contracts and other forms of leverage can ratchet this debt up by a magnitude of a thousand times or more from the point of inception/creation), getting a nation to endorse it as monopolistic fiat (and enforce the monopolistic recognition of it as such for the payment debt, both public and private, via codified law and corollary enforcement agencies).
The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, describing, in small part, the ruse of Modern Money Mechanics (quote from Page 6, last paragraph):
"What they [banks] do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts. Loans (assets) and deposits (liabilities) both rise by [the amount of the "loan"]."
When was the last time you lent money to a friend and suddenly found you had more funds?
Theoretically, and just for illustration purposes, even if 95% of loans go bad (or more), the fractional reserve bankers lose nothing. They created this fiat money from nothing and received the protection of the nation in distributing fiat monopoly currency. Not only do they lose nothing, they actually gain any real assets that were pledged as collateral to securitize most of the loans that went 'bad' - Harvest.
Repeat this process of Harvest by first inflating the money supply, getting people deeply indebted (many of whom weren't indebted before), and soon enough, with enough cycles of harvest, what belonged to many will be concentrated in the hands of a few, all via the sham that is fractional reserve banking. It's the biggest scam in the history of mankind.
Once a person grasps this basic concept, they'll understand why events have taken place as they have (Bretton Woods*; Plaza Accord; Federal Reserve Act of 1913; closing of the gold standard in 1971*, etc.), and they'll finally grasp how a select few have rigged the game to be able to harvest assets continually, and concentrate wealth and power, by doing nothing other than maintaining Deep Capture of a nation's legislative and judiciary branches (and executive, in the case of the U.S.) of government.
On August 15, 1971, the United States unilaterally terminated convertibility of the dollar to gold. As a result, "[t]he Bretton Woods system officially ended and the dollar became fully fiat currency, backed by nothing but the promise of the federal government." This action, referred to as the Nixon shock, created the situation in which the United States dollar became the sole backing of currencies and a reserve currency for the member states. At the same time, many fixed currencies also became free floating.
If you could print a currency at no cost, that had no intrinsic value, and get the legal system to recognize it as the only legally permissibly 'tender' to satisfy all debt, public and private, would you print as much as you could, loan it out to as many entities and people as you could, and sit back, not caring whether 90% or 9% of the loans were repaid, since it cost you nothing to produce the loan, meaning that you can only gain assets (securitized) and indebt institutions (create indebted parties that you can then garnish), and literally lose not one atom of anything of inherent value?
Further, if you had access to an entity that could do the above, and you could borrow that currency at absurdly low interest rates, and moreover, you had an express or at least implicit taxpayer guarantee against losses (too big to fail), would you also not do exactly the same?
If you're the former entity, you literally can lose nothing, no matter how reckless your actions or lending standards.
If you're the latter party, your risk of loss is inconsequential, since you're backed by the taxpayers (involuntarily), and even if you weren't, if you're a very large entity able to tap absurdly low interest loans from the former, unless you are galactically idiotic on a level that equals Lehman or beyond (where derivatives did them in, along with a non-bailout), you'd be hard pressed to lose money if even - completely hypothetical and arbitrary % - 20% of the cheap interest money you borrowed and then re-loaned out wasn't paid back to you.
If you're the former, you have not only no risk, but you can't possibly lose anything, since your investment is nothing.
If you're the latter, your risk is incredibly small.
This is why our economy, under fractional reserve banking practices, using currency created from thin air, tied to absolutely nothing of inherent value, and bestowed monopoly status as legal tender, is a factual, literal Ponzi Scheme.
This is why we had to close the gold standard, lest we couldn't show "growth" (even though it was merely nominal, credit/debt based transactions) in our official GDP going forward.
You don't even have to tie the fiat to gold in order to force the economy to produce honest numbers and detect the real level of economic growth or contraction: tie the currency to anything that has inherent value, and that can be stored, and that isn't infinite in quantity.
The mind bender part for the newly initiated (as I was at one time) to the Matrix is that there's no real 'debt' from the perspective of the fractional reserve central bank; it's hard for those steeped in conventional economics to rip out the notion from their brain that the fractional reserve central bank can't lose anything (they didn't lend anything of value or that cost them anything - they have ZERO skin in the game), and that their favored entities that are TBTF have only slightly less risk (because they will always be able to socialize their losses via taxpayer bailouts in the wake of busts, while they retain their ill-gotten gains during the booms), and that what most refer to as debt in this system is only a liability for the debtor. If the debtor doesn't repay what was they borrowed (a monopoly currency that cost the lender nothing to produce), they can lose their farm, construction equipment, home, machinery, infrastructure, vehicle, etc. that was used to securitize or collateralize the loan, or even if the loan was unsecuritized, they can at least see their revenue or wages garnished, be sent into involuntary bankruptcy (where their general pool of assets will be seized upon by creditors, including lenders), and squeezed in other ways.
The only way to avoid this is to not play the game. During crack up booms, you miss out on fiat-based gains, if you don't play the game, and the incentive for playing that game is that if your timing is correct, you can get rid of all debt and convert the excess fiat gains into hard assets having inherent value or other things of inherent value, before the fractional reserve alchemists induce another inflationary-deflationary (or vice-versa) harvest.
If one were fortuitous enough to play the game, and have the skill and/or luck to convert fiat gains into real wealth before the boom turns to bust, they'd probably be idiotic to repledge their real wealth assets as collateral for loans ever again (I say probably, because there are exceptions to every general rule, but these people would have to be extremely smart, competent and or connected to the alchemists in such a way that they'd be assured a bailout in the event of another bust whereby their real assets are pledged as collateral for fiat loans).
The Harvest is the end game for the fractional reserve bankers and their minions. As just one example of the rape that is harvest, even generations of families that were land rich (let's say a family that has owned two square miles of prime farmland yielding high value crops for three generations, carrying no debt) can find that an economic downturn suddenly forces them to take the step of obtaining a loan, pledging their farm and equipment as collateral, in the belief that the loan will allow them to survive the downturn and become more profitable at some future point - they're now 'harvestable.'
By pledging real assets to secure a loan of fiat money (conjured from thin air at no cost), one is playing right into the hands of The Money Masters.
On the more macro front, all is well in the scam of compelling nations (via Deep Capture) to 'borrow' the very "money" they need to fund their operations.
The Military-Financial-MultinationalMoneyMaster Complex is alive and well.
The Secret of Oz - Winner, Best Documentary of 2010
Money As Debt-Full Length Documentary
The Money Masters - Full Version
Money, Banking and the Federal Reserve
edward mandell house quote to woodrow wilson. Yes I believe he said it
Somehow Tyler neglects to call the core of the substitution by name - Special Drawing Rights.
http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images.../SeizeGold.jpg
Because gold cannot be printed endlessly, while SDR's can.
you cannot ALIENATE property from the State using Money of the State - United States Dollars or Federal Reserve Notes [by agreement]. However OUNCES of Gold, absent any image - well that's another concern - PERHAPS.Quote:
Originally Posted by David Merrill
This of course begs the question, where did one post WWII get the gold.
Almost begs the questionQuote:
Originally Posted by Michael Joseph
The value of the SDR was initially defined as equivalent to 0.888671 grams of fine gold—which, at the time, was also equivalent to one U.S. dollar. After the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1973, however, the SDR was redefined as a basket of currencies, today consisting of the euro, Japanese yen, pound sterling, and U.S. dollar. The U.S. dollar-value of the SDR is posted daily on the IMF's website. It is calculated as the sum of specific amounts of the four currencies valued in U.S. dollars, on the basis of exchange rates quoted at noon each day in the London market.
http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/sdr.HTM
Special Drawing Right (SDR) Currency Exchange Rate Conversion Calculator
http://coinmill.com/SDR_calculator.html#SDR=10000
last five days http://www.imf.org/external/np/fin/data/rms_five.aspx
As I understand it, SDR's are created on a basis of people endorsing private credit from the Fed (or whatever local central bank).
http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/8...dsvoluntar.jpg
http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/4556/...bondslarge.jpg
But I agree - as quick as people endorse the national debt! You are correct. People are endorsing unlimited SDR's all the time!
P.S. My definition for SDR is still, The measure of conditioning of society to blindly endorse private credit from the local central bank.
In the interest of a friendly debate, Michael Joseph, could you please defend your statement's implied assumption that United States Dollars are 'Money of the State'? It is my belief that United States Dollars are 'the People's money,' in that they are issued by the Treasury under power granted by the Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Joseph
I closed the easement deal that I was working on recently. The closing attorney asked me why I showed the full purchase price on the deed and not just $10 dollars and other valuable consideration. I responded as follows:Quote:
Originally Posted by Chex
I asked him if he was familiar with the term USUFRUCT. He said he was. I then asked him why do the deeds only show $10. He answered that the deed needed to reflect some consideration. I then said, well then why the following words "and other valuable consideration". He fell silent. I asked, is it to insure that the property cannot be alienated from the estate. Meaning, if one makes a USE in US Dollars then one is using Ceasar's Image to convey property. I then spoke give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's. He smiled but did not answer.
I then asked was he upset that I showed the full amount in transfer consideration in regard to the excise tax that must be borne by the purchaser? He said that was a concern but that it was not significant. Finally he told me that he did not understand 12USC411 and language "demand is made for lawful money in accord with and per 12USC411". I responded, we don't require you to be surety, we have a trustee right here who is demanding lawful money. Again, he just looked down.
Closing was not adversarial it was actually pleasant. When pressed again for what we meant by those words, I responded that we are fulfilling the law in love so that we do not put undue burden on our brothers and sisters. Furthermore I returned to Usufruct and stated that until society begins to shift their consciousness towards the concept of Usufruct, then I must, by the law of necessity, make transfers in notes in order to eat. As such, in fulling the law of maintenance to my family, I am compelled to exchange in notes. As such, we will abide lawfully in a demand for lawful money as we intent to handle lawful money of the United States.
He then asked a very curious question. This guy was no slouch - he has been practicing since 1953 and he came up in the Attorney General's office on North Carolina. He is now a County Attorney and by the way I found him to be very friendly and competent. But back to point: He asked "do you require Cash"?
Consider what he asked me. I told him, I have fulfilled the law by making my demand - what you give me is inconsequential, in my mind anyways - I made a demand it is Oral and Express and I have fulfilled the law in love.
Consider now gold vs. the SDR. Gold can be measured in Ounces. Consider Ounces ABSENT AN IMAGE. Remember the ten Commandments? Do you recall what it says about images. Now consider today that people actually worship money. It is about their whole existance. Economy, Economy, Economy - bow down to the Image of Baal. But consider that pure gold is absent an image. It weighs what it weighs.
Now consider can a Grantor transfer what is not his to transfer? And given the State is Trust is INCORPOREAL wherein Survey is bouned over a Corporeal THING such that a CLAIM might be made - the Claim is INCORPOREAL - therefore there might exist many different claims upon the same Surveyed THING. But each Survey is different. And everything is cool so long as we do not trespass each other.
Let all the earth and its inhabitants give praise unto Yehovah Elohim. Honor thy father and thy mother. Yehovah and El Shaddai ELOHIM. For the Elohim are as two doves contained within the All in All - El Elyon - the Most High God. El Elyon placed all THINGS under the feet of Yehoshuah [Yehovah Saves].
In the name of Yehohsuah I make claim IN the FULL LEGAL NAME ....everything else is just Usufruct. Read Luke 10:18-20. Praise be unto El Elyon in the Name of Yehoshuah, my Redeemer and honor unto El Shaddai for Wisdom.
Rev 15:2 And I saw as it were a glassy sea mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, standing on the sea of glass, having ... harps of God.
Rev 15:3 And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are Thy works, Yehovah Elohim and El Shaddai [O Lord God The Almighty]; just and true are Thy ways, Thou King of nations.
Rev 15:4 Who shall not revere ..., O Lord, and glorify Thy name? for Thou only art holy: for all the nations shall come and worship before Thee; for Thy righteous sentences were made manifest.
Deu 25:15 But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened on the soil which Yehovah Elohim [the LORD thy God] giveth thee.
Deu 25:16 For all that do such things, and all that do unrighteously, are an abomination unto Yehovah Elohim [the LORD thy God]
Shalom,
MJ
In my opinion, that unless you can trace your lineage to the 55 signers then you are NOT "We the People of the United States". They did the thing for "ourselves and our Posterity". It was their estates pledged, their SACRED HONOR. The Minute men so called were a paid army. And when the money ran out, they went home. And the King of England wanted to be paid back. So in losing [yeah right] he then turned around and DEMANDED how he was going to be paid back. Pray tell, when have you ever heard of a loser in war making demands upon a winner?Quote:
Originally Posted by Freed Gerdes
READ THIS and ask yourself - how is it that this King is dictating anything? And yet, he is. By the way the so called loser of the war, left his troops for another twenty years - you know because he lost. ROFLMAO.
Have you ever read the 1st Judiciary Act of 1789? Ask yourself how is it that the so called Sovereign States are being dictated to? Oh yes, Padelford picked up on that one too. The States waived this so called sovereignty a long time ago - a more perfect Union as it were. All one big happy family.
Article 4:
It is agreed that creditors on either side shall meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery of the full value in sterling money of all bona fide debts heretofore contracted.
I have no trust in the UNITED STATES - However one might earn my trust in RELATIONSHIP - until then, I shall bow my Knee only to my King - El Elyon by Yehoshuah, my Redeemer, my Savior and in whom I trust.
Shalom,
MJ
P.S. Show me where your name appears on ANY money and then I will answer you completely. Until that day, I suggest that you read as much as you can concerning Trust - Bogert, Gilbert, etc.
I would never Trespass upon We the People - that is a closed boundary and I will never be one of We the People - UNLESS i am granted that estate and I don't see how that is possible. I am not their Posterity. I might however serve as an Officer in that Higher Power known as United States.
In my opinion, [the] United States is NOT The United States of America. The Congress of the United States = The United States of America IN Congress Assembled. Who pray tell is the head of the Senate? Hint: It ain't an officer of The United States of America. It is an Officer of the United States.
A study in Equity is also beneficial. For Law is black and white but Equity begs what should be done in morality. Ever heard of contempt of court? If you have ever heard that then you were in a court of equity. Law and Equity MERGED a long time ago - I believe it was Erie Railroad.....
What about the approbation of the NAME (FIRST MIDDLE LAST) added to the Declaration as a vehicle to do as the founders did... pledge your life, fortune and sacred honor. Wasn't this vehicle provided to all people on this land for that honorable purpose? Is it a trespass to pledge all to the United States in recognition of the state of emergency and military occupation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Joseph
Imagine if you started a pizza business. And you ran the business for thirty years and it was successful for you. One day I wanted to share in your success so I just decided to file some papers in some registry claiming I am now one of the founders of the business. How would that make you feel? Would you feel compelled to assign some of your shares to me on the basis of my claim?Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph
I will wager that you might feel compelled to tell me to go pound dirt. Where was I during the hard times. You might consider an equitable interest if I provided some equity. So I put it to you and this hypothetical pizza business- will you just freely give and abandon you interest just because I asked for it?
Shalom
MJ
Is that what is happening?Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Joseph
Isn't it rather a recognition of our inability to own absolute title and property under the emergency conditions and military occupation instituted by the seizing powers?
Isn't it also a recognition that indemnity is available through the mandatory certificates/receipts provided to the people on this occupied land?
We are not claiming to be one of the founders, we are returning the NAME to its rightful owner and adding it to the list of pledgers in order to use the provided "conduit vessel" for the purpose of our charitable grant of energy and labor to the public trust.
That sounds reasonable under normal conditions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Joseph
Let's say that the pizza business I started 30 years ago became insolvent and owed debts it couldn't pay - essentially it became bankrupt. So, I decide to declare a state of emergency in order to save my pizza business from being dissolved - appropriating and seizing any and all industry, resources and money for said purpose. The private and foreign Federal Pizza Reserve set up for issuing pizza credit and currency for the pizza business, and for no other purpose, was about to have its charter expire without the ability to meet its contractual demands. I then form a New Pizza Deal whereby I declare that any and all pizza businesses must surrender all flour and yeast or face a $10,000 fine and cannot continue to operate without my specific permission via the new Pizza License. It is the biggest Pizza Trust ever formed in the history of the pizza business.
I cannot seize all flour and yeast, and appropriate all pizza industry, resources and money, without providing remedy to other honorable and peaceful pizza business operators. I must provide a means for full acquittance and discharge for all pizza debts and operations for those who recognize the emergency and decide to pledge their energy and labor for the benefit of the Pizza Trust.
I have made it impossible for anyone else to operate in the pizza business without trespass and tort against my formed Pizza Trust. This is all because I allowed the foreign Federal Pizza Reserve to escape debt and bankruptcy culpability by utilizing power I have in a manner which saved the asses of a few dishonest pizzachangers at the expense of the majority of honorable people who expected equitable performance on a simple contract.
Under those conditions, I cannot complain if honorable and peaceful people decide to do the right thing and desire not to be a licensed slave to the system I set up.
Oh I see your position. Yes, I do believe that the Usufruct is held in Abeyance. As such the claim is not to hold he Usufruct but to have an interest IN the usufruct. But, let me say it is my opinion, that the original trust is testamentary in nature and the settlors are dead. As such, while we might grant labor for consideration of the use, that is a position in exchange - for the use. The use is not, as you know, ownership. I am not sure what the predisposition is to ownership. It is clear to this writer, especially after reading Blackstone, that it is impossible to have Allodial Title in a kingdom. Allodial Title is ONLY in the King. Therefore all estates are Qualified in Fee. It is simple really, do you pay property tax? If the answer is yes, then you have an estate in Fee. Which is a Qualified Estate. Blackstone made this very plain and I agree with him. A fee simple estate is 100 percent of the fee but it is a qualified estate and is in no way allodial title. Therefore there remains a higher power, or in Blackstone's words "a superior lord".Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph
Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasars. If you desire Allodial title then you must create your own kingdom. You would then sit down as a king in your kingdom. Now then look carefully at the scriptures - a Kingdom of Priests. But read carefully Hosea 4:6 - all of it. If property already acquired was acquired by United States Legal Tender - then it was acquired with Intellectual Property of the State. How then will the property be alienated? - It will not. So then, the question remains - what is the NATURE of the Use? Is it for private profit - personal gain? Or is the use made for the public benefit? This model conforms with the Usufruct being held in Abeyance. So then what is being exchanged, transferred, conveyed, bargained and sold is the interest in the use. Titles NEVER are alienated. But interest is property and the title to the interest can be split just like any other title.
As I told the attorney, until the consciousness of the church [public] reforms to the 1st century church - Acts 2 - then by law of maintenance and necessity, I must remain upon notes - however, I do not intend to create a burden for my brother. As such, I prefer money, not legal tender.
Again, I appreciate your position - I just don't see that it is possible for one to sign up as a founder as any trust might receive a grant but the nature of the grant is made in AGREEMENT. As such, I say climb the Mountain! If you feel compelled to ascend then by all means do it.
Shabbat Shalom,
MJ
Lets frame this argument . Consider that a State is not necessary a Corporation. The United States Corporation is not the same thing as the government of the United States. As such, you say that the Corporation is bankrupt - but you also say the Corporation is relying on Superior Law. It has to be; else how does anybody say anything - there must be some insurance policy underwriting this venture else the Corporation cannot claim bankruptcy. To be a bankrupt is to be not able to perform; yet we see a higher power saying there is an emergency. So can the higher power be within the Corporation? - Absolutely NOT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph
I model it like this: There is a Monopoly Board and each Corporation has players that move about the Board subject to the Board rules. Now the United States Corporation has a player - and we see that many Corporations - lets call them sub-corporations because they get their charter from the Secretary of State - remember that "a more perfect Union" - one big happy family. So then the sub-corporations might move about on the board but now they are also subject to the Corporate United States. Interesting, yes?
And I am supposed to place my trust here. Lets say I place my trust in the [e]State North Carolina. So then I vote for my representatives. In the Senate and House of the State. And I vote for representatives to go up to Congress. So then, I have placed my trust in others to figure it all out for me. So then, my Trustees [Board] make a determination - how then will I dispute their determination? I have granted them sovereignty. I placed my Trust IN them.
Do I have any interest in FIRST MIDDLE LAST? You bet I do, but only IN the Usufruct. My interest is in the nature of the Use. So then the Land is never sold - only the Use. I said this is my model but I appreciate you engaging.
I appreciate that you are saying: otherwise, that is forced slavery. So then, you might say where is the VALUABLE CONSIDERATION wherein we are able to contract? If we are UNDERTAKING on behalf of the Trust, we must make a use of Trust Money which is to say Intellectual Incorporeal Property - but if said Property has no value - then where is the Valuable Consideration for the Contract? So I ask, who gives property value? The giver or the receiver? Will you undertake for a house of cards? ONLY you can give value to something - a piece of property with images is just a piece of property.
Does your Word have value? Is your promise valuable? Consider if you can't live with the terms, then Novate them. You are making the Deed.
Be blessed brother. Shabbat Shalom,
MJ
Thank you Anthony Joseph.
That post is quite informative, amusing and appetizing too!
I read the Income Tax Avoidance book and highly recommend it!
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...hlight=lockean
I have not read the book. I gisted and found something that is close to redeeming lawful money.
In my opinion one needs to access the remedy written in the Fed and Judiciary Acts by Congress.