People are as (if) State Banks!

Recently a suitor received an email response from the Treasury. (She will try to get the Paper rendition.) However, I think somebody may have already posted this Form Letter around here in paper form.

Quote:

---

Dear Ms. Sanitized:

Thank you for your most recent correspondence to the Federal Reserve Board concerning Federal Reserve notes and "lawful money."

"Lawful money" is a term used in the Federal Reserve Act, the act that authorizes the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to issue Federal Reserve notes. The Act states that Federal Reserve notes "shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank." The Act did not, however, define the term "lawful money," but up until 1913, the only currency issued by the United States that was legally recognized as "lawful money" was various issues of "demand notes" (subsequently known as "old demand notes") and "United States notes" authorized by Congress during the Civil War.

At the time, some currency was not considered legal tender, although it could be used by national banking associations as "lawful money reserves." Thus, the term "lawful money" had a broader meaning than the term "legal tender."

In 1933, Congress changed the law so that all U.S. coins and currency (including Federal Reserve notes), regardless of when issued, constitutes "legal tender" for all purposes. 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 Milam, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed a judgment denying relief to an individual who sought to redeem a $50 Federal Reserve Bank Note in "lawful money." The United States tendered Milam $50 in Federal Reserve notes, but Milam refused the notes, asserting that "lawful money" must be gold or silver. The Ninth Circuit, noting that this matter had been put to rest by the U.S. Supreme Court nearly a century before in the Legal Tender Cases (Juilliard v. Greenman), 110 U.S. 421 (1884), rejected this assertion as frivolous and affirmed the judgment.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

JPD
Board Staff

---

Attachment 2039

Attachment 2040

The Treasury is putting words into Congress' mouth! Congress may have the authority to establish lawful money, and in fact with US notes did a long time ago. However, this is what Congress says about Federal Reserve notes:

They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...

Any way you twist the grammar Federal Reserve notes are not lawful money.

One of the suitors, alsoa member here explained McFADDEN's 1933 testimonials.

Quote:

---

So there is either a demand draft on the Treasury of the State understanding [surety] for the central banking agreements [variation of agreement of the worldly states] or one is active in the game as banker acting as agent de-jure in the federal reserve districts. A re-venue since the interest has been DE-posited or abandoned.

---

Without McFADDEN with his lucid perspective it is difficult to get why this suitor is involving the State Comptroller in the mix. This is the inclusion of the State Banks in the original intent of §16 of the Fed Act that became Title 12 USC §411. And this is why today there is such a lax requirement to be recognized as a State Bank; everybody endorsing private credit from the Fed is a state bank!

Before 1933 the Federal Reserve note was basically a marker for interbank transactions. Watch how McFADDEN recognizes how the FRN's should be transferring to and between the people, just like the State Banks had been doing, but with the State Banks, there was rapid inflation:

Attachment 2041

Attachment 2042

For me, I was excited by this explanation because how it describes the diversity of citizenship between those in contract (endorsement) with the Fed and those who demand lawful money. Basically the Oath of Office process with the Secretary of State binds the officials' behaviors through the IN GOD WE TRUST trust through the State Comptroller at the State Treasury, even though this is happening in the Districts. In other words those working in the Federal Reserve Districts, even within the State Districts must publish their oaths with the Secretary of State.

Attachment 2043

This is why I think one should separate between the two types of "money" available. "Lawful money" is too ambiguous and open to confusion. One needs to separate bank money from state money. State money being current coin and USN's. Bank money being everything else that is a derivative of federal reserve "money".

That's the difference between the private credit and lawful money is = different. According to any tax lawyer its income, but that depends on what is being deposited.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

And this is why today there is such a lax requirement to be recognized as a State Bank; everybody endorsing private credit from the Fed is a state bank!

---

Deposits are considered loans to the Banks.
So does that mean everyone that makes a deposit becomes a Bank or is the BC NAME already a Bank?

Thank you for that validation.

With the redemption remedy you make special deposits.

Otherwise for endorsers I think the question is rendered moot. In other words if there is no man or woman appearing for the BC then the bank would be inactive. I believe that there are a lot of accounts that are absorbed into other accounts because of this inactivity. I have not followed that for so long...

I get occasional emails encouraging me to apply for some of these funds but I delete them from my SPAM bin. The process could conform directly to cestui que vie rules for all I know. That may mean that any account inactive for seven years is potentially up for grabs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walter

Deposits are considered loans to the Banks. So does that mean everyone that makes a deposit becomes a Bank or is the BC NAME already a Bank?

---

On a camping trip my next door camping neighbor was a retired attorney well into his late 80’s. We starting talking about law.

I asked him about lawful money and he said if it’s in the code it does exist.

I ask why then are they not following the law. Ask your congressman the one that represents you.

He said nobody that he knows ever brought up the law in a court of law. All the cases he did were trying to save people from bankruptcy by having the courts not take away everything they own.

I said the courts? He said yes. Where is it that you have to go to make a plea or a legal suit or action, so it is up to your neighbor/judge to render that verdict?

I said neighbor! He said that judge probably lives on your block laughing while he said it. He said the judge whether it has an oath or not is there for one thing and one thing only when it comes to currency. It has to have that currency.

I asked him if he knew about Louis McFadden and the testimony when he spoke of the Federal Reserve Banking system. He said look what happened to him.

I asked why don’t they go by the law and do what the law says to do in court.

Because they call it income, “anything derived is income”, the sixteenth amendment to the United States Constitution……….. laughing.

Then I ask if knew about this speech Edward Mandell House person and asked if the propaganda he spoke of is true.

He said I wasn't there but look at the results. He said if you ever read about House and where his political position was in politics you’ll understand.

He said Colonel and laughed Sanders.

Lawful money he said can you imagine what would happen if everyone did this? Entitlements would vanish, war amongst the people, chaos in the streets.

Entitlements are the government’s people. He said anyone with entitlements is the government’s people. That is what a citizen is.

I asked where does one get that title citizen come from.

He said ask your mother.

He and his wife went into his American Coach Revolution 42W for dinner and was gone the next day from William B. Umstead State Park, NC

Very entertaining... thanks!

De= abandon
Special = Trust

If a trust, then that begs a Grant. If a transaction, then was it a tender?

TENDER, contracts, pleadings. A tender is an offer to do or perform an act which the party offering, is bound to perform to the party to whom the offer is made.

2. A tender may be of money or of specific articles; these will be separately considered. §1. Of the lender of money. To make a valid tender the following requisites are necessary: 1. It must be made by a person capable of paying: for if it be made by a stranger without the consent of the debtor, it will be insufficient. Cro. Eliz. 48, 132; 2 M. & S. 86; Co. Lit. 206.


IF one does not abandon or Quit their interest in the Grant in a trust, then a Remainderman interest stays with the Grantor and the Estate will escheat to the Grantor. For instance, if I create a life estate for the benefit of someone until she dies, then I can quit the remainderman interest or maintain the interest by language in the deed.


So, who gets the property when the Life Tenant dies? There are two options:

Reverter. If the deed into the Life Tenant (creating the Life Estate) does not specify who gets the Remainder interest, ownership of the property will revert back to the Grantor of the Life Estate;

or

The Remainderman. If the deed specifies who gets the Remainder interest, ownership of the property will automatically vest in them upon death of the Life Tenant.

ASK YOURSELF - is your name on the Note? Consider before you answer. Also ask yourself have you stood surety for something new? Can you stand surety? Do you have the stuff to sit at the table? Where is your "piece of eight"? Produce the evidence. Who has the surety for the Federal Reserve System? It has to be the Treasury and in fact in reading 12USC411 turns out that is true.

Finding a closed boundary in Trust, and finding that the Board of Trustees have established Trust Agents to perform certain offices [duty], then what does that make the private unaffiliated individual? End User. It would help one to know the rights of the end user.

TRUST is the value understanding money. But when you begin to see, you will see that Eden has enough to go around. Consider these two statements:

Romans 13:11 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.

Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

Ask yourself, Entered into What?

Luke 20:14 But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.

In the analogy the "husbandmen" are the LEADERS of this age. They sought their own kingdoms. Their own rule. Thus they killed - physically - Christ JESUS - which is to say spiritually they killed The Word. The true meaning of The Word has been suppressed so that men [false leaders] might keep others under their thumbs in oppression.

Pray tell what do these lawyers seek to Attorn? Consider for a moment and perhaps it shall come to you. Thou shall not commit premeditated murder.


Consider again TENDER. How did you come to know that term? How do you make its use? Thus a higher contracting power has the surety for his/her creation. The end user is subject to the creator[s] creation. An ignorant public will always be ruled. Mountain and Hills.

But yea though I walk thru the VALLEY OF THE SHADOW OF DEATH - I will fear no evil....

Regards,
Michael Joseph