Lawful Money and Ownership

Lawful Money and Ownership.

All property belongs to the State only if Federal Reserve Notes are used. Use of FRNs is a CHOICE. I believe respect of this CHOICE is being honored by this world's rulers because they know that violating free moral agency (and God's title/ownership of His People - those demanding lawful money) would precipitate Divine Intervention, as it did in ancient Egypt. The innumerable volumes of this world's fiction statutes and codes are a silent but weighty testimony of their fear of trespassing upon this inviolate Divine Rule and Title, of which we are custodians since our appointment in the Garden of Eden.

It is our duty that violations of said rule be brought to the Creator's attention, to ask for His intervention, since He does respect our free will and will not intervene without our requesting His help. This is the example set for us in Exodus 3:7 by the Israelites as a archetype-nation for all nations... as it says "I ... have given heed to their cry...".

To demonstrate and create a substantive record of demanding lawful money, hand write "lawful money is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411" on the FACE of all of YOUR checks and deposit slips.

We have only been "mere users" of property because we have been making the wrong CHOICE by using FRNs instead of United States Notes (USNs).

Hi Doug;


I like to play with these mental models.

Quote:

---

All property belongs to the State only if Federal Reserve Notes are used.

---

Just that opening sentence got me thinking, because I noticed how you were putting a God as owner slant on the remainder of your opening post. In the brain trust, mostly comprised of 'suitors' who have default judgments in place published through the US District Courts around America, we pondered and seem to have settled on some conclusions.

In Israel there was a primary basic presumption that if the people lived in faith of God then God would deliver directly. However Samuel presented the people's desire for a man-king and God listened. - And so ended the wonderful days when if you obeyed God would drown or whatever your enemies and water your crops etc.

Your opening sentence leads me to presume that if you non-endorse your paycheck then you can own your stuff. I have probably said so right here but I am learning and growing by and large by the help of the brain trust. You do not own anything that was created by another including the fetus and subsequent infant in a woman's body. The infant is created from nutrients provided in your faithful presumption by God.

Now let's say the cashews I am nibbling on; since they are not registered with the State I have complete control and use of them. It even feels like I own them. But then I forget who created them easily.

We start getting into cars and homes now. Items of estate that are typically registered with the State. You can own them outright (under God) but you have to depend on God and your weaponry to protect them from others using (stealing) them. And let's not forget Birth Certificate registration but that pretty much is a null contract as far as ownership when we mature into adulthood, unless you think otherwise.

The Fed is a private trust created by Congress. So many people endorse its private credit that it seems like a public trust. But for the purpose of "ownership" that is moot except that you have the choice of whether to contract or not - endorse or not. So if you have something bought with public money, lawful money that is registered with the State then the State owns it as far as the State becomes the Trustee and it is an asset of Attachment A of the trust. You have use of it because you are the beneficiary and that is the rules of the trust in action.

The benefit is that you can hold the acting trustees (State officials) to the trust agreement - the State constitution. You are behooved to hold these officials to their bond IN GOD WE TRUST on the money and SO HELP ME GOD on thier oaths so that they will abide in the bills of rights regarding your ability to access and use the State's assets. This is a far better arrangement as most would see it than the central bank of the US (Fed) being in that position!

“It is lawful for a man to hold private property; and it is necessary for the carrying on of human life.” — St. Thomas of Aquinas

Hi David,

Does not the very existence of 12 USC 411 infer that the RIGHT to redeem FRNs exists?

That one is en-title-d to retain equitable (Beneficial Ownership) title to one's labor/gold?

I believe that Right and Equitable Ttitle were preserved as a result of McFadden's charges of theft and treason on May 23, 1933 lodged in the Judiciary, which caused Congress to confer for 12 days to create HJR 192 on June 5, 1933, as a mitigating remedy, albeit a very esoteric "escape clause", that very few would realize was implemented in 12 USC 411, and, much less, consistently execute the same by handwriting "lawful money is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411" on all commercial instruments.

HJR 192 had to preserve the people's equitable title, otherwise true "payment" could not be effected (and HJR 192 does say "discharge upon payment"), and the theft of The Birthright would have occurred in fact... which, I believe, would have invoked the Creator's intervention, because that Birthright is being reserved for a very special purpose... namely, the End-Time fullfillment of the Third Annual Holyday of Leviticus 23 - the Feast of Firstfruits - Pentecost.

If Congress and its agents are now violating the terms of that Trust (the INTENT of HJR 192), and are taking our equitable title (evidenced by our holding the COLB as the security of same), then McFadden's charges, still lodged in the Judiciary, need to be re-activated. That is our duty as Beneficial Owners of that Birthright, as agents and bondservants of The Owner who appointed us as caretakers of same in the Garden of Eden.

Perhaps this, as well as the depreciation of lawful money, is a damage we should claim in the LOR. We certainly have recent abundance evidence of the dishonor of our transfers of equitable title to the US Treasury via the IRS, when their bills are indorsed as demanding lawful money, and returned, and the asset amount thereon is never credited to the account.

Doug

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sam charles

“It is lawful for a man to hold private property; and it is necessary for the carrying on of human life.” — St. Thomas of Aquinas

---

I like that citation. I wish I had studied more of St Thomas AQUINAS.

To answer the question I doubt that it is. I recall an episode of the cartoon, King of the Hill. One of the characters had a 4' chain link dog fence and declared his home a new nation. He pulled his flag up on the pole. The results utilized tanks and UN Peacekeeping Forces if I recall. Somehow I think that cartoon episode might be a poignant exploration into the law of nations and private ownership.

The Constitution says something against creating a state within a state.

I think the keys to understanding "private ownership" are found in understanding trust law. IN GOD WE TRUST is on the currency and that ties to SO HELP ME GOD on the oaths of office. This binds (bonds) the behavior of public officials against a payoff by the Treasury - a fidelity bond. If all the officials are bound to the Bills of Rights, that is the social definition of "ownership". If you declare your own survey - (a 4-foot chain link fence) then you have to spend all your time setting on the roof with a rifle. Now you own your home. If you want 911 Emergency phone service, or even if you don't and are in the recognized survey, you are getting the benefit, even around you of that social government service and there goes your ownership in an social compact.

I keep saying something that apparently goes over most people's heads. Or at least I find it keenly interesting and nobody else seems to feel it worth delving into. The Territory of Colorado is a faulty proposition in law. The "law" under girding this Territory is faulty as it never saw a thirty day cure (Book of Daniel) before the Congress adjourned for the War of Rebellion (Civil War). It is the idea of survey we should examine.


Regards

David Merrill.


P.S. In 1994 I read (library) that the Constitution is suspended in the actual theater of war. That was in American Jurisprudence 2d Constitutional Law. I went back and could not find it. I asked after spending a long time looking and discovered that the Volumes get swapped out with new ones and the old ones are offered up cheap in the book store for a bit, then discarded. I lost track of that passage.

Ownership examples in the Scriptures:

Genesis 23 shows how Abraham paid full price for a field to bury Sarah in for 400 shekels of silver, weighed out.

Gen 23:20 - So the field and the cave that is in it, were deeded over to Abraham for a burial site by the sons of Heth.

Notice that this transaction involved lawful money, real substance of silver. We do the same today with lawful money that we demand.

OK, that was in the past... Does ownership concept still apply today, and in the future in the kingdom?

Jer 32 shows that Jeremiah, at the Lord's command, weighed out silver to buy a field, and signed and sealed a deed of purchase, as sign that in the future the same thing will be done again when the Lord restores the fortunes of Judah and Israel in the promised land, as fully explained and promised in Jer 33.

OK, that indicates that ownership exists during the Millemium.

What about in the new heavens and new earth?

Rev 21:6-7 indicates that the overcomers shall inherit all things, and will be very sons of God, drinking from the spring of the water of life without cost.

Rev 22:14 indicates these sons have the RIGHT to the tree of life. Does this indicate an ownership right?

Rev 22:17 again shows they are taking of the water of life without cost.

Gal 4:1 declares "Now I say, as long as the heir is a child, he does not differ at all from a slave although he is owner of everything,..."

Lk 20:14 and Mt 21:39 also indicate that the heir is the owner... "But when the vine-growers saw him, they reasoned with one another, saying, 'This is the heir ; let us kill him so that the inheritance will be ours.' "

Mt 17:26 shows that the sons do not have to pay tribute. They are exempt from paying... "without cost".

Js 2:5 declares that the saints are heirs of the kingdom.

Rom 8:16-17 declares "The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ..."

Col 1:16 declares "For by Him [Christ] all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities -all things have been created through Him and for Him."

Jn 16:15 declares "All things that the Father has are Mine ; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you."

Jn 17:10 declares "and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine ; and I have been glorified in them..."

These scriptures, taken together, lead me to believe that the sons can take of the waters and tree of life without cost because we are fellow-heirs and co-owners with the Messiah who owns all.

I realize this is contrary to the prevailing views of many here, but in the spirit of full disclosure of all of the Scriptures, I present them here for sincere review and consideration.

Ownership carries with it liability, responsibility, accountability. I believe the Father and Son have set us a perfect example of ownership to follow.

Mt 5:48 "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

Gen 23:20 - So the field and the cave that is in it, were deeded over to Abraham for a burial site by the sons of Heth.


A couple three times the sons of Heth tried to get Abraham to place his confidence in them - We know you are a prince amongst us, what is money between us, go ahead and possess the burial place. Abraham would have none of it.

I imagine perhaps the sons of Heth offered in the gate - in the city place of judgment - Abraham trusts Elohim, not the sons of Heth.

I heard a report years back that when the U.S. went to war against Babylon, I mean IRAQ, the leader at that time, parked some of his jets near a certain cave. He knew that the U.S. would never bomb anything near that cave.

=====

Gal 4:1 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;

Lord
LORD, n.

1. A master; a person possessing supreme power and authority; a ruler; a governor.

Man over man he made not lord.

But now I was the lord of this fair mansion.

2. A tyrant; an oppressive ruler.

3. A husband.

I oft in bitterness of soul deplores my absent daughter, and my dearer lord.

My lord also being old. Gen 18.

4. A baron; the proprietor of a manor; as the lord of the manor.

5. A nobleman; a title of honor in Great Britain given to those who are noble by birth or creation; a peer of the realm, including dukes, marquises, earls, viscounts and barons. Archbishops and bishops also, as members of the house of lords, are lords of parliament. Thus we say, lords temporal and spiritual. By courtesy also the title is given to the sons of dukes and marquises, and to the eldest sons of earls.

6. An honorary title bestowed on certain official characters; as lord advocate, lord chamberlain, lord chancellor, lord chief justice, &c.

7. In scripture, the Supreme Being; Jehovah. When Lord, in the Old Testament, is prints in capitals, it is the translation of JEHOVAH, and so might, with more propriety, be rendered. The word is applied to Christ, Psa 110. Col 3. and to the Holy Spirit, 2 Th 3. As a title of respect, it is applied to kings, Gen 40. 2 Sam 19. to princes and nobles, Gen 42. Dan 4. to a husband, Gen 18. to a prophet, 1 Ki 18. 2 Ki 2. and to a respectable person, Gen 24. Christ is called the Lord of glory, 1 Cor 2. and Lord of lords, Rev 19.

LORD, v.t. To invest with the dignity and privileges of a lord.

LORD, v.i. To domineer; to rule with arbitrary or despotic sway; sometimes followed by over, and sometimes by it, in the manner of a transitive verb.

The whiles she lordeth in licentious bliss.

I see them lording it in London streets.

They lorded over them whom now they serve.


=====

G2962
kurios
koo'-ree-os

From ?????? kuros (supremacy); supreme in authority, that is, (as noun) controller; by implication Mr. (as a respectful title): - God, Lord, master, Sir.

Gal 4:1 declares "Now I say, as long as the heir is a child, he does not differ at all from a slave although he is owner of everything,..."


The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon
Owner - Kurios (Greek):

Definition:

"he to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has power of deciding; master, lord;
the possessor and disposer of a thing
the owner, one who has control of the person, the master
in the state: the sovereign, prince, chief, the Roman emperor
is a title of honour expressive of respect and reverence, with which servants greet their master
this title is given to: God, the Messiah

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug555

Gal 4:1 declares "Now I say, as long as the heir is a child, he does not differ at all from a slave although he is owner of everything,..."


The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon
Owner - Kurios (Greek):

Definition:

"he to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has power of deciding; master, lord;
the possessor and disposer of a thing
the owner, one who has control of the person, the master
in the state: the sovereign, prince, chief, the Roman emperor
is a title of honour expressive of respect and reverence, with which servants greet their master
this title is given to: God, the Messiah

---

So now does an owner pay tribute?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael Joseph

So now does an owner pay tribute?

---

That question has already been answered... Mt 21:24-27

But I am sure you already know that though, so the real question is: What is your purpose for asking it?

It appears the Messiah, who is in charge of all, has put that question and answer - and OUR CHOICE - right in front of us every day, every time we look at a FRN with the 2 seals on it.

It is our choice, by demand or by default, which image/seal governs the instant transaction.

I choose the RIGHT image/seal, when looking at the face of the front of a FRN, to govern all transactions by writing "lawful money is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411" on the front of all of my checks and deposit slips.

Thereby I preserve my RIGHT of OWNERSHIP by NOT DELAYING PAYMENT and by paying in lawful substance (the transfer of equitable title to my labor held in Trust in the IN GOD WE TRUST, to the Trustee of same).

Said DELAY is what happens when one uses a FRN, a PROMISE OF FUTURE PAYMENT by the United States, courtesy of the private credit extended by the FRS, which thereby legitimately incurs a usage fee known as taxes or tribute. (Such a DELAY is also a dishonor in Scripture.)

So, then, an Owner can pay the tax/tribute, if he chooses, as the Messiah did it that situation, but truly He, and the sons, are exempt from "taxes/tribute" (private credit usage fees), as He declared, because Owners always PAY - NOT DELAY PAYING - what is owed in every transaction with lawful money of exchange.

I should interject some Crosstalk - a revelation:

Quote:

---

However, we have a choice - to make a demand or not to make a demand. To mark something Redeemed is a trespass. Nobody has granted me the right to Redeem any Federal Reserve Note. I can only make my demand.

---

Quote:

---

However, we have a choice - to make a demand or not to make a demand. To mark something Redeemed is a trespass. Nobody has granted me the right to Redeem any Federal Reserve Note. I can only make my demand.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

I should interject some Crosstalk - a revelation:

---

This is exactly why I do NOT write anything but my signature on the back of the check. I believe the back of the check belongs to them.

12 USC 411 makes no requirement on where the demand is written. There is no implementing CFR for this statute, so it is up to us to decide how and where.

All we need is a substantive record of it being made in the normal course of business, which are records that fit the exception to the hearsay rule of evidence at FRCP Rule 803 (6).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug555

This is exactly why I do NOT write anything but my signature on the back of the check. I believe the back of the check belongs to them.

12 USC 411 makes no requirement on where the demand is written. There is no implementing CFR for this statute, so it is up to us to decide how and where.

All we need is a substantive record of it being made in the normal course of business, which are records that fit the exception to the hearsay rule of evidence at FRCP Rule 803 (6).

---

One who knows what one is doing would have no problem, as 12USC411 does not respect persons and does not specify the nature of the demand. But thinking of how my actions might impair another, I would not want to do something that leaves a presumption only to find that someone has food on their table for their children based on a faulty presumption. So I believe being a good steward requires a public notice. However, I do see your point - and you are right - the location where the Demand is lodged is not mandated at law. We clearly see this expression in the FEDERAL REGISTER.

SO THEN: Remedy is between our ears.

However for the newbie, developing an Administrative written remedy is most times what is needed. I liken my response to the following:


There once were 5000 men - probably at least 20k in terms of men, women and children - who came out to hear Yehoshuah speak. As the day grew on, they began to get hungry. So then, Yehoshuah performs a miracle over five loaves and two fishes. The disciples then perform the work in handing out the food. Now then, many just came for the free fish sandwich; HOWEVER some came for the message!

Many just want the free fish sandwich and will jump headlong into whatever guru is offering the latest; you know them. Ask them to explain what it means to make a demand for lawful money - just sit back and watch the BLANK expression form. But one who studies to show himself approved, is going to comprehend even the minute nuances.

Shalom,
MJ


EXCELLENT FIND - thank you.

(6) Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity. A record of an act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis if:

(A) the record was made at or near the time by — or from information transmitted by — someone with knowledge;

(B) the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or calling, whether or not for profit;

(C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity;

(D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified witness, or by a certification that complies with Rule 902(11) or (12) or with a statute permitting certification; and

(E) neither the source of information nor the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug555

This is exactly why I do NOT write anything but my signature on the back of the check. I believe the back of the check belongs to them.

---

Isn't the front of a check the public side, and the back the private? That's how I understand it.

I think the important point is that no judge wants it in his court so that he becomes the name interpreting the law.

That is an interesting and ongoing exploration about the $46 Miscellaneous Case evidence repository for the Notice and Demand. Even that may not be necessary if you want to notify the Fed. That is what the Fed Act says. It is about who the FRN's are issued to - there are restrictions about who the FRNs may be issued to. If you want them issued to you for your labor then you become by presumption that sort of entity.

What sort of entity?

Well, around here if my ego may speak for StSC, State Banks. But as common practice (law) that would come out of some high-falutin' federal judge's mouth and I will just bet that they have a conflict of interest being taxpaying revinooers (remember Snuffy SMITH in a flurry of shotgun blasts?). So until one of them black-robed cross dressing attorneys will say it, I guess we get my way.


P.S. Does anybody know why we cannot see the "Saving to Suitors' Club banner?

Ok brain trust here goes,

As a landlord, I receive all forms of payment, I wish I could fix this issue, but be that as it may, and being a member of the club, I've grown to find a particular interest in each type.

Today I received 3 different forms of payment. I don't think people quite understand how different each is, but I digress. I'm sort of in a tailspin here but...

I received a check, I'm not sure if it's business or personal, because in the "name" line above the address (top left corner), is the guys name then "dba" his business. Either way, to my knowledge, this is a negotiable instrument, as it's a promise to pay, I can sign it over and issue it to someone else, etc. Really it's worthless in my eyes UNTIL I negotiate it with someone else. That can be negotiated with a deposit in my bank, I could sign it over to someone else for a car payment, etc. The conclusion I've come to after being a member of this site, I'm looking at this piece of paper, it's worthless, it doesn't represent any income. If I trash it and shred it right now, I've received no funds, and most importantly, no funds have been withdrawn from my tenants account. Further, what if this "negotiable" instrument I decide to negotiate for a good or service. Now, I've received a service for that instrument, in my eyes since the funds weren't withdrawn, for free. What if this check keeps getting negotiated and never is deposited? What if someone buys the instrument with Federal Reserve notes? What if someone else then buys the instrument for more federal reserve notes? In that sense, aren't they simply "cashing the check". It generates cash transactions without ever being withdrawn from my tenants account. I mean hell, this is a form of currency. If it never gets deposited, never withdrawn, in a sense, we have just "grown" our currency by $1,240, the amount on the check. I guess I'm running down this trail because if this isn't negotiated with a bank, you can see it really doesn't represent any value... (Could you imagine if you could just write a bunch of checks, have them negotiated down the line, and never have the funds withdrawn from your account? hint hint, federal reserve, redeemable money...)

Next, I received a Post Office money order. After inspecting the lovely piece of parchment, I discovered something wonderful. The words "Pay to", "US dollars and cents", "Clerk" (I'm assuming could sign for it.) Now, this is a completely different animal. Cash must be used to "buy" this negotiable instrument. It is a cash equivalent of sorts. The the US dollars and cents was a wonderful thing to see. In this case, I'm not sure if I need a stamp, but for good measure, I slam it on there. But, this instrument, upon endorsement, does it become reservable? ITS LAWFUL MONEY!

The last is FRN, cash. Now, there is no way to track this sort of income from the Feds, if I don't deposit it, there is no real taxable transaction, because, once again, I have not contracted to have my money privately manipulated.

I remember one day I received a check and I lacked a means to cash it due to a lack of ID so then I decided to experiment so I wrote on the back of the check

Demand is made for Lawful Money per 12USC411 and absent accommodation and without recourse by: Signature
PAY TO THE ORDER OF ABC, LLC

See what I did? I negotiated the Instrument and Assigned it - instead of depositing it or cashing it! Works just fine. No need to Order up any new Credit....

You might consider looking up ALLONGE - CLICK ME

Shalom,
MJ