I just asked a couple of questions, I thought the response was interesting...
Particularly the 2nd answer.
Printable View
I just asked a couple of questions, I thought the response was interesting...
Particularly the 2nd answer.
What an excellent letter, as a source of good information! Thank you for sharing it here.
There is a reference to the January 21, 1971 decision which is the basis for considering redeemed lawful money as US notes in the form of Federal Reserve notes. Look at the last paragraph.
Quote:
United States notes serve no function that is not already adequately served by Federal Reserve notes. As a result, the Treasury Department stopped issuing United States notes, and none have been placed into circulation since January 21, 1971.
The best part of the letter is the admission, and the extant belief/understanding by the FED, that U.S. notes (redeemed lawful money) are NOT to be used as a reserve - U.S. notes are inelastic currency.
The significant part of making the demand per 12USC411 is the desire to direct one's converted energy and labor (via the FIRST MIDDLE LAST transmitting utility) toward the public good and NOT toward the increase of the interests of the private and foreign bank known as the Federal Reserve via ordering up more debt credit by conventional signature endorsement. This is an honorable and peaceful stance amidst the commercial war being waged.
The other part of the equation is to make it clear that one makes NO claim of ownership/title to ANYTHING in the FIRST MIDDLE LAST; pursuant to 12USC95a(2), ALL reversionary interest in the NAME is assigned, conveyed, transferred to and for the account of the United States. The profit and gain from ALL use of the FIRST MIDDLE LAST is realized solely by the United States as beneficial owner; we are third party beneficiaries through this agreement and we exercise special interest in the beneficial use of the FIRST MIDDLE LAST (and any rights, property or accounts therein) as special ministers for the public trust. We desire to assist the injured and wounded on the battlefield of commerce by facilitating discharge/set-off via the designated U.S./State/County/local City municipal trustee who is obligated to administer the affairs of the FIRST MIDDLE LAST in honor and according to the law(s) they serve.
Credit Unions are not and can not be Federal Reserve Banks?
Are they not holding and using Federal Reserve Notes?
"...for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose..."
What else can they be then?
Just caught this bit at the end:Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph
"…and since 31 U.S.C. 5119 requires the Secretary of the Treasury to destroy any United States notes that may be presented to the Treasury, there is no basis for concern that any United States note that you might deposit would be "used as a reserve."
This is very interesting. I will investigate 31 USC 5119.
An attempt to destroy remedy by destroying lawful monies as they are returned to Treasury? How might this square with the declaration of the duality of Fed notes quoted by David Merrill above? Based on that, it would seem that even though all physical US notes might be destroyed, lawful money would have to live on, regardless. Unless, perhaps, that nature of Fed notes were to be changed by legislation, perhaps due to another (seemingly imminent, at least to me) bankruptcy?
What in the current remedy would prevent this? Saving to suitors itself? I must admit that full comprehension of that clause and it's application to current remedy eludes me.
I hope the greater minds than mine here will speak to this.
Question for AJ: What is the purpose of redemption of your estate out of the usufructuary trust created by the Bankruptcy Act of 1933 if not to take legal title to your estate, ie, to remove it from the bankruptcy trust created for the benefit of the Secretary of the Treasury (who is not a US govt official), as trustee? The banks set up this debt money trap to control the assets of the citizens, who stupidly allowed themselves to be trapped into a presumptive contract with the Federal Reserve, which contract makes them liable for income taxes as an excise tax on the amount of Federal Reserve private credit used (dealing in securities of the Fed is the excised act). By accepting the trust relationship with the Sec of the Treasury, citizens give up legal title to their estate and accept equitable title in its stead. But by demanding lawful money, you break the contract with the Fed concerning debt money: your demand rebuts the presumption that you wish to deal in Fed securities, ie, FRN's. This demand is also an appearance, so it also rebuts the presumption that you are dead, a necessary condition for the cestui que vie trust to exist. This collapses the trust, and the res reverts to the rightful owner. By these steps, your property is now no longer 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,' making the rest of 12USC95a(2) irrelevant. You have a perfect right to own your name, and to own your estate. Why do you refuse to acknowledge this right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Henry
I think it clarifies that state banks are credit unions of the Fed.
Very well put Freed! To explicitly rebut the presumption of death, I also recorded a "Proof of Life" in the county.Quote:
Originally Posted by Freed Gerdes
Perhaps the UCC-3 entitled "UCC Doc # 2012088865 - Secured Order For Reconciliation" at the link below, since it demands "LAWFUL MONEY" in item #2, is something that successfully reclaims that right and estate for each living being on this planet.
See https://drive.google.com/folderview?...Vk&usp=sharing
Perhaps one needs to explicitly accept this "Order for Reconciliation" via one's own UCC-1 and then assign on a UCC-3 some of its Returned Value to a bank upon execution of a private contract with the bank who would create a drawing account for a discount fee of 10% of the deposited amount of lawful money.
See more on this topic at http://www.quicktopic.com/50/H/VNAL6Qbi9kNe
I and others have been having great success when receiving an account statement indicating an amount due. With this verbiage placed on the statement and mailed back, I haven't heard another peep;Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph
This name and account number are property of the UNITED STATES
Please forward to the owner in care of the Treasury of the United States
(Sign) Authorized Representative (Date)
The success hasn't just been with one or two instances but many.
This could use some amplification:
Redeemed Coupon.
http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/9...efinitions.jpg
Some people believe that they can own (claim title to) things that exist in the paper world created by another. I cannot find my signature on the CERTIFICATE OF BIRTH or on the currency notes that circulate among the people on this land nor do I hold any original paper.Quote:
Originally Posted by Freed Gerdes
I prefer to claim the original organic trust/covenant found in Scripture at Genesis 1 which grants me dominion/usufruct of the whole living earth by the Most High God and Creator of ALL things.
I prefer to exercise the extant and inherent immunity from man's law, mandatorily written into ALL of man's laws - consent/contract makes the law and the living must have escape.
I prefer to abstain from adverse claims of ownership/title of things that will perish and not enter into the Kingdom of God.
I prefer to seek and find peace being in the world yet NOT of the world.
I prefer to give everything that this body produces (labor and energy) for the benefit of mankind (the public good); yet, I can choose to demand that said labor and energy be upon proper balances, and just weights and measures, when it is converted/monetized by the public trustees via the FIRST MIDDLE LAST transmitting utility provided for our beneficial use.
I prefer to continuously move in special ministry, seeking only to assist in keeping the peace and helping others who are in need.
These are the goals I have set for my life and I am trying to accomplish them in the proper manner and method - in truth and in peace according to the Will of the Most High God by and through our Lord and Savior, Yehoshuah the CHRIST.
They always use the loaded term...
"United States notes serve no function that is not already adequately served by Federal Reserve notes. "
Adequately served...indeed I believe this could be interpreted as a dual purpose note. Adequatly served, serving more purposes then just a simple federal reserve note. Presumption is it's used as private credit. I'm still wrapping my head around the individual acting as a state bank, but, I think another letter is in order questioning the language of the above statement.
The Fed response letter makes an interesting misdirection, perhaps assisted by the inquiry with regards to 31 USC 5115, by pretending that the reserve issue in question is something other than the reserve used for fictional reserve banking. The correct issue of reserves is found at 12 USC 461; FR banks are required to keep (an insignificant) reserve against their demand accounts. This required reserve balance is calculated and reported by each FR bank weekly, to the regional Federal Reserve bank. Lawful money may not be used as part of this reserve. So the letter response was intended to confuse this issue, further to their long held strategy of blurring the distinction between lawful public money, issued by the Treasury under the Constitution, and private money, issued by the Fed, which is not money, but debt obligations. I got a similar line of obfuscation from the Chief Legal Counsel of the Richmond Fed bank; under no circumstances is anyone going to get in writing the true nature of the relationship between Federal Reserve debt money and income taxes.
As to the UCC-3 Reconcilation Statement issue, I have seen a lot written on the subject of how to 'correct' your Treasury account. The IRS uses this account to track the taxes they will demand, and will hold you the natural person liable for the tax debt assigned to the trust. (The IRS has to use a trust account as they are a corporation, and cannot contract with a natural person.) This is the primary purpose of the cestui que vie trust. When you collapse the trust by making an appearance, proving that you are not dead, the trustee (Sec of Treasury) has one and only one remaining duty: to return the res to you, the rightful owner. The trustee is responsible for any debts he may have allowed the trust to accumulate while he was responsible for it, so you can just leave the wreckage of the trust in his care. (You still have the duty to pay any income taxes due for the interval when you were still using their debt money, ie, this year's taxes.) Once you remove your assets, the trust has no validity. Further, since you have severed your contract with the Federal Reserve, the trust will not accumulate any new debts; the trust is non-operational as of the date of your demand. And you have no further interest in it. If the trustee made a mess of it, through fraud, false accounting, acceptance for value of your birth certificate, etc, it is his mess to clean up. You take your estate out of the bankruptcy and back into the clean air of Constitutional money. You now have no trust in the Federal government; you use real money, not debt, and you pay for your assets in full, so the Federal Reserve does not perfect liens against your assets in the future. At this point you have no contractual relationship with the Federal Reserve; you have escaped the bankers' plot to steal your assets. Let's END THE FED.
Finally, I have seen a lot written here about how the government 'owns' your legal name. This is clearly wrong; the government has established a CQVtrust in your legal name, in which the Sec of Treasury holds legal title to your estate, and you enjoy equitable title, which means you get to use the estate, but the govt owns it. Once you collapse the CQV trust by making an appearance and demand, legal title reverts to your legal name as the fictional entity/corporate person who can contract, with you the natural person as the accommodation agent. I took the further step of registering my legal name as a dba in my state, to take it out of US jurisdiction, and to make it clear that I the natural person own the name. Now the government still has a Treasury account in my legal name, but I have no interest in it, and do not use it. This is probably a clearer explanation of what EZ means when he says that the government owns that account (but it is not correct to say that the government owns the name).
Very good and well said, FG!
David- That is a very interesting coupon. I have seen that done with a DMV registration to which the fees were deemed "paid" and the new registration stickers were sent. What was written on the statement and sent back to the DMV was the "lawful money" verbiage AND the "This name and account number are the property of the UNITED STATES..."
I have seen it work, and even heard rumors it was recalled or billed again later. See how this example is left open for the Treasury to reclaim the debt as valid?
http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/3774/slpage1.jpg
http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/3079/slpage2.jpg
http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/4373/slpage3.jpg
I have been jailed for the POMC's (Public Office Money Certificates) when I misused them to set up an account so I am skittish about this whole approach unless you can explain it through for example Title 12 USC §95 simply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EZrhythm
EZ....are you mailing that back using the [company supplied] bill-pay address.....or are you doing some type of private communication w/ the company CFO?
The company supplied address.Quote:
Originally Posted by ag maniac
Freed - this is the best, most concise explanation (and QUESTION) of what I have been trying to get others here to acknowledge since last year.
Thanks!
The problem is HOW to redeem lawful money WITHIN the context of an amended contract with a federal reserve institution. I have not been able to amend such successfully - going to try another institution this week.
I think the difficulty arises in the nature of lack of choice (banking cartel) and the illusion of "voluntary" contract with the cartel: namely that having a "bank" account is voluntary and so on.
Peace -scott
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freed Gerdes
We tend to identify ourselves through license. We are simply trained that way:
I certainly enjoy reading your elaboration. Thank you.
My point is that my identity is struck here as well as with others, in my actions and words - my issues of communication and creation. Communication and creation are synonyms. Only beings of like order can truly communicate. I like myself as I am here - my identity. My ego borrows time from eternity.
Scott, there can be no difficulty in redeeming lawful money. Congress used the words 'shall be redeemed...' in Title 12 USC. This construction carries the connotation of mandatory; the bank cannot refuse. Some banks, including Bank of America, will try to obfuscate this issue in several ways. The legal department of the RIchmond Federal Reserve Bank will also try to muddy the water, and will not answer a direct question concerning redemption. This is not your problem; the Fed Regional Banks are charged with maintaining the legal operation of Fed banks in their regions. Your duty ends with your demand; whether the Sec of Treasury actually redeems any FRN's is not important to you. The only advantage you obtain is you have redeemed the FRN's, and are now not extending and endorsing Fed private credit, not trading in Fed securities, and not triggering the irrecusable obligation to file a return and pay income taxes on the money redeemed. Since the banks are attempting to refuse demands for redemption, it is incumbent on you to maintain your own record of your demand, in case the IRS should challenge your claims. Thus I recommend letters to the bank clearing stating your demand, which will force them to respond with further denials. These documents prove that they received your demand; keep these records in a safe place. David suggest opening an evidence repository with the District Court; this is the surest/safest route, but costs money, time, and inconvenience. Should the IRS question you, you can send them copies of your correspondence; should they initiate a collection action, you can sue them in district court, and enter your correspondence as evidence. I told the IRS that I had made the demand, and hence was not reporting stock transactions done in lawful money, which would explain why my return did not match their 1099; have not heard back, and don't expect to. Next year I won't file a return, which may generate a standard form letter or not. But if your records are complete, you are adequately prepared for any reaction from the IRS.
As to banks claiming their accounts are voluntary, etc, if you read the account agreement carefully, you will not find any reference to FRN's. The BofA agreement says all deposits must be in US dollars, which would seem to preclude FRN's, but their presumption is that by opening an account at a Fed bank, the sole promoter of FRN's, that you are wanting to bank in their private money. Making your demand refutes this presumption, and per 12 USC, they are not at liberty to refuse.
David, I hear your comment about the power of the name, and about giving others the power to act as agent with your name. Making your demand, and the appearance which collapses the trust, is the equivalent of telling them that they cannot use your name in vain any more. Collapsing the trust revokes their power as agent; in essence you have fired the trustee and taken back title to your estate. Since the Sec of Treasury has allowed lawful money to circulate at par with FRN's, which have collapsed in value under the Fed's endless printing, it is clear that the Secretary does not deserve your trust; he has violated his constitutional oath.
Freed G
Thanks for mentioning it. I thought it sounded a bit esoteric and am glad the readers can tie it together. It was really a mood as much as anything - that I describe my identity and thus if I am careful about it can identify myself correctly and avoid error.Quote:
Originally Posted by Freed Gerdes
Furthermore, every time we identify ourselves it is done by a statement about who or what we trust at that moment. Interesting.
As I've been looking, I think that there's more to collapsing the Cestue que trust that just making a claim, or redeeming lawful money. But, I think that the correct sentence structure language might be part of it, as well as redeeming lawful money. I do believe that there are more components to collapsing it.
I am speculating on this matter, but from my reading in the law dictionaries, and other books, I believe that we're kinda at the halfways point for this. But I think that a few other things are necessary to be done to finish the collapse of the trust. My thoughts on this have been evolving for a while, but are not, I believe, fully complete. I haven't tried any of this yet, as I don't believe the process in my mind has been completed, but I think I've put a lot of pieces together. If elaboration is desired, let me know.