Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: To claim "remedy" or not to claim "remedy, what is the "solution"?

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Within the confines of my own skin.
    Posts
    752

    To claim "remedy" or not to claim "remedy, what is the "solution"?

    Someone from our group wrote this beautiful treatise up about our approach to the system in general, at the CS group we encourage others input and participation:

    ==================================
    Sent: Tue, January 26, 2010 1:12:51 AM
    While visiting an Internet Chat room today, once again I have heard the standardized trumpet call for "remedy," as a way to resolve ones financial difficulties. In the "PatRIOT-world," the vast majority of it's followers have received plenty of brain entrainment to seek, demand, and claim, "their remedy," to what ever financial problems or difficulties to which they are involved. The question is, are you certain that this is the best word to use to describe what it is that you seek?
    A friend and brother here on the land in North Carolina has shared his thoughts on this matter, and I do agree with this findings. Upon examination of the word "remedy," this definition is given in the...
    Uniform Commercial Code 1-201
    General definitions:
    36. "Rights" includes remedies.
    A remedy is a commercial right for those who acquire that right through an instrument.


    The question I asked myself was, "Do I really want to claim a "commercial right?" In light of the fact that this, "commercial right," is defined in THEIR codes and statutes, means that I would be subjecting myself under their jurisdiction in order to make such a claim and thereby have the remedy that I seek, yes? Does this not mean this would become an extended privilege to me through THEIR code/jurisdiction? Furthermore, is not a privilege given to a subordinate and can thus also be taken away from the subordinate? I think you see my point here. Folks, I really do not like the thought of being a subject of a jurisdiction, or of another being. However, I do like egalitarianism very much.
    So then, if I Am to leave the word, "remedy," out of the equation, how would I communicate my intention so that the desired objective and outcome is realized? The answer is the word "solution." To ask, seek, and find a, "solution," suits my needs, and avoids trekking into THEIR jurisdictional realm and making use of a benefit-privilege extended to any and all who participate in THEIR commercial world through the usage of such privileges.
    It is interesting to note that in the standard dictionary, it is the 3rd and 4th definitions, (especially the 4th) of the world "solution," that fits the intended need and purpose.
    so·lu·tion (s-lshn)n.
    1.
    a. A homogeneous mixture of two or more substances, which may be solids, liquids, gases, or a combination of these.
    b. The process of forming such a mixture.
    2. The state of being dissolved.
    3.
    a. The method or process of solving a problem.
    b. The answer to or disposition of a problem.
    4. Law Payment or satisfaction of a claim or debt.

    5. The act of separating or breaking up; dissolution.

    Law Dictionaries also concur with this definition:
    SOLUTION, civil law. Payment.
    1. By this term, is understood, every species of discharge or liberation, which is called satisfaction, and with which the creditor is satisfied.
    2.This term has rather a reference to the substance of the obligation, than to the numeration or counting of the money.
    3. Discharge of a contract

    So then, "To claim "remedy" or not to claim "remedy," which is the BEST "Solution," for you and your peace of mind?
    =============================================

    Are you tired of fighting like an enemy combatant and prepared to learn how to live as a peaceful inhabitant?
    Last edited by motla68; 03-16-11 at 03:59 AM.

  2. #2
    The remedy is to avoid the contract with the Fed. When contracting with the Fed was opened, first to Fed banks (1913) Congress had to write remedy into Fed Act. Then when contracting was opened up to the general public (1933) that remedy had to be upheld and is still in full force and effect today.

    I don't think your definition can apply to the convoluted realm of debt currency. It is almost a contradiction in terms - debt currency.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Within the confines of my own skin.
    Posts
    752
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    The remedy is to avoid the contract with the Fed. When contracting with the Fed was opened, first to Fed banks (1913) Congress had to write remedy into Fed Act. Then when contracting was opened up to the general public (1933) that remedy had to be upheld and is still in full force and effect today.

    I don't think your definition can apply to the convoluted realm of debt currency. It is almost a contradiction in terms - debt currency.
    In agreement of the first thought, we were not part of it to begin with: http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...in-translation

    Padelford, Fay & Co vs. The Mayor and Alderman of the City of Savannah

    The judge in the Padleford case stated; "But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain. If they do, they are entitled to redress. Or they may waive the right to complain."
    ( see page 46 - 47 of the following link for the above)
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/14566693/P...ty-of-Savannah

    For the next part now take in consideration the following:
    This particular facet of Document 43, further clarified by Senate Report 93-549, has become codified by precedent. As the Senate began to examine exactly what powers they had granted the President by amending the Trading With the Enemy Act on March 9, 1933, they concluded that: 'Under these powers the president may; seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad;institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private industry; restrict travel, and in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens".

    Keeping the above thought in mind lets now go take a look at the Liber Code again:
    Art. 31. A victorious army appropriates all public money, seizes all public movable property until further direction by its government, and sequesters for its own benefit or of that of its government all the revenues of real property belonging to the hostile government or nation. The title to such real property remains in abeyance during military occupation, and until the conquest is made complete.

    Do you see how the 2 parallel each other?
    Back to the indemnification thing again, keeping in mind about "revenue receipt" as referenced with the COLB/BC

    Liber Code Art. 38. Private property, unless forfeited by crimes or by offenses of the owner, can be seized only by way of military necessity, for the support or other benefit of the Army or of the United States. If the owner has not fled, the commanding officer will cause receipts to be given, which may serve the spoliated owner to obtain indemnity.

    What is Indemnity?
    Definition: 2. It is a rule established in all just governments that, when private property is required for public, use, indemnity shall be given by the public to the owner. This is the case in the United States. See Code Civil, art. 545. See Damnification.

    Damnification;
    2. A judgment fairly obtained against a party for a cause against which another person is bound to indemnify him, with timely notice to that person of the bringing of the action, is admissible as evidence in an action brought against the guarantor on the indemnity. 7 Cranch, 300, 322. See F. N. B. Warrantia Chartae; Lib. Int. Index, Warrantia Chartae; 2 S. & R. 12, 13.

    Now remember we are just going into their venue as a friend to help them settle the accounting with their Persons Account, when it says owner recall back to my posting about Senate Resolution #62 that all ownership of property is by way of the state.
    Name:  SR-62-pg13.jpg
Views: 217
Size:  27.5 KB

    When we get out of the way and let them settle their accounting honorably there is setoff/discharge of the accounting. So now there you go we have obtained the Solution
    instead of trying to use remedy, I do not see a contradiction here.

  4. #4
    I find it more expedient to avoid controversy and problems as much as one can.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Within the confines of my own skin.
    Posts
    752
    Quote Originally Posted by shikamaru View Post
    I find it more expedient to avoid controversy and problems as much as one can.
    I can agree with that, just step out of the way of a raging river and let it flow, all we can hope to do is "direct" the flow.

  6. #6
    Anthony Joseph
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by motla68 View Post
    I can agree with that, just step out of the way of a raging river and let it flow, all we can hope to do is "direct" the flow.
    I also concur with that basic premise. However, the problem arises when that "raging river" swells so large that it becomes nearly impossible to not "get wet". My stance on that is we competent and righteous souls take control, in our own right, of the "raging river" which is intruding upon and imposing its "flow" upon us INTENTIONALLY and DISHONORABLY. Due to that MALINTENT and DISHONOR, the "owners" of the "raging river" surrender and disqualify themselves from making any claims against competent and righteous souls who either got "splashed" or had to "dive in" in order to save or reclaim their Divinely endowed and unalienable rights on the land.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Within the confines of my own skin.
    Posts
    752
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph View Post
    I also concur with that basic premise. However, the problem arises when that "raging river" swells so large that it becomes nearly impossible to not "get wet". My stance on that is we competent and righteous souls take control, in our own right, of the "raging river" which is intruding upon and imposing its "flow" upon us INTENTIONALLY and DISHONORABLY. Due to that MALINTENT and DISHONOR, the "owners" of the "raging river" surrender and disqualify themselves from making any claims against competent and righteous souls who either got "splashed" or had to "dive in" in order to save or reclaim their Divinely endowed and unalienable rights on the land.
    You might like this motivational skit about when things seem impossible:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vB59PkB0eQ

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •