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

[motla68]

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.


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.