Hmm... another great question. Well, since according to the code a demand must be made, and since a demand can only be heard by the Treasury or Fed through a "transmitting utility" like a person, then the answer must be, no.Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph
I guess that conclusion also tells me the demand must be made in writing.
Right.
A demand must be made in writing since it only can be made 'in person"; man has no need for such 'redemption'.
Who holds TITLE to the 'person' utilized when making such a demand; who is the actual usufructuary?
I'm reasonably sure the United States holds the title to that person.
Can I ask where this line of questioning is going?
If the State (ie. United States) "holds title to that person", then why is it not fulfilling the duties regarding said person...
1. To make an inventory of the things subject to the usufruct, in the presence of those having an interest in them.(The certificate of live birth / birth certificate)
2. To give security for their restitution; when the usufruct shall be at an end. (Promise to pay: contract under seal = state as usufrucut)
3. To take good care of the things subject to the usufruct.
4. To pay all taxes, and claims which arise while the thing is in his possession, as a ground-rent.
5. To keep the thing in repair at his own expense.
???
Isn't their duty voided if one is warring against the State?
Doesn't one being in contract with the FED (by using FRN's) automatically make one an "Enemy of the State"?
What if it's a species of military scrip?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote