Redeem From Public To Private Venue

[David Merrill]

More likely I mixed the bottom of the post up with the top "Reply With Quote". Then I just did not notice the text. Editing now would be incongruity so I apologize for the confusion.

Salsero;

That is an enjoyable read and begs to be cited - who wrote that? It looks like a modern writer spoofing Declaration era prose. - Very nice.

I want to get back to the Tread Topic here. I don't mean staying on point; I mean the definitions of public and private. I feel like we may be using different definitions. To me, Public means Government. Private means Non-Government. But I have to admit it gets fuzzy when we start talking about living men and women - there seems to be a different rendition of Private being exposed in your elegant post.

I would think that we settle on Private by definition whenever we step out of the house and interact. We can still be men and women, in fact we are never not. But we have to put up facades, dawn faces called Persons named PERSONS by legal name whenever we contract in the traditional Private venue. All Recordation in any Public venue requires such. This is why whenever I use David Merrill, my true name I will put my red thumbprint by my signature so as to designate a living man. This is evidence of my bond and functions satisfactorily. With responsibility comes authority and vice versa.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Using government-issued ID (for Identification Purposes) conveys the transactions from Private to Public in nature, as I see it. This is why it is effective to tell the Public police officer that you are not using the Driver License card for Identification Purposes. He usually gives it back because there is no viable interface for the Public venue to prosecute a Private man.

[Keith Alan]

I would also like to say that in addition to the public/private distinction in personhood currently being discussed, there also must be a distinction in personalty with the money. In fact, I think this second distinction is more crucial to understand in relation to redeeming for lawful money, than is the personhood question, or at least as important, because after all, it is through the money that society most often imposes public obligations.

For instance, we know that FRN and banking credit are obligations of the US, and that when used in the public venue, the money carries with it certain reciprocal obligations (like reporting income and expenses) to the holders thereof. I believe that is the purpose for offering the remedy of redemption. Otherwise any person that uses the money is kept in the public, and subject to those obligations, which is tantamount to a taking of private rights of enjoyment. Justice and honor demand the opportunity for redemption.

[doug555]

I would also like to say that in addition to the public/private distinction in personhood currently being discussed, there also must be a distinction in personalty with the money. In fact, I think this second distinction is more crucial to understand in relation to redeeming for lawful money, than is the personhood question, or at least as important, because after all, it is through the money that society most often imposes public obligations.

For instance, we know that FRN and banking credit are obligations of the US, and that when used in the public venue, the money carries with it certain reciprocal obligations (like reporting income and expenses) to the holders thereof. I believe that is the purpose for offering the remedy of redemption. Otherwise any person that uses the money is kept in the public, and subject to those obligations, which is tantamount to a taking of private rights of enjoyment. Justice and honor demand the opportunity for redemption.

Watch this new video that cites "private money" issue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UEUvKlaEEc

In that regard, I believe the title of this thread is backwards!

Are we not redeeming money from the PRIVATE to the PUBLIC venue, in order to not incur the legitimate private FRB "usage fee" known as "income tax"?

[Keith Alan]

Watch this new video that cites "private money" issue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UEUvKlaEEc

In that regard, I believe the title of this thread is backwards!

Are we not redeeming money from the PRIVATE to the PUBLIC venue, in order to not incur the legitimate private FRB "usage fee" known as "income tax"?

Maybe it is backwards. I'm still trying to get a handle on it, which is why I started the thread.

I'm questioning all of it, from top to bottom. I recognize it's a private credit scheme, but at the same time, the currency is legal tender for all debts, so it's also public. Also, since citizens of the US are citizens subject to the jurisdiction of the US, doesn't that make them public citizens? And aren't citizens of the US engaged in interstate commerce when using the currency?

It's all very confusing.

[David Merrill]

That is in essence the distinction between handling insurance notes, awaiting claim and lawful money.

Maybe it is backwards. I'm still trying to get a handle on it, which is why I started the thread.

I'm questioning all of it, from top to bottom. I recognize it's a private credit scheme, but at the same time, the currency is legal tender for all debts, so it's also public. Also, since citizens of the US are citizens subject to the jurisdiction of the US, doesn't that make them public citizens? And aren't citizens of the US engaged in interstate commerce when using the currency?

It's all very confusing.

[salsero]

And here we have to define terms. The use of a government ID for the purpose of doing commerce is required. Use, possession, control and dominion over is not the same thing as THAT government ID is mine. Consent by making claims is what is required by government to snag the unknowing man into the State's web of surety-ship. How can that DL re-present me, a man? It can not UNLESS I say that is MY signature near the image that appears to be me where on the top of the DL it says STATE OF XXX. To me it appears that is state property that I use.

I use the government property to help the government ID its property so it can do all those debit and credits it requires in its fictional monetary system. If the cop is an agent of the state, he is then authorized, as trustee or executor or administrator to discharge or have discharged all debt obligations of the state. He is the one who wants to make a claim upon state property and the one who does that is in violation of his contract to the US. This appears to me to be seditious, rebellious and treasonous. How does one bite the hand that feeds him and then expects to get away with it? lol

This is my simply logic on any state matters. And you know this all to well David. The Fed pumps FRNs out and the IRS pulls them back in. Well technically, any state agency has to help pull those FRNs back to the Fed. It does not matter if you call it a toilet paper tax or Al Gore global warming tax - whatever you call it - it must be palatable to the people or sureties of the state, at least so they do not catch on to the fact they, the people are servants to the state or really a few rich banking families.

We have to remember that the Creator created the earth and all that dwell on it. He has given FREELY AND ABUNDANTLY to ALL his creation so that each may have an abundant life. It is man making claims upon HIS creation or usufruct in violation of the Royal Law that creates poverty or wealth - WITH THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. MAN HAS NO RIGHT WHATSEOVER TO CLAIM GOD'S PROPERTY AS HIS OWN TO THE EXCLUSION OF OTHERS. Man can use a house. If he thinks he owns 100 houses and then rents them out to others, he is asking God's creatures to "pay" God for something that has already been given freely and abundantly by God. Where does this authorization come from? How does one man charge his own brother? Did God not command to love one another? Was man charged rent to live upon the earth?

Now this may or may not resonate with some. And that is fine either way. This is how I see it.

P.S. Using government-issued ID (for Identification Purposes) conveys the transactions from Private to Public in nature, as I see it. This is why it is effective to tell the Public police officer that you are not using the Driver License card for Identification Purposes. He usually gives it back because there is no viable interface for the Public venue to prosecute a Private man.

[salsero]

David - Thomas Jefferson wrote this.

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents...son/jefl81.php

[QUOTE=David Merrill;14084]More likely I mixed the bottom of the post up with the top "Reply With Quote". Then I just did not notice the text. Editing now would be incongruity so I apologize for the confusion.

Salsero;

That is an enjoyable read and begs to be cited - who wrote that? It looks like a modern writer spoofing Declaration era prose. - Very nice.

[David Merrill]

David - Thomas Jefferson wrote this.

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents...son/jefl81.php

Thanks for that link! I have a copy of Inventing America; Jefferson's Declaration of Independence by Garry Wills on the shelf and just not enough time to read it again. Just the desire to...

[salsero]

Yes - David, this was just another part of the piece to the puzzle. It appears there were issues of "conscience" with regard to the future and who has the right to "bind others". It does not thrill me at all to learn all this - as I just want to be a simple man. For me, the path is evidently clear toward the Peaceful Inhabitant process. However, the EVIDENCE continues to pile up strongly that for actual remedy [not fully perfected and that is ok - but there are successes] UNDER the current bankruptcy - state of emergency UNDER the rules of war, I do not see any other viable option.

I was already to do the UCC process, copyright of the name, etc. It is by pure Grace I did not. It was a very patient man called John Tanis that eventually got me to see the light. I was stubborn in the beginning when I was told that bank account was not mine, the house, car, etc. My response was - but I worked for it. It matter not.

On this latest Boris video, he mentions form 1048 - filing a claim for lost, stolen or destroyed US savings bond and notes and the BC. I have not watched the whole video - but once again Boris is coming up roses. I bring to the attention of the group Boris' demeanor in his presentations - it seems to be a "its all good and for our good" and all we have to do is just accept it. He also mentions some successes on this video.

Thanks for that link! I have a copy of Inventing America; Jefferson's Declaration of Independence by Garry Wills on the shelf and just not enough time to read it again. Just the desire to...

[salsero]

It gets fuzzy because we FAIL to Remember who we really are! KNOW THYSELF. A la Karl Lentz and a few others. We Agree: While you are on planet earth, YOU ARE ALWAYS a man or woman. ALWAYS. In certain circumstance, you the wo/man APPEAR [like magic] as a fictional person. The only problem you, the wo/man fail to recognize it is a fiction and unknowingly make false claims to that APPEARANCE.

Now we disagree - "whenever I use David Merrill, my true name.... NO!!!! David is your given name. David Merrill is a fiction created by THEM for THIER purpose; however, you were sent a usufruct complaint certified certificate for YOUR USE, for indemnification purposes FOR DAVID MERRILL, a fiction.

The photo on the driver's license is that you? The thumb print on a state ID for say a professional license - it that you? A piece of paper can only RE-present a man - it is NOT the man. the fact that there is an IMAGE what appears to me on THEIR ID does not make it mine, it makes easier for them to help identity the USER. Their ID CAN NOT BE MINE. I do not say those finger prints are mine on that piece of paper. Logically [and almost stupidly based on OUR common collective thinking] the FINGERS are on this body that [my soul] is now USING for the purpose of incarnation. I can not even say the next breath I take is mine. Silly as this sounds. Each breath I take is given by Grace. Do you rebut that?

It sucks - I do not LIKE this at all. I have a get the F over it pill and it is a big swallow.

When you say to the cop - that I am not using the DL for ID purposes - you are making a claim. You are setting yourself up for controversy. You ask questions and do not make claims.

Cop: DL and registration. Me: thanks, not today. Cop: No, I want your DL and reg. Me: Are you an agent for the state? Cop: Yes. Me: OK then, you are asking as trustee for YOUR DL and registration?

Only the owner has the right to ask for its property. An officer who claims to be an agent for the state can ask for the state’s property. So asking me for YOUR DL is the wronig question.

All authority comes from legislation. Attempting to do something without legislation and therefore authority be outside the scope of their oath and thus breach of duty? This automatically strips that agent from immunity and is held personally liable.

He is now trespass and interference with my Natural Rights.

More likely I mixed the bottom of the post up with the top "Reply With Quote". Then I just did not notice the text. Editing now would be incongruity so I apologize for the confusion.

Salsero;

I want to get back to the Tread Topic here. I don't mean staying on point; I mean the definitions of public and private. I feel like we may be using different definitions. To me, Public means Government. Private means Non-Government. But I have to admit it gets fuzzy when we start talking about living men and women - there seems to be a different rendition of Private being exposed in your elegant post.

I would think that we settle on Private by definition whenever we step out of the house and interact. We can still be men and women, in fact we are never not. But we have to put up facades, dawn faces called Persons named PERSONS by legal name whenever we contract in the traditional Private venue. All Recordation in any Public venue requires such. This is why whenever I use David Merrill, my true name I will put my red thumbprint by my signature so as to designate a living man. This is evidence of my bond and functions satisfactorily. With responsibility comes authority and vice versa.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Using government-issued ID (for Identification Purposes) conveys the transactions from Private to Public in nature, as I see it. This is why it is effective to tell the Public police officer that you are not using the Driver License card for Identification Purposes. He usually gives it back because there is no viable interface for the Public venue to prosecute a Private man.