Page 1 of 18 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 180

Thread: Redeem From Public To Private Venue

  1. #1

    Redeem From Public To Private Venue

    Is that the true nature of the redemption, "they" being FRN that shall be redeemed on demand?

    Since the subject of that code/statute is FRN, it seems most reasonable to me that FRN is the object of redemption.

    If that indeed is the case, and since nowhere I can find are FRN referred to as being redeemed for USN, it seems more reasonable to conclude it's a question of venue.

    What do you think?

  2. #2
    Anthony Joseph
    Guest
    Section 16. Note Issues

    1. Issuance of Federal Reserve notes; nature of obligation; where redeemable


    Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are hereby authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.

    [12 USC 411. As amended by act of Jan. 30, 1934 (48 Stat. 337). For redemption of Federal reserve notes whose bank of issue cannot be identified, see act of June 13, 1933.]


    Redeem

    1. To purchase back; to ransom; to liberate or rescue from captivity or bondage, or from any obligation or liability to suffer or to be forfeited, by paying an equivalent; as, to redeem prisoners or captured goods; to redeem a pledge.

    2. To repurchase what has been sold; to regain possession of a thing alienated, by repaying the value of it to the possessor.




    They [FRNs] shall be redeemed [purchased back, repurchased, regained of possession].



    What entity 'purchases back', 'repurchases' and/or 'regains possession' [redeems] upon demand? Well, if "They" were issued by the 'Board of Governors' of the 'Federal Reserve System', wouldn't it be logical that said 'Governors' would redeem "Them" as well?

    The venue, as you put it, is either the 'Federal Reserve Districts' [private coffers of foreign bankers], or; the 'United States' [public trust of the 'United States Treasury']

    If the FED 'purchases back' its own FRNs, it is essentially "buying down debt" since FRNs are debt note obligations. The public debt decreases and the obligation to foreign interests diminishes - venue change.

    BUT...

    If one redeems absent the acknowledgment of military seizure by the occupying army, one is presumed an "Enemy of the State" and falls under the "Trading with the Enemy Act" since one is either overtly making adverse claims against 'United States'' interests, or; did not overcome the default presumption of the same.
    Last edited by Anthony Joseph; 05-07-14 at 08:22 PM.

  3. #3
    The highlights Anthony Joseph posted lead to an epiphany - thank you!

    1. Issuance of Federal Reserve notes; nature of obligation; where redeemable

    Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are hereby authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.
    Look how we are led into accepting the pronoun "They" to be Federal Reserve notes. This is irregular for legal-speak if you get my drift. "Said notes" is acceptable but they lead us into accepting "They" which is unclear at best! They could be anything without the presumption that the sentence is in context of the paragraph; which is a fair presumption to make but my imagination has performed an allowable substitution for quite some time now.

    They are People. The state of un-redeemed is the abomination of false balances, in other words - the condition resulting from elastic currency.

    Let's take Christianity literally for a moment, without steeping it in Futurism - meaning let's not look at the Second Advent of Jesus CHRIST as something off in the future. Even if it is in the distant or near future Christians are admonished to be prepared like a bride awaiting her groom like a thief in the night. It behooves us to decipher the parables - which means that the entire New Covenant, except what was kept secret within Jesus' inner apocalyptic mystery cult is all parable awaiting decryption. [Read some of the Article above my Comment though, and see how the author seeks one thing - Redemption - just from the presumption of the STRAWMAN. And then Look Here to see the same quest from a Bar Perspective.

    Here is what I mean:

    Mar 4:33 And with many such parables spake he the word unto them, as they were able to hear it.
    Mar 4:34 But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.
    The MOFFATT translation amplifies my point:

    In many a parable like this he spoke the word unto them, so far as they could listen to it; he never spoke to them except by way of parable, but in private he explained everything to his disciples.
    There is a secret truth to the Gospels, that only his closest - 11 men and 1 woman ever heard (attached at the bottom).

    BUT...

    If one redeems absent the acknowledgment of military seizure by the occupying army, one is presumed an "Enemy of the State" and falls under the "Trading with the Enemy Act" since one is either overtly making adverse claims against 'United States'' interests, or; did not overcome the default presumption of the same.
    On the presumption of the development of artificial intuition one might accept my unusual "aha" moment on April 16th, my mind unraveling the math that we have reached our 153rd year of war since Abraham LINCOLN's Proclamation of War on a domestic enemy - Combinations. But whether you accept that it is high time through holographic and allegorical metaphor as an instruction set, or not we do not have to accept the status quo and continue in the futile - to fight our way off the battlefield.

    Joh 21:11 Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, an hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by David Merrill; 05-07-14 at 09:20 PM.

  4. #4
    Anthony Joseph
    Guest
    Making claim to what has been already seized will NOT get one "off the battlefield".

    Acknowledgment of the seizure and a recognized record formed regarding a cease and surrender of reversionary/usufructuary interest claims makes for a peaceful walk "off the battlefield" - no "fighting" required.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph View Post
    Making claim to what has been already seized will NOT get one "off the battlefield".

    Acknowledgment of the seizure and a recognized record formed regarding a cease and surrender of reversionary/usufructuary interest claims makes for a peaceful walk "off the battlefield" - no "fighting" required.
    What do you suggest as a "recognized record"?

    What if "they" still want to fight after you "surrender" by a "recognized record"? (Ex: they send you the "bill/charge" again?)

    Boris mentioned using GSA Standard Form SF95 as a remedy.

    Have you heard this too on his The New Frontier Discharge Reversionary Interest audio on May 9, 2013?

    Do you know if Boris has actually filed a SF95 yet? If so, do you have a copy to share?

    Is a Tort claim for damages the proper way to respond to someone who dishonors a "surrender"?

    Perhaps injury and damages can be claimed via Navy JAG Claims & Tort Litigation (Code 15) (SF-95) for Stolen Property?

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph View Post
    Making claim to what has been already seized will NOT get one "off the battlefield".

    Acknowledgment of the seizure and a recognized record formed regarding a cease and surrender of reversionary/usufructuary interest claims makes for a peaceful walk "off the battlefield" - no "fighting" required.
    You and David bring a lot to think about. I recognize what you're saying in the above quote as my goal.

    Also, after following the links in David's post, I see that 'they' (in the code) could very well refer to people. That does make sense, although taken together with the other language in the code cite, it makes the expressed intent somewhat vague, imo.

    At any rate, whether 'they' refers to people or FRN seems somewhat beside the point, because the redemption is caused or initiated by a demand.

    Since that is the case - and considering the stated goal is to walk off the battlefield peacefully without making adverse claims - and considering the public/private nature of the transaction - I'm trying to reconcile in my mind how a demand is not a claim that is not adverse to the interests of the US.

    So now I'm putting this out there: Is making a demand for lawful money an adverse claim? Or is it a claim that advances the interests of the US?

  7. #7
    Anthony Joseph
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Alan View Post
    You and David bring a lot to think about. I recognize what you're saying in the above quote as my goal.

    Also, after following the links in David's post, I see that 'they' (in the code) could very well refer to people. That does make sense, although taken together with the other language in the code cite, it makes the expressed intent somewhat vague, imo.

    At any rate, whether 'they' refers to people or FRN seems somewhat beside the point, because the redemption is caused or initiated by a demand.

    Since that is the case - and considering the stated goal is to walk off the battlefield peacefully without making adverse claims - and considering the public/private nature of the transaction - I'm trying to reconcile in my mind how a demand is not a claim that is not adverse to the interests of the US.

    So now I'm putting this out there: Is making a demand for lawful money an adverse claim? Or is it a claim that advances the interests of the US?
    Making demand itself is not adverse; it is our lack of acknowledgement that TITLE to all property has been seized, and; all "money" has been appropriated, and; ALL administrative/commercial activity regarding 'United States'' interests [ie. 'FIRST MIDDLE LAST'] need be done by an official and oath-sworn agent for the 'United States', that creates the "adverse claimant" status.

    If we continue acting as if we "OWN" or that we possess good, true and full TITLE to the "fruits" and "profits" derived from ANY commercial activity, we perpetuate the presumption of being an "Enemy of the State", an adverse claimant and a belligerent combatant within the realm of commerce - the extant "war" on the [commercial] battlefield.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph View Post
    Making demand itself is not adverse; it is our lack of acknowledgement that TITLE to all property has been seized, and; all "money" has been appropriated, and; ALL administrative/commercial activity regarding 'United States'' interests [ie. 'FIRST MIDDLE LAST'] need be done by an official and oath-sworn agent for the 'United States', that creates the "adverse claimant" status.

    If we continue acting as if we "OWN" or that we possess good, true and full TITLE to the "fruits" and "profits" derived from ANY commercial activity, we perpetuate the presumption of being an "Enemy of the State", an adverse claimant and a belligerent combatant within the realm of commerce - the extant "war" on the [commercial] battlefield.
    They need to provide us with a light bulb button. Thanks! That makes perfect sense!

  9. #9
    Anthony Joseph
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by doug555 View Post
    What do you suggest as a "recognized record"?

    What if "they" still want to fight after you "surrender" by a "recognized record"? (Ex: they send you the "bill/charge" again?)

    Boris mentioned using GSA Standard Form SF95 as a remedy.

    Have you heard this too on his The New Frontier Discharge Reversionary Interest audio on May 9, 2013?

    Do you know if Boris has actually filed a SF95 yet? If so, do you have a copy to share?

    Is a Tort claim for damages the proper way to respond to someone who dishonors a "surrender"?

    Perhaps injury and damages can be claimed via Navy JAG Claims & Tort Litigation (Code 15) (SF-95) for Stolen Property?
    I believe the 'SF-95' info is outdated as far as Boris' current stance goes.

    According to Boris, the 'recognized record' of cease and surrender is the UCC-1/UCC-3 reversionary interest assignment which leaves the 'United States' as USUFRUCTUARY [Secured Party] of all TITLE and interest in 'FIRST MIDDLE LAST' and everything TITLED in the same. The 'United States' is obligated and responsible for ALL bills, costs, maintenance, discharge, acquittals, etc. regarding 'FIRST MIDDLE LAST'.

    Our use of the 'NAME', in that assigned capacity, benefits SOLELY the 'United States' public trust since we are the volunteer 'pledgers' and THE source of ALL value converted into the commercial realm. We derive no benefit whatsoever since everything on earth has been granted to us in covenant absent tax or fee by the Creator, Most High God. It is the illusion of TITLE and PROFIT that we surrender claim to which reinstates our inherent heirship of the earth and everything in it. So long as we do not interfere with another man's rights, property and pursuit of happiness, we are free to use and claim as we wish.

    JUST BE A RIGHTEOUS AND GOOD STEWARD.

    Your true motives and intents can NEVER be hidden; God sees and knows ALL things.
    Last edited by Anthony Joseph; 05-07-14 at 11:57 PM.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph View Post
    I believe the 'SF-95' info is outdated as far as Boris' current stance goes.

    According to Boris, the 'recognized record' of cease and surrender is the UCC-1/UCC-3 reversionary interest assignment which leaves the 'United States' as USUFRUCTUARY [Secured Party] of all TITLE and interest in 'FIRST MIDDLE LAST' and everything TITLED in the same. The 'United States' is obligated and responsible for ALL bills, costs, maintenance, discharge, acquittals, etc. regarding 'FIRST MIDDLE LAST'.

    Our use of the 'NAME', in that assigned capacity, benefits SOLELY the 'United States' public trust since we are the volunteer 'pledgers' and THE source of ALL value converted into the commercial realm. We derive no benefit whatsoever since everything on earth has been granted to us in covenant absent tax or fee by the Creator, Most High God. It is the illusion of TITLE and PROFIT that we surrender claim to which reinstates our inherent heirship of the earth and everything in it. So long as we do not interfere with another man's rights, property and pursuit of happiness, we are free to use and claim as we wish.

    JUST BE A RIGHTEOUS AND GOOD STEWARD.

    Your true motives and intents can NEVER be hidden; God sees and knows ALL things.
    Do you have a copy of Boris's UCC-3 Assignment that complements his UCC-1 Acceptance?

    Again: What if "they" still want to fight after you "surrender" by a "recognized record"? (Ex: they send you the "bill/charge" again?)

    Who is the authority to enforce the "rules of usufruct"?

Posting Permissions

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