Quote Originally Posted by Michael Joseph View Post
I think that US v THOMAS is a key to comprehending the nature of that certificate. It says that FRN's are understood by the RESERVES of the bank of the United States. And since it is written into law that one can make a demand upon that bank in accord with 12USC411, it stands to reason that the certificate is evidence of an interest. Consider how would it be possible for one who is without an interest to make a demand upon an uninterested party? That would be a trespass of the worst kind.

Said another way to claim a right in a contract of which one is not a signatory [subscriber] is a vile trespass.

I agree with BLBereans. FDR established the trust accounts thusly the creator/settlor has the administration and perhaps both the legal and equitable titles to the account; however, a use might be granted whereof we as grantors in faith are given access to the bank as consideration; and, thusly I model the BC as an access easement into law so as not to trespass. Otherwise, I am unable to accept any right of which I am not a party to the original contract.
The "access easement", as you aptly put it, is contingent upon whether or not one agrees to relinquish claim to title of the "use of the fruits" in the titled NAME. In other words, if there is just a slight possibility that the man will "come and claim" title, in the LEGAL sense, then it is presumed that said man does NOT render unto the STATE that which belongs to the STATE and that said man does NOT trust FULLY in God as his source of ALL things.

Anyone who lays claim to the "riches", "treasures" and "wealth" of the world is considered an ENEMY of the STATE and will be treated as such in ALL claims and controversies in said NAME.

After all, what man, who claims Jesus the Christ as his Lord and Savior, could care the least about securing LEGAL title to anything in the DEAD realm?