A update for the brain trust here
MOBLEY M. MILAM
Assistant U.S. Attorney
325 West "F" Street
San Diego, California 92101
Things that make you go Hmmmmmm. Why in '74 would he ask for gold coin as lawful money ....Hmmmm
A update for the brain trust here
MOBLEY M. MILAM
Assistant U.S. Attorney
325 West "F" Street
San Diego, California 92101
Things that make you go Hmmmmmm. Why in '74 would he ask for gold coin as lawful money ....Hmmmm
Originally Posted by Canadian solution
Here's a possible answer: Considering the Petitioner (a Assistant U.S. Attorney, if true), a bogus 'precedent' is attempted by this 'lawsuit' regarding a Lawful Money claim, although this pleading does not come into purview of the actual meaning and execution behind 12 USC 411. However, it places 'doubt' into impressionable minds (juries, perhaps?) regarding the overall topic and validity of Redeeming in Lawful Money. Milam v. U.S. appears to be a phony and deliberate attempt by GovCo to introduce a 'precedent-setting' case against Lawful Money.
If GovCo REALLY wanted a precedent-setting case then they would have made Milam state that he is redeeming FRN's in Lawful Money per the statutory means (12 USC 411) of obligating the U.S. Treasury to decrement its non-reserve funds otherwise known as U.S. Notes, and thus NOT 'redeem' his FRN's as an extension of credit from the private Federal Reserve banks...
So, if this was his argument and the USSC ruled against him, now THAT would be a truly unlawful and evil 'precedent-setting' decision. Thankfully we have not seen this occur, yet. I pray that GovCo and Auntie Iris does not one day come after all who have 'filed' per RILF (like the CTC folks, myself included), but I would not put it past them to do anything to steal from American Citizens. After all, that's what they're good at.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote