Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: Federal Reserve Act - Remedy video.

  1. #11
    Thanks for the reply )

    My Q is really about us being OFF the gold/silver standard cuz of what Nixon did .... since there is nothing tangible to back the Notes (frn, postal [which postal are you referring to?] money orders, US/Treasury Notes (as far as I can tell they haven't been been available to us for some time cuz that is what they are actually giving the FedRes in return for the overpriced FedNotes).

    If what we can obtain (FRN's, postal money orders, etc) are backed by NOTHING, then HOW can the Sovereign be what makes it lawful money?
    The US (corp/de jure govt) is bankrupt - therefore they GAVE UP their sovereignty as a "nation".

    Additionally, I personally can see where gold/silver (heck any tangible thing) can be manipulated by TPTB, so I am not completely "sold" that we should be on the gold/silver standard (esp since nobody knows what's in Fort Knox, etc, however I do speculate the ONLY thing in FtKnox are only footprints leading out the door).

    I do appreciate the time to consider my question ... so far, wherever else I've posted the same Q I either get no response or am told I am an "idiot" for not fully trusting the gold/silver standard.
    April Reigne

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Reigne View Post
    Thanks for the reply )

    My Q is really about us being OFF the gold/silver standard cuz of what Nixon did .... since there is nothing tangible to back the Notes (frn, postal [which postal are you referring to?] money orders, US/Treasury Notes (as far as I can tell they haven't been been available to us for some time cuz that is what they are actually giving the FedRes in return for the overpriced FedNotes).
    To be backed by something is referred to as reserves.
    Reserves fulfill the purpose of limiting or preventing inflation of the issuing medium of exchange.
    This is a facet of representative or commodity money that uses paper at some point for transactions or exchange.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reigne
    If what we can obtain (FRN's, postal money orders, etc) are backed by NOTHING, then HOW can the Sovereign be what makes it lawful money?
    The US (corp/de jure govt) is bankrupt - therefore they GAVE UP their sovereignty as a "nation".
    The Sovereign determines what the "coin of the realm" will be.
    For example, in England the "coin of the realm" for centuries were tally sticks (wood), in addition to copper, silver, or gold coin.
    It doesn't really matter what is used as a medium of exchange. Gold and silver just do a really nice job of acting as a medium of exchange.
    The Sovereign can just as easy declare a particular medium no longer as lawful tender. This is called demonetization.
    Law is the will of the sovereign.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reigne
    Additionally, I personally can see where gold/silver (heck any tangible thing) can be manipulated by TPTB, so I am not completely "sold" that we should be on the gold/silver standard (esp since nobody knows what's in Fort Knox, etc, however I do speculate the ONLY thing in FtKnox are only footprints leading out the door).
    You are doing better than me on this aspect. I didn't realize this until recently!

    Quote Originally Posted by Reigne
    I do appreciate the time to consider my question ... so far, wherever else I've posted the same Q I either get no response or am told I am an "idiot" for not fully trusting the gold/silver standard.
    If a person insults you for asking intelligent questions, it means either they are hiding something or they themselves are clueless.
    Insults serve to cover one's ignorance of the subject in addition to being a wasteful distraction.
    Last edited by shikamaru; 06-03-11 at 03:55 PM.

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by shikamaru View Post
    To be backed by something is referred to as reserves.
    Reserves fulfill the purpose of limiting or preventing inflation of the issuing medium of exchange.
    This is a facet of representative or commodity money that uses paper at some point for transactions or exchange.
    And that is where I - mentally, conceptually, understandingly - get stuck. IF there really are no "reserves" then there is nothing backing it nor is there any 'full-faith & credit of the people' since the people (the majority of them anyway) are not aware of this.

    Quote Originally Posted by shikamaru View Post
    The Sovereign determines what the "coin of the realm" will be.
    For example, in England the "coin of the realm" for centuries were tally sticks (wood), in addition to copper, silver, or gold coin.
    It doesn't really matter what is used as a medium of exchange. Gold and silver just do a really nice job of acting as a medium of exchange.
    The Sovereign can just as easy declare a particular medium no longer as lawful tender. This is called demonetization.
    Law is the will of the sovereign.
    From my understanding, it was the King who decided upon using tally marks upon sticks/wood. That means HE was the sovereign, not the People. Are we not in the very same situation right now? THEY decided we should use FRN's, THEY decided to take us off the gold standard. This is where my own conundrum begins regarding 'redeemed for lawful money' & believing we "should" be back on the gold standard.
    However, I have yet to find anything that says we are limited to contract, therefore, if I want to bargain/exchange/trade with you, that would fall under Private Contract (which it does appear we would HAVE To PROVE to avoid being 'taxed')


    Quote Originally Posted by shikamaru View Post
    You are doing better than me on this aspect. I didn't realize this until recently!
    Ha ha ha you should see my "No Trespassing" sign (only have it cuz I did research on land/ownership and fully understand all Rules/Regulations/Codes pertain to THEM not me. And please don't think I'm doing better than you - I guarantee you have more insight/knowlegde than I do in many other areas.


    Quote Originally Posted by shikamaru View Post
    If a person insults you for asking intelligent questions, it means either they are hiding something or they themselves are clueless.
    Insults serve to cover one's ignorance of the subject in addition to being a wasteful distraction.
    Yes, I am well aware of those tactics/defenses.
    I only acknowledge/thank for considering my Q's because I was kicked out of Catholic Church cuz I asked too many Q's they could not answer ... well, not 'kicked out' but was told "...there is no reason for you to return here again."
    That is why I do my best to acknowledge forthcoming/open folks when I pose Q's/statements/beliefs/etc. - because I truly do appreciate the time, consideration & effort.
    April Reigne

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Reigne View Post
    And that is where I - mentally, conceptually, understandingly - get stuck. IF there really are no "reserves" then there is nothing backing it nor is there any 'full-faith & credit of the people' since the people (the majority of them anyway) are not aware of this.
    There are some reserves behind FRNs, but not "reserves" in the traditional sense.
    Fractional-reserve lending has some levels or limits that a bank has to maintain.

    FRNs are backed by the labor and assets of the American people. These properties have been pledged as collateral for FRNs.
    It is not the FRNs so much as the Treasury bills and Treasury notes the government sells in which said government owes interest on.

    By the by, Treasury bills and Treasury notes are lawful money as well .

    Quote Originally Posted by Reigne
    From my understanding, it was the King who decided upon using tally marks upon sticks/wood. That means HE was the sovereign, not the People. Are we not in the very same situation right now? THEY decided we should use FRN's, THEY decided to take us off the gold standard. This is where my own conundrum begins regarding 'redeemed for lawful money' & believing we "should" be back on the gold standard.
    True. The Constitution may have been a false bill of goods for the majority of people.
    A gold or silver standard would be no better. Check out the movie, "The Secret of Oz" on YouTube.com
    I would make the demand for lawful money however. It would seem to have tax implications in your favor.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reigne
    However, I have yet to find anything that says we are limited to contract, therefore, if I want to bargain/exchange/trade with you, that would fall under Private Contract (which it does appear we would HAVE To PROVE to avoid being 'taxed')
    You can do private contracts in gold, silver, or sheepskins if you like. Private is private.
    In fact, you can do better for yourself negotiating private contracts in gold and silver than FRNs, in my opinion.

  5. #15
    Okay, so we do NOT have to prove a private contract .... Yippeee (somewhere in my head tho I thought we would need to PROVE a private negotiation ... maybe cuz I believe - in the courts/law eyes we are guilty till proven innocent).
    April Reigne

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Reigne View Post
    Okay, so we do NOT have to prove a private contract .... Yippeee (somewhere in my head tho I thought we would need to PROVE a private negotiation ... maybe cuz I believe - in the courts/law eyes we are guilty till proven innocent).

    The proof of the agreement is the contract itself. That is why it is written. Law of evidence.

    The substance of the contract is the agreement between the parties, the intent.

    If there is agreement struck between two or more parties as well as no controversy, then there is no need for a court.
    Courts are for controversies.
    Avoid controversy.
    Live in peace. Uphold your contracts. Enter contracts sparingly. Be sure to read them too.

    You have a right to contract. This right precedes the creation of any American government.

    What do you think government uses to rope you into their jurisdiction? Contracts .

    Public policy is for those matters which are considered to affect the public interest such as employment.
    In the aforementioned, government is claiming title of trustee.
    Last edited by shikamaru; 06-04-11 at 01:53 AM.

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Reigne View Post
    Thanks for the reply )

    My Q is really about us being OFF the gold/silver standard cuz of what Nixon did .... since there is nothing tangible to back the Notes (frn, postal [which postal are you referring to?] money orders, US/Treasury Notes (as far as I can tell they haven't been been available to us for some time cuz that is what they are actually giving the FedRes in return for the overpriced FedNotes).

    If what we can obtain (FRN's, postal money orders, etc) are backed by NOTHING, then HOW can the Sovereign be what makes it lawful money?
    The US (corp/de jure govt) is bankrupt - therefore they GAVE UP their sovereignty as a "nation".

    Additionally, I personally can see where gold/silver (heck any tangible thing) can be manipulated by TPTB, so I am not completely "sold" that we should be on the gold/silver standard (esp since nobody knows what's in Fort Knox, etc, however I do speculate the ONLY thing in FtKnox are only footprints leading out the door).

    I do appreciate the time to consider my question ... so far, wherever else I've posted the same Q I either get no response or am told I am an "idiot" for not fully trusting the gold/silver standard.

    I think the confusion is simplifying adopting a floating exchange rate (SDR's) for gold as NIXON taking us off the gold standard. There is still a standard and that standard is based in an earmarked gold price to this day ($42.22/troy ounce. The UN's IMF Trust Fund). This simplification leads to incorrect presumptions about lawful money.

    A couple weeks ago I received a conference call from a member here, studied in trust law and an experienced paralegal who had a friend that wanted to speak to me about this same crux. Her friend had quite a bit of experience studying out the public laws around the formation of money (debt) in circulation. We quickly came to the name-change Congress put on lawful money in found at Title 31 U.S.C. ยง5115 - slipping the word currency into the term US note.


    In the section, the words “United States currency notes” are substituted for “United States notes” for clarity and consistency in the revised title.
    United States currency notes are indeed several other forms of lawful money including postage stamps. What this action in late 1982 did is to integrate US notes into the larger grouping of US currency - which it already was. US notes were the original US currency in the Civil War regime, legitimized by Governor GILPIN's fiat notes here in Colorado. [SW Corner of the Golden Rectangle. Capital building attached.]

    As we spoke, it was pointed out that many times the US Code does not portray an accurate reflection of the Public Laws. I thought that worth a trip down to the federal repository [SE Corner of the Monuments] and produced the Public Law in question. Albeit she may have had a point; that when the attorneys topically organize the Public Law into US Code they may tend to put their attorner sway on the final reading in the Code, it is a little difficult to see it happening in this specific example.

    Public Law 97-258 1.

    Public Law 97-258 2.

    Do you see that? Congress just slipped in the term currency, without any justification or legislative amendment action - apparently changing the definition of US notes. The only reasoning or justification for doing so was so that Title 31 could be re-enacted into Positive Law - meaning that it extended outside of the districts into the law of the land.

    In short though, by changing the lawful money, US Notes to United States currency notes in nomenclature, Congress was able to justify the parity difference and float the value of the lawful money to match Federal Reserve notes (which of course depreciate over time because they are a reserve currency - fractional lending). Sophistry. It is a lie alright. US notes and US currency notes are still the same thing, lawful money and still carry the value of such in a world of true balances - which world kept Title 31 from becoming positive law until Congress could formulate the Big Lie.

    It is a little difficult to understand that the entire Big Lie boils down to slipping one word into the Code - currency.


    I am quite grateful for that phone call. It called for a Reality Check on something I already learned from Shoonra the Useful a couple years ago on SJC.



    Regards,

    David Merrill.
    Attached Images Attached Images    
    Last edited by David Merrill; 06-04-11 at 01:31 PM.

  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    I think the confusion is simplifying adopting a floating exchange rate (SDR's) for gold as NIXON taking us off the gold standard. There is still a standard and that standard is based in an earmarked gold price to this day ($42.22/troy ounce. The UN's IMF Trust Fund). This simplification leads to incorrect presumptions about lawful money.
    ...
    United States currency notes are indeed several other forms of lawful money including postage stamps.
    ...
    As we spoke, it was pointed out that many times the US Code does not portray an accurate reflection of the Public Laws. I thought that worth a trip down to the federal repository [SE Corner of the Monuments] and produced the Public Law in question. Albeit she may have had a point; that when the attorneys topically organize the Public Law into US Code they may tend to put their attorner sway on the final reading in the Code, it is a little difficult to see it happening in this specific example.

    Do you see that? Congress just slipped in the term currency, without any justification or legislative amendment action - apparently changing the definition of US notes. The only reasoning or justification for doing so was so that Title 31 could be re-enacted into Positive Law - meaning that it extended outside of the districts into the law of the land.
    In treaty-linguistics the term "high contracting parties" contrasts with those parties which have 'de facto adoption of a given treaty--in that they can sign a treaty and bind the party they represent but not in a de jure sense. That is, consider that the US could sign a treaty in a defacto sense and only bind the districts of the United States but not the united states of America which formed The United States of America or not the de jure states or nations which formed the United States. And so, perhaps there is a similarity where U.S. Congress can keep 'two books' not only economically (kind've like there is CAFR and then there is perhaps "public accounting tomfoolery" called "the budget" but jurisprudentially. The plenary power over the district-state that US Congress might have might let them hold a secret meeting and decide to put "currency" in front of notes in the related 'chapter and verse'--and such might even have served as a kind of notice in the Federal Register--legislation/treaty by notice (see Delcaration by the United Nations and the pertinence of treaties by notice)--but still there is the defacto kind of treaty and the dejure kind of treaty.

    Let us reiterate:

    defacto vs. de jure
    legal vs. lawful
    not high contracting vs high contracting
    organic vs. corporate/military
    positive law vs public policy/executive orders
    state of America vs military-revenue district or Congressional "plenary power zones"
    So the scam/sham might hereby be decoded with respect to "the Code".

    More? OK!

    To clarify regarding high contracting parties

    one of the best summaries of what a high contracting party is can be found on Yahoo Answers--believe it or not.

    What is a high contracting party in international law?
    Best Answer: It describes parties to any international agreement which have both signed and ratified it.
    So this brings us quite clearly and squarely to the term 'ratification' as compared to 'signature'/'assent'. The plenary zones of the U.S. Congress--remember military power of any commander in chief of the United States have their most immediate source in the U.S. Congress. Thusly IMHO it would follow that military-revenue districts are suitably referable to as 'plenary power zones'. The US Congress or one of its representatives (ministers plenipotentiary) could SIGN or ASSENT to a treaty but it would not necessarily constitute organic ratification in any de jure state, tribe, nation or free association of the Americas. Outside of the military-revenue districts, the US Congress convened by a commander in chief (flag officer) would have no power outside of the military venue--and cannot ratify. But the catch is that in a military district, the US Congress could sign a treaty without organic ratification and it could be instantly 'law' for the districts or 'defacto plenary power zones' but not positive law.

    Now one might want to investigate how the US Treaty making power changed after the U.S. Civil War --especially with respect to so-called "Indians". (If I recall correctly--it changed drastically!)
    The relevance is to the ability of U.S. Congress to keep two sets of books--not just accounting books but 'law books' one organic and one defacto. But mystery might be well-unraveled in realizing that 'ratification' in the defacto isn't really an organic ratification but just assent carried over by "capital integration" or what I might call "consolidation" or "merger" into the "defacto zone" (public policy / plenary power zones).

    "US currency notes" flies in the "defacto" but probably isn't kosher in the organic sense.

    And perhaps reminder of a discussion whereby I mentioned a potential 'scheme' in of having driver licenses be renewed every few years rather than being a way to "renew an identity" (silly idea!) or to "keep up to date pictures on file" (ummm suuuure) but instead as a way to "obtain" (perhaps weakly) a case-by-case ratification where there would otherwise be none. Kind've like "Treaty Assent-to-Ratification Conversion & Service Packs".

    Do you figure that the fiduciaries of People's Republic of China knows that the United States is a lot smaller than it might at first appear?
    Last edited by allodial; 06-07-11 at 04:13 AM.
    All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
    "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2
    Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    This is my second video about the Fed. I produced this about a year after the first because I wanted to lose that computer voice for one thing but mainly because I felt that I could explain remedy much better after thinking about it and discussing it for a year.

    Regards,

    David Merrill.
    David, I watched your video and read some other posts here, and I now believe I understand what lawful money is. Here are my still-a-newbie questions:

    * Must the bank pay us in cash or can they add it to our existing checking accounts?
    * Does every bank have to have lawful money on hand?
    * If not, what happens if they do not have any lawful money on premises?

    As far as existing issues with DOR and IRS, is anything here for me, other than stating if we had known in good faith we could have been requesting lawful money all along, we would have started with our first paychecks?

    Thanks,
    earthshake

  10. #20
    Great questions Earthshake;

    Quote Originally Posted by earthshake View Post
    David, I watched your video and read some other posts here, and I now believe I understand what lawful money is. Here are my still-a-newbie questions:

    * Must the bank pay us in cash or can they add it to our existing checking accounts?

    Credit on Account is not taxable income... yet.


    * Does every bank have to have lawful money on hand?

    The FRNs are lawful money - when you withdraw cash though, you choose to endorse private credit from the Fed, or not. Rock Anthony just explained it a new way (click here), I find it refreshing - the words he chose. Very helpful!!

    * If not, what happens if they do not have any lawful money on premises?

    That is what FDIC is about. If too many people come in for cash, any FDIC bank makes a quick call for an armored car delivery.

    As far as existing issues with DOR and IRS, is anything here for me, other than stating if we had known in good faith we could have been requesting lawful money all along, we would have started with our first paychecks?

    That is accusing Fraud by Omission. Some of that is in the works on some of Pete HENDRICKSON's Cracking the Code damage. Some of those suitors post here so maybe we will hear how that goes?


    Thanks,
    earthshake
    Last edited by David Merrill; 07-04-11 at 09:42 PM.

Posting Permissions

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