I admit that there are many aspects of the Emergency still in place - but am focusing on Remedy from it. We still have to hold and exchange fiat currency that under the Emergency legally defined (Constitution) by Congress to be lawful money. I suggest you listen to the snippet recorded in a district courtroom by myself:
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1E...N2MyNDlm&hl=en
Do you hear that? The numbers in the district courthouse were adopted from the Manual for Courts Martial. I was getting all that onto the Record and the case was dismissed. The truth is because I was keeping a record in Denver, in the federal courthouse, Security in the courthouse was ordered to keep a record of my record - they had a security guard dog me around the courthouse constantly whenever I was there - among much more proven violent people than me who were allowed to be unsupervised.
The suitors reading here already understand, except for one anyway, that Mysticone and Motla68 are not suitors for one thing. But more importantly most guest readers and non-suitor members are likely to miss this struggle going on between Motla68/Mysticone as a tag team and myself - promoting the 'saving to suitors' clause on this Website. The attack is obvious - calling the 1789 clause asinine - but the Poll brings in some very insideous misdirection by introducing the Eleventh Amendment as important but moreso, by saying that the 'Saving to Suitors' Clause itself is mine. That is a clever little mind bomb right there. The saving to suitors clause is a 1789 act of Congress that preserves our rights outside the admiralty and martial rule:
Saving to suitors, in all cases the right of a common law remedy where the common law is competent to give it...
In a theater of war, that common law becomes incompetent. So I implore that you understand that the county courts were slated to be abolished in early 1933. Page 1, Page 2. That became unnecessary as the Emergency began a few weeks later in early March. That, if you take a look - is the emergency that was ended in 1976. But millions of Americans still endorse private credit from the Fed to any one who demands lawful money - outside the trust. That is signature participation in the elastic currency of the Fed, which arises out of the fiat - part of the Bigger 1861 Emergency.
The aspect I want you to understand about the controversy Mysticone brought with this thread is that Motla68 tends to believe that there is some kind of a funding program inherent with directing the coupon be delivered to the Treasury for Redemption. That is written into the law -
They shall be redeemed... at the Treasury.
MJ, Motla68 and Mysticone all stress that we need to understand trust law to get it. That may be so but Motla68 intentionally excluded the remedy there in an explanation that I had to demand for over a week - misdirection!
They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand... at banks, or the Treasury.
This is still the same argument over which part of the verbiage works on minor Tickets on the Banishment Lifted thread. In particular, to understand you should read this Post.
From my perspective, we are quibbling over a minor detail - the at the Treasury aspect is written into the law. Lawful money may be redeemed at the Treasury or any Fed bank - which is effectively any private bank practicing fractional lending - any bank at all including endorsing people; who have effectively become Fed banks and paying a Return on that Income called Income Tax Returns. The active verb in the remedy is making a demand for lawful money and that is what Motla68 excluded from his explanations when I decided he was being harmful to people learning about the remedy around here.
This thread was began as a slur against remedy, probably in an effort organized by Motla68 through a friend, Mysticone to get a new member banished. Well, that's not going to happen. It teaches too much about Remedy and how to apply it. Likewise with lifting Motla68's banishment. In my mind at least, my posts in this thread have won the argument by pointing out the misdirection. If you still believe that 1789 law, the 'saving to suitors' clause is David's then maybe you should really sit down and wonder where Mysticone is coming from.
I feel as though if you understand this post the 'saving to suitors' clause is completely vindicated from being asinine, and that includes myself from the false accusation that it is somehow my intellectual property. I am only encouraging people to own it too, by understanding it is the reason the 1913 Fed Act had to include a remedy from the elastic currency it introduced in America.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by MYSTICONE
