No, seriously. I couldn’t find an answer to my question. You won’t even know I’m there, make me a key please.
Edit: I get it now. I’d like to be the holder in due course of your house key since I can’t figure out how a tax exempt lawful money redeemer can get a mortgage.
Last edited by teamsnowden; 04-17-19 at 06:33 PM.
Answer this question and you will have your answer if you really contemplate all of the aspects of the answer: Does a bank have to practice banking according to fractional reserve practices?Originally Posted by teamsnowden
I have opened up a box here and I hope to give it the proper attention.
The blessing is in the hand of the doer. Faith absent deeds is dead.
Lawful Money Trust Website
Divine Mind Community Call - Sundays 8pm EST
ONE man or woman can make a difference!
Back in 2013 Richard Werner performed an experiment to determine - do banks really create money from nothing (but your signature)?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...57521914001070It was examined whether in the process of making money available to the borrower the bank transfers these funds from other accounts (within or outside the bank). In the process of making loaned money available in the borrower's bank account, it was found that the bank did not transfer the money away from other internal or external accounts, resulting in a rejection of both the fractional reserve theory and the financial intermediation theory. Instead, it was found that the bank newly ‘invented’ the funds by crediting the borrower's account with a deposit, although no such deposit had taken place. This is in line with the claims of the credit creation theory.
Thus it can now be said with confidence for the first time – possibly in the 5000 years' history of banking - that it has been empirically demonstrated that each individual bank creates credit and money out of nothing, when it extends what is called a ‘bank loan’. The bank does not loan any existing money, but instead creates new money.
Last edited by lorne; 04-18-19 at 02:45 AM.
26 U.S. CODE § 6331 - LEVY AND DISTRAINT
(a) Authority of Secretary
If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under section6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax. Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official. If the Secretary makes a finding that the collection of such tax is in jeopardy, notice and demand for immediate payment of such tax may be made by the Secretary and, upon failure or refusal to pay such tax, collection thereof by levy shall be lawful without regard to the 10-day period provided in this section.
(13). U.S. Code› Title 5 › Part I › Chapter 5 › Subchapter II › § 552a
5 U.S. Code § 552a - Records maintained on individuals
(a) Definitions.— For purposes of this section
(1) the term “agency” means agency as defined in section 552 (e) [1] of this title;
(2
http://www.iamsomedude.com/usufruct_reversion.html
[[[Reversionary Interest is over the usufruct
Reversionary Interest is over the usufruct for it would have to revert along with all its profits upon "return of the decedent"
The usufruct is already in place in the public, but is still "incomplete" because the "infant" or "decedent" can "return and make claim".... once that occurs, the usufruct and all its "profits" revert back to the estate ... assign THAT interest, and the estate now completely vests within the State and is "protected"<p> </p> According to 26 USCS § 2037 (b ) the term "reversionary interest" includes a possibility that property transferred by the decedent:<p> </p>(1) may return to him or his estate, or<p> </p>(2) may be subject to a power of disposition by him,<p> </p>but such term does not include a possibility that the income alone from such property may return to him or become subject to a power of disposition by him.<p> </p> includes a possibility…..just the "possibility" creates the "interest"<p> </p> We are "de facto nominee" over the "executorship of the estate" by the virtue we can obtain the "certificate" (security certificate) absent "adverse claim" (ie: obtain a court order) and "give value" ... thus "protected purchaser" of that "interest"<p> </p> so, once we "assign" THAT interest, "reversionary interest" in the “financial asset” only, over to or over the account of the State, we should no longer be a "party of interest" to any "action on account" concerning NAME …<p> </p> 26 USC § 673 - Reversionary interests<p> </p>(a ) General rule<p> </p>The grantor shall be treated as the owner of any portion of a trust in which he has a reversionary interest in either the corpus or the income therefrom, if, as of the inception of that portion of the trust, the value of such interest exceeds 5 percent of the value of such portion.<p> </p> <p>trust = contract</p><p>corpus = object of contract</p><p>income = value of exchange</p><p>beneficiary = one who should receive either corpus or income</p><p>trustee = one who should have gotten paid or representative of such</p>grantor = owner of contract because the "rights" revert to the "estate" from which they originated<p> </p> so, the "reversionary interest" would be the "right to pay the debt" to "release the value" to the beneficiary(s)<p> </p> “the trust” this is all operating under is "usufruct" and whomever is the "beneficiary" owes the "tax" but if the "reversionary interest" remains vested in the estate, the entirety of the usufruct comes due back to the estate upon return of the decedent, including settling taxes and claims as they arise, which are "de facto" maritime liens against the estate to be settled upon "death" of the "owner" of the "estate" ... which would be the "grantor" or the "user of NAME" …. the user of NAME is "protected purchaser" of those "interests" which until now, has been held under a conservatorship trust on behalf of the “presumed dead infant”.<p> </p> and since 12 USC 95a (2) implies that an assignment of any interest to or for the account of the United States serves as "de facto" acquittance and discharge of obligation of that "person" and no "person" can be held liable in any court for reliance upon that statue ... what do you all think should occur?<p> </p> “Protected Purchaser” of the "interest in property" or "estate", who is also then “Appropriate Person” to issue orders and give commands to the "security intermediary" on behalf of the "entitlement holder" or "PERSON" upon the "assignment" of the "reversionary interest" in the "financial asset only" to or for the account of United States, thus acquitting and discharging obligation of the PERSON and no one can hold PERSON liable in any court for any reliance upon the corresponding statute (12 USC 95a(2)) for anything done or omitted in good faith.]]]
) the term “individual” means a citizen of the United States or an “alien” lawfully admitted for permanent residence;
I have read many a banking agreement to open up a general checking account [not special]. From what I can tell, the banks [that I have dealt with in my experience] are receiving an unsecured loan from the general depositor [DE means to abandon] upon the agreement that the banks will "generally" give the money back to the depositor/lender upon a righteous demand in accord with the agreement. The banking institution [depository] generally is insured against the extreme case [run on the bank] of a bankers holiday. Which gives the lender [depositor] the illusion of safety. I say illusion because are we to accept that FDIC insurance company can actually stand against a catastrophic run on the banking reserves? I think not.
Nevertheless, the system works until it doesn't work.
I have noticed recently that we have many lawyers with membership in LMT. I am wondering how many of these lawyers are sharing the information they learn with their banking bosses. What I am getting at is the following: If you read the typical banking agreement, it generally states that the bank may terminate their relationship with a depositor/creditor at any time for any reason. Of course, the bank would have to pay off its creditor [return the funds they have on loan]. What I am getting at is this: I have seen multiple banks close their doors now upon the accounting of their activities. And I have seen many a bank manager turn red in the face telling me "they cannot allow me any longer to sign checks the way we do."
We are playing a game and I am not going to let some flunkie tell me how I will qualify my signature. If he wants to prostitute himself to some middleman, then so be it, they can terminate our relationship at will. However, I will sign my demands how I choose and that is the end of the argument. I will dance with another woman and there are plenty of women out there to choose. However, the day may come when the bankers collectively get smart. And if and when that day comes, they will begin to terminate these relationships quickly and efficiently. What I am saying is there is no law that REQUIRES a person to receive a loan. Get it?
We have to look at the foundation of the relationship between creditor and banker.
Now, to the question of applying for a benefit of the federal reserve banking system. I challenge the idea the FRNs are fiat currency and that they are created out of thin air. Those arguments are propounded upon the ignorant and boy does it tickle their ears. Loans do not come into existence except that a man or woman asks [applies or submits] for a benefit of said loan. Property is appraised and the only question left is who will pay the interest. The property itself secures the principle of said loan and thusly the issue of said FRNs are backed by the surety of said property. Thusly said FRNs are not fiat. What is left to consider is the question: Is the applicant a suitable credit risk to underwrite in terms of paying the interest on said loan? It is just that simple - a business decision made based on how the game is played.
Who then is the initiator? Is it the bank or the individual? It is the individual! And thusly the individual is made to place his/her signature on said application as evidence of the receipt of a benefit of said system. How then can such a one complain that he/she did not receive said benefit of this system? Plainly put, they cannot. This is the height of double mindedness.
Now, back to my original premise. Do lenders exist who do not employ the federal reserve banking practice? Absolutely! So is the BRAND controlling the individual or is the individual controlling the BRAND? Is this not all clever marketing foisted upon an ignorant mass so as to indicate the illusion of no choice? Who is to blame? Is it not ignorance? And who is ignorant?
Is the root cause not desire? Is this desire not at the foundation of that ancient tale? For the serpent did beguile Eve; and later, the banker foreclosed and out of the garden they both went. But before we begin to point a finger: "He called Their name Adam". So then desire is the fruit of emotion [the woman]. However, the Mind is to rule the Emotion. So finding a Mind willing to say "baby, anything you want" - is this not backward?
I had a roommate in College who graduated with his Engineering degree and kept living in our dorm house for another five years. I asked him one day, you can afford a new car, a new house, why do you continue to live in a house where the rent is $200 a month with a bunch of struggling college students? He responded: "In five years I will pay cash for my house and I will have no debt for the remainder of my life." My friend beat the Serpent at his own game! He of course, did without a woman for five years and to his credit he stuck to his plan. After a short sacrifice, he found the woman for him and he continues to live his life without being dominated by a woman who really only wants to be satiated by her lusts. My friend went his own way and is the thorn of the consumer industry. No woman can exert any power over him, he lives his life. The Mind rules the Emotion but these two live in peace according to the understanding that lust and desire have their place, but these have been subdued according to their role.
I have watched many a woman try to work her whiles upon my friend. He had a plan and he stuck to it. It is not hard to beat the serpent at its game. For Moses threw down his staff [central nervous system] and he picked it back up again!
I trust I have answered the question. Thou shall not commit adultery. How can a double minded man be stable?
Best regards,
MJ
P.S. There is no reason why one must have a relationship with any bank. If my boss pays me upon his private check drawn on a local bank, I may go to that local bank and negotiate said private check upon my demand for performance. I may have to pay a service fee, but that is acceptable unto my own books. Each one must be accountable to him/her self and thusly the Mind must always rule in the Heavens [Sarah/Abrum or Cerebrum].
Last edited by Michael Joseph; 04-19-19 at 10:12 PM.
The blessing is in the hand of the doer. Faith absent deeds is dead.
Lawful Money Trust Website
Divine Mind Community Call - Sundays 8pm EST
ONE man or woman can make a difference!
Here you go Snowden, five acres in New Mexico for $2395, no private credit needed.
https://gokcecapital.com/tierra-grande-13/
You are suggesting he buy the boat and the 5 acres, haul the boat from Utah to New Mexico and park it in the backyard? Brilliant!
Brings to mind my first real estate purchase; less than $700.
Last edited by lorne; 04-25-19 at 12:48 AM.
Reply With Quote
