I redeemed $1000 in Lawful Money today!

[Michael Joseph]

There are no de-jure officers in Congress today, which is why they needed a corporate citizenship (14th Amendment) and had to convert de jure Citizens of the Republic into corporate strawman US citizens with Birth Certificates. After 1860 Congress no longer had power to make law which would bind sovereign State Citizens.

They still don't which is why having lawful money will make you EXEMPT OF TAXES and exempt from their statutes as well. Corporate US just doesn't have any authority under common law/laws of the Republic. Corporations including the governmental ones, ONLY have authority through CONTRACT, like using their PRIVATE FRN's. When you got LM, there's no contract, you got ONCE AGAIN unalienable rights, and "laws" (=statutes) of the corporate Democracy have no authority over you, provided you know who you are, i.e John of family Smith and not their corporate strawman JOHN SMITH.

And in order to have de jure officers, they'd have to act in their sovereign capacity, which they can't since they weren't elected by de jure Citizens of the Republic, but by corporate US citizens.

In regard to the Republic, there are no de-jure officers. Framing JARO, framing......Trustees

Private FRN's or USN's.....both exist within an Estate. What makes that estate mine? With specificity, please. Again, a lot of claims.....

The Sovereign to any trust is its Settlor. The Trustees are NOT sovereign.

Who gave grant to the Colonies? Is there not still and Heir on the Throne of that Grantor and/or successors in interest?

[Michael Joseph]

I think we begin to focus clearly on the Oaths of Office then. A4V as a fungible fidelity bond. Then bill; if they do not pay the bill, lien them.

The government became the guardian of your rights to property - the trustee of the Public Trust. The Oath of Office is the security agreement.

I believe that is a method to keep the Trustees from breach? I accept your Oath of Office as a contract between you and I. In other words the Oath of Office is transferred into Trust as Security Agreement upon default. You could go even further as to make the Judge produce his bond so that you could perfect the Surety. For the Record......

And Since most are running vacant offices, being insured by bond - Replevin Bonds. They will fall back on an insurance company that can pay in Notes because it is all wrapped up in Trust. You are standing before a Trustee; however, if you are shown to be a Constructive Trustee or "de son Tort Trustee" - then that is another story.

And if the trustee acts in breach, then there is a convenient bond to pay you with State property. Such that what you buy with that State property [Notes] is just that State property, but you have the cestui que use and the State is with the cestui que use trust.

And the Statute of Uses (Henry VIII) is avoided because the trustees work overtime to ensure they are constantly busy.

Obama speaking - Government created XXXX jobs this quarter - Board of Trustees or Agents to trustee.

And those Trustees ARE de-jure to a particular estate.

Framing....that is.....where are you and what office do you hold?

I believe it was David, king of Judah/Israel who said "let him be stripped of his office"

Psa 109:8 Let his days be few; and let another take his office.

Act 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

There is nothing new under the sun.

[Jaro]

In regard to the Republic, there are no de-jure officers. Framing JARO, framing......Trustees

Private FRN's or USN's.....both exist within an Estate. What makes that estate mine? With specificity, please. Again, a lot of claims.....

The Sovereign to any trust is its Settlor. The Trustees are NOT sovereign.

Who gave grant to the Colonies? Is there not still and Heir on the Throne of that Grantor and/or successors in interest?

Republic is de jure by definition, and so are its officers. And 'Sovereign to any trust is its Settlor'??? What does that supposed to mean? You need to check definition of sovereignty. And I won't even touch that 'heir on the throne' confusion.

[Jaro]

and corporations are artificial legal entities that can contract only with other legal entities by the hand of living agents, and only with full disclosure between the agents thereof, full disclosure of the definition of all words, the assumption that those definitions rest upon, and the implications that extend there from of all clauses of such contracts in order to claim authority, power or control over those contracting parties, and;

Thanks TG and DM for Mr. Traficant’s profile, we need more leaders like him.

That full disclosure ONLY applies in the real world, under common law. INSIDE the corporate world we are now in, there are no men and women, only artificial persons, and those are subject to Law Merchant/UCC, where acceptance of a benefit equals acceptance of obligation/contract, with no disclosure required. You're free to accept it or not, but if you do, you've accepted the contract as well. You guys need to stop thinking that the laws of the Republic/common law, apply in this corporate Matrix, where exist ONLY artificial persons.

It's a make-believe virtual world where everything is imaginary and exists ONLY on paper and as concepts in the minds of men.

[Jaro]

I think we begin to focus clearly on the Oaths of Office then. A4V as a fungible fidelity bond. Then bill; if they do not pay the bill, lien them.

The government became the guardian of your rights to property - the trustee of the Public Trust. The Oath of Office is the security agreement.

You can forget oaths of office; those are required by the Constitutions, which are real law of the Republic, not statutes, and as such don't apply to/protect US citizens/strawmen. It'd be like claiming Hale v Henkel, that also is real law which is ignored in today's corporate Matrix courts. BTW, when I was in jail on traffic charges I told my public pretender that I want to fight those charges on constitutional grounds. He was enthusiastic about that, but when I told him I want to challenge the judge's oath because it doesn't match the required oath, he got all scared.

As to the government becoming the guardian of your rights to property, see my Excalibur letter :-)