I redeemed $1000 in Lawful Money today!

[Jaro]

I took a check endorsed "Redeemed in Lawful Money, pursuant to Title 12USC411, John Smith; dba JOHN SMITH" to cash/redeem at Bank of America today. The teller kid wanted to throw some FRN's at me right away, so I told him I want lawful money and talk to the supervisor. I gave the sup. copy of 12USC411 and he went to check it out. Later he told me that he was there 20 years and never seen that. I guess this country is FULL of ignorant sheeple, which is why it's in such a trouble now.



I also told him that I want him to acknowledge that what he's giving me is lawful money. When he came back 15 minutes later, he said that he'll cash it but can't acknowledge anything, regarding the lawful money part. I asked him if he's refusing to redeem in LM, and he said the same thing. So they accepted my 'redeemed in LM' endorsement, but wouldn't acknowledge that what they're giving me is lawful money, and gave me regular FRN's, in lieu of LM.



But since they're the banking experts, their acceptance of that endorsement is a prima facie evidence that I redeemed that check/FRNs in lawful money. In other words, I got now $1000 worth of Lawful money, which I believe is NON-TAXABLE. I'll just have to send the IRS an affidavit at the end of the year, stating that I redeemed all my payments/checks in lawful money, in order to claim tax exempt status.


And this is the rubber stamp I'll be getting to stamp all my lawful money with, since carrying around regular FRN's is evidence that you're a law merchant, Matrix slave, since FRN's aren't real money, only obligations (IOU's) of United States. Sovereigns have lawful/real money, corporate slaves use FRN's.


So anyone now can redeem their FRN's/paychecks in lawful money, and become REAL SOVEREIGN, since sovereigns have real/lawful money. You'll just have to assert that status with claim of right or affidavit declaring your use of lawful money, since lawful money is in PRIVATE (common law), where the corporate gov'ts of the Matrix have NO AUTHORITY!

[David Merrill]

I took a check endorsed "Redeemed in Lawful Money, pursuant to Title 12USC411, John Smith; dba JOHN SMITH" to cash/redeem at Bank of America today. The teller kid wanted to throw some FRN's at me right away, so I told him I want lawful money and talk to the supervisor. I gave the sup. copy of 12USC411 and he went to check it out. Later he told me that he was there 20 years and never seen that. I guess this country is FULL of ignorant sheeple, which is why it's in such a trouble now.



I also told him that I want him to acknowledge that what he's giving me is lawful money. When he came back 15 minutes later, he said that he'll cash it but can't acknowledge anything, regarding the lawful money part. I asked him if he's refusing to redeem in LM, and he said the same thing. So they accepted my 'redeemed in LM' endorsement, but wouldn't acknowledge that what they're giving me is lawful money, and gave me regular FRN's, in lieu of LM.



But since they're the banking experts, their acceptance of that endorsement is a prima facie evidence that I redeemed that check/FRNs in lawful money. In other words, I got now $1000 worth of Lawful money, which I believe is NON-TAXABLE. I'll just have to send the IRS an affidavit at the end of the year, stating that I redeemed all my payments/checks in lawful money, in order to claim tax exempt status.


And this is the rubber stamp I'll be getting to stamp all my lawful money with, since carrying around regular FRN's is evidence that you're a law merchant, Matrix slave, since FRN's aren't real money, only obligations (IOU's) of United States. Sovereigns have lawful/real money, corporate slaves use FRN's.


So anyone now can redeem their FRN's/paychecks in lawful money, and become REAL SOVEREIGN, since sovereigns have real/lawful money. You'll just have to assert that status with claim of right or affidavit declaring your use of lawful money, since lawful money is in PRIVATE (common law), where the corporate gov'ts of the Matrix have NO AUTHORITY!

Kudos on your entheusiasm Jaro!


I think you should evaluate the term endorsement. I call it non-endorsement, your demand. You kept a copy of both sides of the paycheck or withdrawal slip? That will suffice instead of an affidavit.

I think if you contemplate the remedy from elastic currency, much of the sovereign baggage will fall away.

[Jaro]

Kudos on your entheusiasm Jaro!


I think you should evaluate the term endorsement. I call it non-endorsement, your demand. You kept a copy of both sides of the paycheck or withdrawal slip? That will suffice instead of an affidavit.

I think if you contemplate the remedy from elastic currency, much of the sovereign baggage will fall away.

Yep, I made copies of both sides, but you do need an affidavit, since that is the best form of notifying the tax collectors and such about your non-use of FRN's. Otherwise they'll presume that you do use FRN's and so have tax liabilities. Plus you need an affidavit to show the cops, so they also can't presume that your property they seek to regulate, was acquired using FRN's and so is subject to their statutes.

You see, whatever you buy with lawful money, you TRULY own, not just possess, as is the case with buying stuff with FRN's. And what you trully own is NOT subject to statutes of the corporate State. The reason they can regulate or ban ownership of certain things, is because people who pay with FRN's only acquire POSSESSION, not OWNERSHIP, since the debt was only discharged, not paid.

[David Merrill]

Yep, I made copies of both sides, but you do need an affidavit, since that is the best form of notifying the tax collectors and such about your non-use of FRN's. Otherwise they'll presume that you do use FRN's and so have tax liabilities. Plus you need an affidavit to show the cops, so they also can't presume that your property they seek to regulate, was acquired using FRN's and so is subject to their statutes.

You see, whatever you buy with lawful money, you TRULY own, not just possess, as is the case with buying stuff with FRN's. And what you trully own is NOT subject to statutes of the corporate State. The reason they can regulate or ban ownership of certain things, is because people who pay with FRN's only acquire POSSESSION, not OWNERSHIP, since the debt was only discharged, not paid.

Look at the money - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

The obligations are against the Secretary and the US Treasurer - look at the signatures. While I agree you have perfected the highest title to the things that you own, you do not have a perfected title because ownership is a benefit you derive from the social structure around you - society.

The best example of the boundary you defy would be owning your car. Great! If you own your property (lawful money purchase) you can drive your car around on your property with complete immunity. If you take it on the public roadways, you need to be responsible by having a bond ($30K liquid bond) or an insurance policy on the car. It does not have to be on the State's car - like you point out but you need to make right if you hit the child on the bicycle and break his arm to the tune of $12K in hospital bills.

Here is a very special trust, for the Fraternal Order of Police, benefitting from the Impound Yard (Conflict of Interest) but they had to state the source of their authority in doing so - benefits of State.

[Jaro]

Look at the money - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

The obligations are against the Secretary and the US Treasurer - look at the signatures. While I agree you have perfected the highest title to the things that you own, you do not have a perfected title because ownership is a benefit you derive from the social structure around you - society.

The best example of the boundary you defy would be owning your car. Great! If you own your property (lawful money purchase) you can drive your car around on your property with complete immunity. If you take it on the public roadways, you need to be responsible by having a bond ($30K liquid bond) or an insurance policy on the car. It does not have to be on the State's car - like you point out but you need to make right if you hit the child on the bicycle and break his arm to the tune of $12K in hospital bills.

Here is a very special trust, for the Fraternal Order of Police, benefitting from the Impound Yard (Conflict of Interest) but they had to state the source of their authority in doing so - benefits of State.

Well David, I think I'm ahead of you on this one. Ownership isn't a benefit, it is an unalienable right. Only legal ownership is a benefit, and that is when you use legal tender FRN's. Lawful money buys REAL, lawful ownership, which is NOT subject to statutes, as legal ownership is. Also, there's no such thing as "you need to be responsible by having a bond ($30K liquid bond) or an insurance policy on the car" under common law. The insurance requirement is STATUTORY, issued by State of XYZ corporation, which only applies to citizens of the corporate Democracy (in public), NOT to Citizens of the Republic (in private/common law).

You see we've been in bankruptcy since 1933, where no one has any real money so they're not entitled to real laws like Hale v Henkel. We're in commerce where law merchant rules and laws of the Republic don't apply. But when you've got lawful money, then you're no longer insolvent, subject to corporate statutes, but protected by the laws of the Republic, because you've got REAL ASSETS, which puts you outside of this bankrupt corporate Matrix. Why do you think lawful money isn't subject to taxation? Because it's outside of corporate State's jurisdiction, and so is EVERYTHING it buys.

BTW, the fringed flags in courtrooms signify the law of the executive, i.e. the king's law, which only applies to king's subjects who use HIS 'money', the FRN's. Those who have REAL/lawful money, aren't subjects to king's law (statutes), they're protected by the laws of the Republic, like Hale v Henkel.

BTW, the last line here should tell you that under common law, there's no such thing as car insurace requirement:

Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1906)
"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights."

[David Merrill]

At the end of the day, civil infrastructure gives you the benefit of exclusive usage. The trustee owns your stuff.

[Jaro]

Public roads belong to the People. They use them BY RIGHT since they're part-owners. It's not a government-given benefit. There's a ton of USSC quotes about that. It's just that those laws of the Republic don't apply to most people today, since they're participating in the bankruptcy, and as such aren't protected by those laws, but are subject to corporate statutes, since they've got no real money.

It's still true that 'whoever has the gold makes the rules', and having LM is like having gold; i.e. you make the rules regarding your property.

[Rock Anthony]

At the end of the day, civil infrastructure gives you the benefit of exclusive usage. The trustee owns your stuff.

I think Ben Franklin co-signs with you on your point.

The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets, tho' only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted. They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law.

All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.
-The Writings of Benjamin Franklin. Edited by Albert Henry Smyth. 10 vols. New York: Macmillan Co., 1905--7.

[David Merrill]

Exclusive control of property depends on responsibility to your fellow man. If you show competence and the ability to make whole any injury, then I agree with you; I agree with your illusion that you can own things. The example of course being that you own both your car and the roadways - ergo you may take your car about freely among the other people in society.

If you have a pile of cash in your glove box to show the police officer - specifically $30K - to hand over to somebody who feels you injured them, you might have a chance of surviving the roadside trial. More likely though, you will be robbed pretty quickly if you advertise that kind of cash and likely you will even find a statute that an honest cop will be compelled to at least detain you on - just for having that kind of cash handy.

So the State provides for you not to have an insurance policy if you prefer that. You can post a bond with the State, through your bank or the State treasury. You have your $30K setting in escrow so to speak. And you show that bond to the police officer - self-insurance. To show compentency you take the driving tests and get a license. Sign the card with your true name:

Officer, I am only showing you that card for competency purposes. I am not showing it to you for identification purposes.

If you show responsibility, you show your authority - like you say. So I am not going to argue with you. Have a listen to the audio snippet attached. Somalia has been promoting a prominent political policy called piracy for several years now. Irresponsible - to just take by force. It has become an industry. But listen as justice takes its course...

The point to the torture - of hearing this morning's news about people in Somalia, is also that they own all sorts of stuff, they just have no usage because they are dying. There is no governmental infrastructure to fight for their rights of ownership. Ergo, the ability to own is a benefit of society; to have any time to utilize what you own for your own benefit anyway. Without the benefit of society, you simply own the weapons you use to protect your arsenal.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Chex]

BTW, the fringed flags in courtrooms signify the law of the executive, i.e. the king's law, which only applies to king's subjects who use HIS 'money', the FRN's. Those who have REAL/lawful money, aren't subjects to king's law (statutes), they're protected by the laws of the Republic, like Hale v Henkel.

“The Good Faith and Credit for the US Dollar - Gone!”

Are we under the maritime law of contracts and not common law?

Does this relate to why the U.S. flags in official buildings fly the gold tassel and fringe, indicating a state of martial law in a perpetual national emergency?