Thank you.
Thank you.
I want to add another thought to this thread. That thought is that demanding lawful money to be returned to you via a non-endorsement may not be the same as demanding via declaration or a ‘special’ (think of jurisdiction) endorsement that the fruits of your labor be recognized as equivalent to lawful (substantive) money and that it is not a loan with no repayment expected in kind (i.e. same ‘specie,’ not the same ‘sum’ in other money or currency (an irregular deposit)). If the presumption is that your deposit is ‘irregular’ and ‘general’ than a demand for lawful money may not rebut the presumption given to your purpose of ‘deposit.’ In other words one should demand what the purpose of their deposit is (safekeeping) where you retain title and then demand the same ‘money’ or specie in return. This would rebut any presumption of a loan being made with unspecified repayment terms, which would leave any bank the right to determine repayment and the form of money to repay with (other money). If you do not define your deposit than the presumption that your deposit is ‘general’ stands and a demand for lawful money to be repaid is without merit and results in other money (debt money), hence, one will still be given FRN’s. Conceptually one may need to separate a demand for lawful money to be returned on a deposit, from the demand that your deposit (the fruits of your ‘substantive’ labor) be recognized as the same (equivalent) to the agreement in ‘substantive’ ‘dollars’ on the front of your check and not an equivalent ‘sum’ of ‘other’ forms of money denominated in 'dollars'.
P.S. What I share above is merely what I see (my thoughts from my imagination). It is is not intended to say that you must see the same (accept my images).
Last edited by RThomas; 08-19-11 at 07:30 AM. Reason: Added P.S.
I follow that clearly. To me, what you are saying is probably an accurate application. - All the way back to the Credit River Money Decision for example. The bank put up no consideration, so your credit was the only consideration.
The birth certificate goes a long way toward your Credit Rating - as it identifies you that way, in the legal name and often TO BE PART OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM WHICH IS A PROPER INCOME TAX.
This all, what you said, creates the illusion that there is an account. After all, they were never giving out these FRN/stock certificates in the Fed for free. Endorsement costs you a Return of Income. And therefore the stock certificates stay ready for redemption if you redeem them. Within the Federal Reserve System FRNs are money. But from without it, FRNs are stock certificates in the Fed.
My impression of Motla68's proposal about the 1099 C Form is that one is skirting about on a border, dancing dangerously on the top of a fence.
David,
I am going to be busy over the next few days and will add more when life allows. Nobody has achieved the ‘holy grail,’ receiving actual money of substance for the substance of their labor. In short the results many are getting here may be just the Fed’s way of carrying on and using band aids to prevent any mortal bleeding. I am beginning to see that there may be one more step that need be taken. My thoughts are still in motion.
RThomas
Here is a little more on how that works out, we are only keeping the state honorable by correctly reporting events. This is from the IRS instructions for form 1099-C:Originally Posted by David Merrill
"" When Is a Debt Canceled
A debt is deemed canceled on the date an identifiable event occurs
or, if earlier, the date of the actual discharge if you choose to file
Form 1099-C for the year of cancellation. An identifiable event is:
1. A discharge in bankruptcy under Title 11 of the U.S. Code.
For information on certain discharges in bankruptcy not required to
be reported, see Exceptions on this page. ""
I believe these FRNS to be promissory notes that discharges the debts since they are not backed by anything. Also how do I know they do not have any other bonds attached to this event (account with the court) worth thousands of dollars?
Here is the kicker though to why I think certain methods of taking care of tickets completely disappear from the public record, when it is revealed at certain names are " Property of the State" as shown on Psyop's parking ticket shown, starting out with another clip from IRS instructions form 1099-C:
"" CAUTION
Do not file Form 1099-C when fraudulent debt is canceled
due to identity theft. Form 1099-C is to be used only for
cancellations of debts for which the debtor actually incurred
the underlying debt. ""
When we reveal that we know the named account is " property of the state " after they tried to identify us as the name, it is identity theft they tried to take from us, so instead of suffering any liabilities for identity theft they get rid of that accounting from the public record as soon as possible just in case someone tries to file 1099-C for it.
But of course your not going to get them to admit to any of that on the record, they are not going to accuse themselves as we should not be accusing ourselves of being statutory employees that have an oath of office or appointment of duty. They will not stay honorable unless we operate honorable to ourselves.
This is another example of how we can be our own worst enemy sometimes.
Furthermore, can the state prove they actually incurred an underlying debt? I don't think so.
Last edited by motla68; 08-19-11 at 07:37 PM.
Thanks for your contributions.
My perspective involves a ten-year cure on this Bill of Exchange, one of the documents in this mosaic. That mosaic is but a piece of a much larger mosaic describing the sublime esoteric that helps us to draw the distinction between fate and destiny. For my bloodline, the Charter begins with Teunis Jansen Laenan VAN PELT and has a marked anointing by Master Mason WASHINGTON with my ancestor Peter VAN PELT. There is mention of a perpetual inheritance of which I can prove my bloodline.
Doctor in the law Dale LIVINGSTON, Esquire has a different perspective on the same events. It helps to understand that Esquire is of the Crown Templars in flavor. Then you might see that to him, treason was actually the custodians of the record found on the hill at the Mason Library and Museum. This is where the Knights Templar reside.
Motla68 has yet a different approach:
That perspective is skewed by the fact that the United States is not, nor ever was bankrupt. Here is a bankruptcy - in my email just today. There are of course senators and congressmen who make allusions to bankruptcy and foreclosure in the Congressional Record, but that does not prove anything. What Motla68 might show if he is serious is who is keeping the United States in Receivership.
Here is the kicker though to why I think certain methods of taking care of tickets completely disappear from the public record, when it is revealed at certain names are " Property of the State" as shown on Psyop's parking ticket shown, starting out with another clip from IRS instructions form 1099-C:
I think the big problem with that is that Property of the State is part of the sticker that Psyop stuck on the ticket. It is of course among proven verbiage that comprises the Demand for lawful money.
If you combine Property of the State with known effective remedy found in current law, it is questionable that the Property of the State declaration had any effect. Albeit the debt - due to obligations of the US and the character of US notes (inelastic) albeit in the form of Fed notes (stock certificates await redemption - these particular ones fit in the wallet and circulate widely); the debt of $15 may indeed by property of the state - the state in possession of the debt.
Since 1934 the law states clearly that we can only redeem "lawful money" and lawful money means fully bonded. This redacts the action of redemption to restricted endorsement - meaning that the banksters cannot honestly lend upon money in your account and we have more and more indication that their attorneys are explaining that to them clearly.
Rock Anthony has recently posted some very delightful insight about this here. Mainly, that if you redeem lawful money by signature card it is only fair that you bank with an interest-free checking account and maybe where you have to pay the bank for checks and by transaction too.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. Then again I am judging from my perspective. There is a whole history between 1861 and 1913 involving Canada too! (Footnotes.)
Last edited by David Merrill; 08-19-11 at 10:37 PM.
“The bank put up no consideration, so your credit was the only consideration.”
I’ll expand more on this later, but my initial response would be, is it the bank (an instrumentality of the US) that received the ‘consideration’ or the US? Is it possible that the banks consideration is a form of set-off (think national debt)? My mind is still very fluid on this but the waters are calming to show a glass like reflection.
“Within the Federal Reserve System FRNs are money."
Within the transaction I am speaking to FRNs is ’other’ money given back in an equivalent ‘sum’ under the presumption that one's ‘irregular’ deposit was a ‘loan’.
“But from without it, FRNs are stock certificates in the Fed.”
Within the transaction I am speaking to one’s ‘regular’ deposit is not declared by one to have been made in ‘stock certificates in the Fed’ but declared to be lawful money which has been declared by the US under their original fixing of the weights of gold and silver thus defining ‘dollars’. Thus one’s substance is not a loan, but deposited for safekeeping and a demand that the same ‘specie’ of ‘dollars’ be returned.
I have more to share as to what I am now seeing
Last edited by RThomas; 08-20-11 at 08:15 AM.
ok, RThomas, lets expand upon your thoughts here, was it you that accepted it as value or was it the merchant licensed by the state to do business who accepted the value in exchange for goods and services? See below image
The front serialized is the private and the back is the public side, I know this is ass backwards but complain to Congress who once called Lawful Money by itself in circulation " green backs ". They are both obligations of the U.S. Treasury AND Federal Reserve Bank being partly that they were printed by the Federal Burea of Engraving and printing and the FRB is duty bound by the Federal Reserve Act.
Go to the following link and read the first paragraph section for yourself:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section16.htm
Cheers!
Last edited by motla68; 08-20-11 at 12:02 PM.
ok, RThomas, lets expand upon your thoughts here, was it you that accepted it as value or was it the merchant licensed by the state to do business who accepted the value in exchange for goods and services? See below image
The front serialized is the private and the back is the public side, I know this is ass backwards but complain to Congress who once called Lawful Money by itself in circulation " green backs ". They are both obligations of the U.S. Treasury AND Federal Reserve Bank being partly that they were printed by the Federal Burea of Engraving and printing and the FRB is duty bound by the Federal Reserve Act.
Go to the following link and read the first paragraph section for yourself:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section16.htm
Cheers!
Thanks for providing that link to §411 et seq as the attorneys say:
Click Here.
The key in understanding any illusion of an account with the Treasury, even based in HJR-192 is to fit a proper substitution into the term Special Drawing Rights as the major currency - Special Drawing Right Certificates as currency that is exchanged for the issuance of Fed notes. If you are in a hurry just do a Search while on the Fed Faqs page linked - Ctrl-F. That way you can read about SDRs in context of §411 et seq.
I have shown you the Senate Report several times lately. Where this started for me was long ago it seems now, and far, far away at the Tuesday Night Law Club Meetings. A guest speaker from California told me about the Secret Jamaica Rambouillet Accord and that if anybody sensed I was getting close, then I would be killed. Sure enough, when I found it in the State Department Bulletin, THEY came and killed me!
The actual minutes of the meeting were secret, and still are as you read on Pages 3-4.
Page 3.
Page 4.
First I grabbed this paragraph from the State Department Bulletin.
That is from Undersecretary KATZ writing in the Bulletin. Here is the entire Report.
You can get a definition off Wiki or many other hits to compare to mine:
Special Drawing Rights - The average US Dollar or equivalent value per US Dollar as determined of five exemplary nations. Exemplary nations being where the people are duped into endorsing private credit from their respective central banks, rather than to redeem lawful money.
With that in mind, substitute that mental model into "special drawing rights" as you read the Treasury Faqs link.
Regards,
David Merrill.
David, thank you very much. Among other references to this it is quite a revealing key of knowledge for anyone who doubts this function can be accomplished.
I am considering modifying the stamp a bit due to other things found for certain presentments. Instead of putting " Property of the State " replace with " Gift to the State "
and " Deposit for Credit" replace with " Deposit for Settlement " . Will share with you more when one of us here comes up with some results.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
