Serving the Federal Reserve System

[karl nathan]

A few thoughts I've been working through...

If I serve a demand on a bank within the Federal Reserve System to redeem lawful money for all monetary transactions, I, for all practical purposes, have served my demand on the entire Federal Reserve System which includes: banks, credit unions, any other institution which issues Federal Reserve Notes, and all Federal Reserve Banks.

As stated in Memorandum to First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Jerome Daly, or the Credit River Money decision, the judge describes the relationship between the First National Bank of Montgomery and the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis: "...for all practical purposes, because [their] interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank...."

Notice to principal is notice to agent. Notice to agent is notice to principal.

A succinct example of a Notice of Demand to serve on the Federal Reserve System:

Notice of Demand

All monetary transactions, from whatever source derived, associated with the person Karl N XXXXXX, are demanded to be redeemed in lawful money pursuant to 12 USC 411.

The 16th amendment to the United States Constitution uses a catch-all statement, "from whatever source derived," to give power to Congress in all instances to lay and collect taxes on incomes. In my tax preparation experience I always thought what an ingenious statement it is, to throw a blanket cover over all sources, in order not to miss an opportunity to lay and collect taxes on incomes. I included the statement in the Notice of Demand because it, I believe, provides a similar all reaching power in that all monetary transactions associated with me are conducted in lawful money.

[David Merrill]

Very helpful. The simpler the batter.

I like that better than signing for a cash refund at Lowe's, Lawful Money.

[Brian]

I really hate that phrase "from whatever source derived". I believe it is meant to purport something that just is not so to the common folks. To the lay person they take it as "all that comes in". However that is just not the case. The SCOTUS made that fairly clear in the decisions regarding the 16th in the years after its purported ratification.

I believe the "sources" referenced are those deriving from GovCo sponsored activities, privileges, and things within the scope of taxing. However with the advent of corporate currency (FRN's) GovCo hit the jackpot by going around the restrictions of direct taxation by "loaning" FR credit/notes secured by good assets (your paycheck). This process started in 1933 with the removal of gold and the banking act, was solidified by the SSA act, war taxes of WW2, withholding at source, the removal of silver, and finally the removal of greenbacks in '71.

In hind sight it becomes clear. Nip it in the bud, make your demand early and often.

Some saw what was coming: http://www.archive.org/details/usmon...rpor00crozgoog

[Treefarmer]

Some saw what was coming: http://www.archive.org/details/usmon...rpor00crozgoog

Nice find Brian, thank you.

[David Merrill]

I really hate that phrase "from whatever source derived". I believe it is meant to purport something that just is not so to the common folks. To the lay person they take it as "all that comes in". However that is just not the case. The SCOTUS made that fairly clear in the decisions regarding the 16th in the years after its purported ratification.

I believe the "sources" referenced are those deriving from GovCo sponsored activities, privileges, and things within the scope of taxing. However with the advent of corporate currency (FRN's) GovCo hit the jackpot by going around the restrictions of direct taxation by "loaning" FR credit/notes secured by good assets (your paycheck). This process started in 1933 with the removal of gold and the banking act, was solidified by the SSA act, war taxes of WW2, withholding at source, the removal of silver, and finally the removal of greenbacks in '71.

In hind sight it becomes clear. Nip it in the bud, make your demand early and often.

Some saw what was coming: http://www.archive.org/details/usmon...rpor00crozgoog

That is the kind of contribution I like to see too.

I believe that your point is lost in conditioning to endorse. It is a great point though. Ergo back to redeeming lawful money to negate the obfuscation around all sources doctrine.

[Binbokusai Yagyuu]

Credit River ..

is a " non-decision "

[David Merrill]

Credit River ..

is a " non-decision "

The Credit River Money Decision was in full authority of the Township. The authority was discredited by the state. Say what you will, I have never heard anybody say that Mr. MORGAN with the bank was lying on the witness stand.

To understand my point though, about home rule and self-governance you might want to listen to my account with the former clerk Jerry MAAS a few years before he retired. I contacted him by phone to get my rendition of the decision, as you see published directly from Audrey BROWN in Minnesota at the county court. He was intrigued and enjoying himself and helping me out quite a bit, running errands for me for the fun of it. He found it interesting that since I had put the Opinion, Judgment and Decree on the Libel of Review Audrey was keeping the entire case in her desk drawer rather than to keep pulling it downstairs in Records.

At one point though, the attorney for the Township advised Jerry to drop all communications with me. Which he told me he was going to do. I told him he was remiss as clerk to let Audrey be the custodian of the case at the county courthouse when it was a Township matter to begin with. Jerry was a bit taken aback that I was ungrateful for all the running around he had been doing and we parted less than friends.

I am getting to the point.

I did a search and found Jerry's resignation letter a few years afterward.

The recent allegations by a Credit River resident point out that feelings are running deep on certain issues, particularly the question as to what form of government should be adopted.

Personally, I have not taken a position on the subject of incorporation, not that it makes a difference because the clerk does not vote on the issue. My only desire has been that the board gets enough information to facilitate a good decision. The other allegations made date back two to three years, and while there is a plausible and reasonable explanation for each, I don’t feel that arguing out such detail in the newspaper will accomplish anything at this time.

Reading between the lines and even with the text it is clear that even as of 2010 the Credit River Township is not incorporated. That is important to my point. Between the lines is that Jerry was trying to keep everybody fully informed when considering the option of incorporating the Township, and came under attack for trying to edify people. Conjecture has it that Jerry was mentioning the Credit River Money Decision and the fact that Jerome DALY lived in his "foreclosed" house for a couple decades after the decision.

The appeal and discrediting never really hit home there in Credit River.

[Binbokusai Yagyuu]

my only point, is that is was an 'opinion", of a "justice" court

[David Merrill]

my only point, is that is was an 'opinion", of a "justice" court

It would be interesting to evaluate what the differences are in those terms like an opinion published in WestLaw and "statutory" court or whatever. I have defended the CRMD on many forums against the attorney mindset that I misinterpreted your post as the most polite attack on it yet. The Minnesota Supreme Court shredded the CRMD as nonsense but Jerome DALY lived in his home and you can still get the published opinion, even if it is by my arrangement.

I apologize for being defensive. In any forum, Mr. MORGAN was sworn in as a witness and testified as found. You can contact Audrey BROWN in the Clark County courthouse and order a transcript. That would be interesting. I feel quite strongly that the testimony of Mr. MORGAN was informed and truthful.

[Inhisimage]

What is the penalty for a bank failing to comply with 12 usc411?
What is the exact step by step procedure for bringing enforcement?