Not sure why you perceive aliens to have more rights than citizens, unless you're focusing on the bit about U.S. person.
Not sure why you perceive aliens to have more rights than citizens, unless you're focusing on the bit about U.S. person.
Harry TRACY and David MERRILL made an escape from prison together, so I guess they were cohorts for a little while...
What more can I do? #Frustrated
I have interesting news today. I deposited a check, my first attempt, and when I did so I did notendorse it . I placed on the back "demand lawful money ( US note) as per Title 12 USC S 411" then I signed James Paul DBA James Paul Fexxxxxxx and as an added layer under that I added "UCC 1-308 without pejudice"
The girl at the drive through didn't skip a beat and asked if there was anything se she could do for me.
I checked my account via iPhone app and saw something - it was coded different than any other deposit I've ever seen!!! Instead of being labeled "deposit" it was coded "BY 31 1196". This after all the runaround from the CFO! Ill post pictures tonight when I get home.
I wonder if ill get another phone call!!
I'm James Paul by the way guys. It's been a pleasure [slowly] learning from you guys.
Hello James Paul,Originally Posted by BAMAJiPS
In my estimate, the FRN is a dual capacity note. So I will say it like this: There are TWO seals on said note and two signatories. So then both the USN and the FRN are legal tender and Both are LAWFUL TO USE but only one is Lawful Money OF the United States. Just like there can be two children in a room from two different families and one child is OF his daddy and another child is OF his daddy.
So then any slick is going to just say you got lawful money - but that is obfuscation in that a FRN is lawful to USE but is NOT lawful money OF the United States.
As I said this is my opinion.
Shalom,
MJ
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!
Bingo! What matters is who issues the "money". The treasury of the US or A private bank. Lawful money of the U.S. (coin or US currency notes) or Bank credit (Lawful money).
What's interesting is how some folks just can't seem to remember a simple demand. "Redeemed Lawful Money pursuant to 12 USC 411" Eight words. Not saying your demand won't work but user "freedave" here also had lotsa trouble with this (just like BAMAJiPS). Kept rearranging and adding new words into the demand before disappearing about a year ago. Or was it just feigned trouble and ignorance?
Bank CFO just called me back. He still thinks its an interesting idea and conveyed that he was going to research it more on a personal level, but said that legal council had come back with supreme court rulings that FRN's were indeed termed "lawful money" and that the original 1913 act was amended in 1933, so he went on to say there's just nothing they can do.
I have been trying to absorb the supreme court cases and, as pointed out in the Remedy video, men in black robes say the FRN is legal TENDER. I've read US v Rickman, Milam, appellant v us and a few others - and I can't use any of these things to advance my case. In bureaucrat circles I suppose legal tender is synonymous with lawful money and they dont want to deal with it.
It leads me to ask the question - in the banks that DO accept "Demand lawful money pursuant to Title 12 USC s411", do they actually ledger the books differently? I say they have to - they can't fractional lend on that money right? On the other side of the coin, is this all just an exercise of us doing our due diligence and keeping our own records in a passive manner for us to claim to have gotten lawful money in any actions down the road?
Either way, I'm discouraged. Time to watch the video AGAIN and then study more on saving to suitors clause... Im not sure I understand all that's entailed there --- had to read Black's Law on what "In Rem" was, so it makes me wonder...
Very Advanced!
I still think it better, plainer, to say the city of Washington (overlaid fiction upon) in the State. Put this way it expresses a municipal jurisdiction that has been imposed upon the states for revenue purposes.
Further to clarify, the Act of 1790 was what obligated the State(s) through the imposed district(s) to collect revenue toward the debts of the city of Washington - the United States (one of the three USSC-acceptable definitions). However if you were to look into the Judiciary Act of 1789 you would likely find as according to Dr. Dale LIVINGSTON Esq. that was actually when the districts were formed.
Listen to the 8:00 Minute Mark there and get to the center of the delusion. The US government was never formed on a territorial jurisdiction; but rather a municipal jurisdiction of New York City. LIVINGSTON has organized this setting in his mind as based on a fraud but then again his ancestor NY Chief Justice Robert LIVINGSTON (Grand Master) was involved. He goes on to the 12:00 Minute Mark though to describe NY as the only state that did not want to get involved by sending its delegates to ratify. Then two minutes later (14:00) we find Alexander HAMILTON (the central banking advocate) is the only delegate for NY being two more delegates short. The 16:45 Minute Mark reveals that the Grand Master of the Masons swore in WASHINGTON, and that was done on the porch of the Lodge!
In modern times the same exercise of the Masons as Priests is expressed through municipal home rule:
The priests' dominions are the cities and their suburbs - look at I Chronicles chapter 6. It takes quite a while to discover how clear and simple this all is. But well worth the journey for me especially being a Patroon and descended from the Patroon who built that wall around his estate on Manhattan that became Wall Street - where WASHINGTON was sworn in! Here is the Van Pelt Milestone as found today:
Notice with whom it sets in the Brooklyn Historical Society Museum. When destiny and heritage are coherent, there is peace.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
