Redeeming Lawful Money on Daily Paul

[David Merrill]

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tips_a.../message/17135

I found above on POMC.

In the link the user states this is what it really means... ”I’m willing to pay what you allege I owe if you will tell me how to do such without breaking the law.” Really it is not allowing them to break the law and demand private money when by law they can only demand public money. " I'm assuming this only works when paying tickets, court fees, etc...

I'm just looking for clarity here, in the statute, it prohibits the courts from keeping their proceedings in anything but the money of account of the United States. Ok, well, this is the part I'm trying to understand. Obviously you can't just rip this off on a printer and hand it to someone, it has to draw the funds from somewhere, correct? Is this offered in conjunction with a FRN? Is this a contract.. that if someone accepts it, then they agree to be paid at some point in the future in this form? Subsequent currency must be in this form? By accepting this negotiable contract, they agree to discharge (in this case "pay for" because your not paying for a debt with a debt?) the debt. I'm guessing it is a catch 22, because law requires them to accept it, yet since the form of the account of the united states really doesn't exist, or it is extremely difficult to obtain and it forces them into using lawful money or the united states, the services are accepted with no actual payment. Maybe a little more on the statement, "tender legal tender?" Boy, I know I was all over the place, I actually bought the miracle on main street for further understanding, but, a few sentences to explain further what is going on here would be much appreciated...

What a Post! You sound like a child on Christmas morning...

There is a lot there alright! Gobs of presents just waiting to be unwrapped.

These instruments work but the consideration is "money on account". That is why the statute cited has been repealed and US notes were bundled into United States currency notes, in order to legitimize (criminal syndacalism) Title 31 is now positive law, and rationalize pegging the inelastic US note to the elastic FRN in value. It was only when I tried to set up an account with the City of XXXXX/METRO for future parking tickets etc. that the DA had a handle on Theft and Forgery charges. I had to depose the DA to get out from under that dog pile.

[allodial]

In a game called Runescape, there is an area called "the Wildy" or "the Wilderness". The rules that normally apply in the game dont apply. Things that can get accounts banned or blocked or guards sent after you in the regular part of the game dont necessarily apply. The same model might have applicability as to what might fly in the territories might not fly in America. The while there might be a lawful money of the United States there might also be the prospect of being finagled by someone dishonest--by some kind of criminal syndicate. As in the differences in currencies might be more easily comprehended in terms of what can be gotten away with and where. Of course, then there is the matter of exigent circumstances. Gilpin was, afterall a Territorial Governor. Of course, a sovereign might not be able to dabble in certain activities due to prescriptive duties, a private syndicate might not be subject to such limitations.

[mikecz]

What a Post! You sound like a child on Christmas morning...

There is a lot there alright! Gobs of presents just waiting to be unwrapped.

These instruments work but the consideration is "money on account". That is why the statute cited has been repealed and US notes were bundled into United States currency notes, in order to legitimize (criminal syndacalism) Title 31 is now positive law, and rationalize pegging the inelastic US note to the elastic FRN in value. It was only when I tried to set up an account with the City of XXXXX/METRO for future parking tickets etc. that the DA had a handle on Theft and Forgery charges. I had to depose the DA to get out from under that dog pile.

Soo, tell me what happened here. You tried to create and account in "the account of united states", they charged you with theft and forgery. You charged him for not completing an oath...(within 30 days?) Did you win? Was he ousted? (please answer)

Also, there is definitely a disconnect here between the US note and the FRN, I guess that is where the POMC struck a chord. I for some reason can't believe they've covered all the bases, there has to be something out there to let us realize the true value of this note... (anything further?)

[allodial]

No doubt David Merrill would be best to reply. From what I recall he deposed the District Attorney. What he was aiming to do makes perfect sense. David Merrill, did the Letter of Credit come after the POMC?

[Franco]

Dave, I have been reading here and there on your site. Lots of good information. I still don’t understand it all very well, especially the Trust section. Presently, I am receiving retirement benefits from Social security. I receive the benefits by law through direct deposit in a bank here in Texas. I know that :
1. The Social Security Trust Funds are the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds.
2. They are managed by Department of Treasury.
3. A Board of Trustees oversees the financial operations of the trust funds. The Board reports annually to the Congress on the financial status of the trust funds.
4. By law trust funds must be invested in securities that guarantee both principal and interest.
5. Would that prevent me from demanding lawful money. I don’t get my check in the mail anymore. Because of new federal law I had to put my check in a bank through direct deposit. This prevents me from signing for non-indorsement on the check. Can I sign for non-indorsement on the withdrawal slip ?
Thank you Franco
p.s. if i posted in wrong place or some other error . i have lots to learn.

[David Merrill]

At the risk of sounding arrogant, you guys are all getting it fine. I really do change my belief sets as new information comes in! If and only if the new intelligence meets general rules of evidence. I have to get consent to prepare an evidence package (sanitized to the suitor's satisfaction) but here is some Crosstalk - a preview hopefully:

Went to court today to inquire about the docket. Nothing scheduled for True Name or Legal Name.

So far, so good. I'm getting the hang of this.

Picture attached. Of police officers/cars at traffic stop.

Thank You!

----- Original Message -----
From: David Merrill < >
To:
Sent: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 17:29:52 -0000 (UTC)
Subject: RE: dumb question

The Chief of Police and your evidence repository.
Call me for instructions please.

-----Original Message-----

From:
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 201310:01 AM
To: David Merrill
Subject: dumb question

R4C'ing a traffic citation - do you recommend returning it to...

1. address on envelope provided by officer.
2. organization (city police) the officer works for, or
3. court address (court where any agreed hearing would likely be held) ?

thank you,

Nickname

Sure enough I found the R4C in the evidence repository all marked up by the US clerk of court. The suitor was carrying a certified copy in case there was an appearance required. The traffic stop - speeding and illegal lane change for over $200. He would have gone into the courtroom and when his case was called he would have appeared restricted (Rule E(8)) to prevent fraud on the court - which is to say the chief of police had not sent the R4C to the court too. If the CoP had sent the R4C then the judge would have had to decide whether or not the suitor had a right of refusal.

Like he says though; So far, so Good. Nothing will really be proven until next time he is out and gets stopped. We always hope he stays out of trouble but this sort of thing happens.

When he was stopped with a driver license signed in his true name he informed the officer that he was not using the Card for identification purposes - competence only. The officer began asking about his mental competence and called an ambulance! The EMT's cleared him after asking about psychiatric history and medications. The officers issued the ticket anyway and apparently in vain as the clerk of court (city attorneys) have rejected the cause from the chief of police.

The Libel of Review is integral as it makes his ongoing demand for lawful money clearly on the "exclusive original cognizance" of the United States government. The clerk instruction is on the R4C on the original ticket. So the clerks who view it can look it up on PACER and see that it really is on the record. All that is left to try is the suitor's right of refusal and since he is out of contract with the Fed that will get sticky. All officers are trained to testify on the witness stand under oath about in personam jurisdiction - How did the defendant identify himself? The attorney in the black robe is trained to listen for it from the arresting officer.

[Looking at the docket report of his LoR however shows that he has saved well over the $350 filing fee in R4C's.]

Soo, tell me what happened here. You tried to create and account in "the account of united states", they charged you with theft and forgery. You charged him for not completing an oath...(within 30 days?) Did you win? Was he ousted? (please answer)

Also, there is definitely a disconnect here between the US note and the FRN, I guess that is where the POMC struck a chord. I for some reason can't believe they've covered all the bases, there has to be something out there to let us realize the true value of this note... (anything further?)

I won my freedom. There have never been any consequences of any slurs on "my record" and if there are I will show the potential employer etc. how SUTHERS was running a vacant office. A friend of his reported that he was cleaning out his office the next morning. He had been voted out after eight years anyway but left the office six weeks early. The newspapers asked him why he was leaving early and he gave no comment.

That is important, to keep honor and peace. If I had gone public with the Certificate of Fact then eight years of convictions would have potentially and probably been reversed, up for retrial. Technically they still can be and civil suits would stack up behind my $20M Lien that came to cure while SUTHERS was and is the State Attorney General. My perception is that he let things cool off while at the Department of Corrections in Florence. Then he moved for AG. Look how perfect his oath is now!

Disconnect between the FRN and US note? That is my standing accusation! Allodial wrote a significant post about that though - so you all see it too - the connection between "money on account" and "lawful money" in America.

Look at the dates:

His first oath of 2005 is bogus as he does not conform to statute or even law, considering that swearing means that you hold a competent witness (the ever-living God). If you swear that means you make yourself accountable to the Witness in Authority - God.

They leave me alone anymore - but then I stay out of trouble too. - Always wise to be a peaceful minister of the public trust. I teach peace too. That is how come I have peace. But every conviction since January 13, 2009 around here is in jeopardy so it is no big surprise they leave me to my teaching here and on the brain trust. [Just look at the current DA's signed confession! He knows he is outside the IN GOD WE TRUST (on the money) and SO HELP ME (the very same monothiesm) GOD (which is not on his (Dan MAY, the current DA around here) oath of office like statute requires because he bought a $5K insurance policy instead!] Dan MAY knows that he is not covered by the Comptroller of the State Treasury.

No doubt David Merrill would be best to reply. From what I recall he deposed the District Attorney. What he was aiming to do makes perfect sense. David Merrill, did the Letter of Credit come after the POMC?

The Letter of Credit was already in place. That particular POMC (and about five others) worked great. The Forgery charge was that I made them POMC look too much like a regular bank check. The Theft charge was that I was trying to set up moneys in an account for my use to pay off future tickets and court fines. I was in violation of the general trust agreement.

http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/9008/pomc.jpg
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/3...rofcredit1.jpg
http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/448...rofcredit2.jpg

Because I spent 72 days in jail about it I cannot suggest people try this.

Dave, I have been reading here and there on your site. Lots of good information. I still don’t understand it all very well, especially the Trust section. Presently, I am receiving retirement benefits from Social security. I receive the benefits by law through direct deposit in a bank here in Texas. I know that :

1. The Social Security Trust Funds are the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds.
2. They are managed by Department of Treasury.
3. A Board of Trustees oversees the financial operations of the trust funds. The Board reports annually to the Congress on the financial status of the trust funds.
4. By law trust funds must be invested in securities that guarantee both principal and interest.
5. Would that prevent me from demanding lawful money. I don’t get my check in the mail anymore. Because of new federal law I had to put my check in a bank through direct deposit. This prevents me from signing for non-indorsement on the check. Can I sign for non-indorsement on the withdrawal slip ?

Thank you Franco

p.s. if i posted in wrong place or some other error . i have lots to learn.

You seem to have answered your own question. I went over this with a new suitor yesterday and it is the same conditioning that affects a limited displacement hysteria about Signature Cards. I will try to clarify:

People around here feel the bank is being unresponsive to your demand for lawful money? - To the contrary! Especially folks who have letters from the bank... You have proof of service that you made your demand right there in your hand! Can you stop your whirring mind long enough to let that sink in?

[If I posted that on the wrong place or some other error...] Get it? That is conditioning too; but I plan to try clawing my way through this disguise (Re: The Wall) around here with some forceful posts in appropriate threads soon.

Do you USE your SSN for insurance policy identification/claim only?

If I ask you, Do you have a Social Security Number? - Would you answer, Yes?

Why would you say that to me?

Are you making a claim on an insurance policy with me?

Answer: No. I do not have a Social Security Number (for you, David Merrill).

[mikecz]

David,

Slow clap (hopefully others joining in). Nice work. OK, I get the oath I get the clerk stating he was occupying a vacant office (that had to feel good while getting noterized).

Now, what's with the 20 million dollar lien. Wtf, was this against the DA? I see Greenspan on there, just wanted to know how/why you did that? For damages? Also, I read through the default judgment, its all in there, and as with no response within a given time frame, it can be ...insert your case here. I'm learning a lot here and am enjoying hearing others posts as well...but, can you elaborate on the lien?

[allodial]

The reason we cannot redeem the gold directly is because those coins are held in trust for all those demanding lawful money redemption. With over 300 million people in the US, it would be impossible to keep the coins actually circulating. With the FRN price of gold, they would be quickly destroyed for their gold and not traded at face value.

If one looks at the reasons for taking silver out of coinage it evidences indirect holding (see UCC Article 8). The concern was that coins were being taken out of circulation for their intrinsic value (Coinage Act of 1965).

1. The Social Security Trust Funds are the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds.
2. They are managed by Department of Treasury.
3. A Board of Trustees oversees the financial operations of the trust funds. The Board reports annually to the Congress on the financial status of the trust funds.
4. By law trust funds must be invested in securities that guarantee both principal and interest.
5. Would that prevent me from demanding lawful money. I don’t get my check in the mail anymore. Because of new federal law I had to put my check in a bank through direct deposit. This prevents me from signing for non-indorsement on the check. Can I sign for non-indorsement on the withdrawal slip ?

The Social Security Administration invests in U.S. Treasury securities and are one of the biggest investors in the United States Government and likely the tune of over $2T per year.

[shikamaru]

Social Security "trust fund" is a misnomer.

Excise (FICA) taxes collected for Social Security go into the general fund of government.

The dollars collected from SS aren't even earmarked in any way.

[allodial]

Consider the Federal Reserve Systems custodial role the Federal Reserve System might have as pertains to U.S. Treasury Securities per Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations.