Very interesting development regarding online payment from lawful money account

[AllanNR]

Hi David,fellow redeemers

It has been awhile since i tried to deal with that ticket problem which was a learning experience for me.
Anyway, I have opened a bank account with a novation for redeemed money(which has had me engaged with several conversations with the VP of the bank directly lol). I have already made a novation for lawful money redemption on my W4 and paychex direct deposit form so the whole bank thing is a non issue really. What is really more interesting is that last night I tried to make an online car payment to Santander Consumer USA with my lawful money account debit card and immediately got bounced out to the loging screen. I was somewhat bemused but figured it might have been a browser error and figured I would try again this morning and this what I got:







I became really curious at the reference to 12 CFR 205 Regulation E so I decided to look it up







and there it is right at the bottom. Congratulations Mr Merrill I think your theory about us as individuals being considered banks by the fed is spot on.

What Im wondering about now is (and I know this is something you have posted on extensively) about the intrinsic value of redeemed notes for which all intent and purpose are now considered United States Notes. I have a gut feeling that they haven't pegged the value to the FRN because that would constitute a breach of the public trust in the governments duty to provide lawful money per the consitution. I don't think they want to go there. Anyway my point is I wonder if the United States Dollar[Note] is pegged to the enumerated quantity of gold or silver the Constitution defines as a dollar and how much it would take to pay this loan off in this denomination. All comments and thoughts are most welcome my brothers : )

[mikecz]

Wow,

I think that is the first time I've seen in a statute defining us as natural people. I think they have to in order for us to legally sign away our rights. I'm with you by the way on the legality of us notes. They in my opinion are still pegged to gold, but, fdr and nixon "temporarily" disallowed them to be redeemed, I dont think they have ever changed the actual definition of the dollars value since 42 per ounce, as stated on the books with the earmarked federal reserve gold. If they did, it would be reflected on their books.

31 USC § 5112 - Denominations, specifications, and design of coins

(a) The Secretary of the Treasury may mint and issue only the following coins:
(1) a dollar coin that is 1.043 inches in diameter.
(2) a half dollar coin that is 1.205 inches in diameter and weighs 11.34 grams.
(3) a quarter dollar coin that is 0.955 inch in diameter and weighs 5.67 grams.
(4) a dime coin that is 0.705 inch in diameter and weighs 2.268 grams.
(5) a 5-cent coin that is 0.835 inch in diameter and weighs 5 grams.
(6) except as provided under subsection (c) of this section, a one-cent coin that is 0.75 inch in diameter and weighs 3.11 grams.
(7) A fifty dollar gold coin that is 32.7 millimeters in diameter, weighs 33.931 grams, and contains one troy ounce of fine gold.
(8) A twenty-five dollar gold coin that is 27.0 millimeters in diameter, weighs 16.966 grams, and contains one-half troy ounce of fine gold.
(9) A ten dollar gold coin that is 22.0 millimeters in diameter, weighs 8.483 grams, and contains one-fourth troy ounce of fine gold.
(10) A five dollar gold coin that is 16.5 millimeters in diameter, weighs 3.393 grams, and contains one-tenth troy ounce of fine gold.
(11) A $50 gold coin that is of an appropriate size and thickness, as determined by the Secretary, weighs 1 ounce, and contains 99.99 percent pure gold.
(12) A $25 coin of an appropriate size and thickness, as determined by the Secretary, that weighs 1 troy ounce and contains .9995 fine palladium.


There is no getting around it, a $50 gold coin that is 32.7 mm weighs 33.931 grams and contains one troy ounce of fine gold. This might be the indirect way evaluate the definition of the dollar...

[Keith Alan]

Coinage act 1792 defines a dollar as DOLLARS OR UNITS--each to be of the value of a Spanish milled dollar as the same is now current, and to contain three hundred and seventy-one grains and four sixteenth parts of a grain of pure, or four hundred and sixteen grains of standard silver.

http://constitution.org/uslaw/coinage1792.txt

[mikecz]

Coinage act 1792 defines a dollar as DOLLARS OR UNITS--each to be of the value of a Spanish milled dollar as the same is now current, and to contain three hundred and seventy-one grains and four sixteenth parts of a grain of pure, or four hundred and sixteen grains of standard silver.

http://constitution.org/uslaw/coinage1792.txt

The dollar has changed definition many times since then. From wiki, but you can find it on many other resources...

The Gold Standard Act of 1900 abandoned the bimetallic standard and defined the dollar as 23.22 grains (1.505 g) of gold, equivalent to setting the price of 1 troy ounce of gold at $20.67. Silver coins continued to be issued for circulation until 1964, when all silver was removed from dimes and quarters, and the half dollar was reduced to 40 % silver. Silver half dollars were last issued for circulation in 1970. Gold coins were confiscated by Executive Order 6102 issued in 1933 by Franklin Roosevelt. The gold standard was changed to 13.71 grains (0.888 g), equivalent to setting the price of 1 troy ounce of gold at $35. This standard persisted until 1968.

Between 1968 and 1975, a variety of pegs to gold were put in place, eventually culminating in a sudden end, on August 15, 1971 to the convertibility of dollars to gold later dubbed the Nixon Shock. The last peg was $42.22 per ounce[citation needed] before the U.S. dollar was let to freely float on currency markets.

It says the us dollar was free to float, but, David noted this a while back...

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releas...1208assets.htm

Look at footnote number 1.

I don't know how, but, for some reason I can't kick the idea it is still stuck there. The value of US notes are still defined this way I believe, somehow though, we accept them to float right along with the FRNs. This is definitely what has been plaguing my mind for some time. The US Treasury has "sold" gold certificates to the Federal Reserve at the 42.22 dollars per ounce. Basically issued around 11 billion in these certificates, the amount of gold which they possessed, which then the Federal Reserve could lend upon. It was a way to sell the gold, yet keep it in the gov't vaults. That number is locked until the certificates are reclaimed. It's crazy to think about, but the value of the United States notes should be as good as gold.

Another thing, redeeming the FRN for lawful money was also a way for the Treasury to back out of the Federal Reserve system. The gov't took on all the liabilities of debt, but, they could also receive all the assets from the system. Since the US note has been diluted, I can't see why it hasn't kept it's value. Either way...

[Keith Alan]

But did the definition of a dollar really change? I seem to be remembering they became offered as "trade" dollars, and not dollars.

[AllanNR]

It sounds to me that this would be the next logical step, file for declaratory judgement on the true value US notes.

[David Merrill]

The dollar has changed definition many times since then. From wiki, but you can find it on many other resources...



It says the us dollar was free to float, but, David noted this a while back...

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releas...1208assets.htm

Look at footnote number 1.

I don't know how, but, for some reason I can't kick the idea it is still stuck there. The value of US notes are still defined this way I believe, somehow though, we accept them to float right along with the FRNs. This is definitely what has been plaguing my mind for some time. The US Treasury has "sold" gold certificates to the Federal Reserve at the 42.22 dollars per ounce. Basically issued around 11 billion in these certificates, the amount of gold which they possessed, which then the Federal Reserve could lend upon. It was a way to sell the gold, yet keep it in the gov't vaults. That number is locked until the certificates are reclaimed. It's crazy to think about, but the value of the United States notes should be as good as gold.

Another thing, redeeming the FRN for lawful money was also a way for the Treasury to back out of the Federal Reserve system. The gov't took on all the liabilities of debt, but, they could also receive all the assets from the system. Since the US note has been diluted, I can't see why it hasn't kept it's value. Either way...

I went off on a mathematical tangent... (hey! That's a pun!)

I might have been better to wait for a certain email that informed me:

...that goes back to the Wheeler case of 1914, - 1914.SCT.244 , 233 U.S. 434, 58 L. Ed. 1030, 34 S. Ct. 607


...where in federal reserve notes is what is taxed for the privilege of their use in fact one administrative corporate supreme court, not the original one on 333 constitution ave. judge made the decisional statement and I paraphrase to shorten

The federal reserve has the right to tax their notes that are the debt obligations of the United States. They had transferred them to you via the company you worked or if you worked as yourself they were transferred to you by a man that you did work and you in turn transfer them to others and no matter where the notes, their situs, as stated by the court, lies in the federal reserve system.


and get this;


Again it is noted that situs is the legality to tax the notes be they in California, Maine, France or China. Remember we are applying the PRINCIPLE here to the federal reserve note since the court stated that technically there is no difference between the notes they are talking about in this case and federal reserve notes which are also defined as bills of exchange as they are blank notes, which you have not endorsed but merely passed on called a transfer.

On my first reading I find a very satisfying verification about redeeming lawful money!

...But it is plain that bills and notes, whatever they may be called, come very near to identification with the contract that they embody. An indorsement of the paper carries the contract to the indorser. An indorsement in blank passes the debt from hand to hand so that whoever has the paper has the debt.

[mikecz]

David,

I do lack the terminology here, but am definitely in line with the gov't complete avoidance of case law. They don't want to clear and in a formal opinion of the courts a decision on lawful money (seriously, is it not clear enough in the constitution, which I believe could be the largest elephant in the room in human history.) This is why it is so difficult to get anyone to write anything about money, the dollar, lawful money, or gold on paper.

So, I have the constitution of the United States Section 10. I have the Indiana constitution Article 11 Section 7. I have Indiana state code defining what employers can only be paid in...lawful money. IC 22-2-5-1. So since I'm paid in lawful money, I can then only "pay" others in lawful money. What I'm looking for is case law as you speak. I need a few cases where lawful money is clearly defined. I have found a few older cases that were of some interest. Basically a contract had been written between two parties for payment in confederate dollars.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/115/566

So in this case, someone bought land in confederate currency. The war was fought, confederate currency lost all the value, and needed to be paid in lawful money. The confederate currency was valued in lawful money, a clear distinction in rate. I wish we could get a case noting a difference in FRNs and Lawful money. Either way.
I'm going to solicit the law department of my credit union. We'll see where that goes...






Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

Section 7. All bills or notes issued as money shall be, at all times, redeemable in gold or silver; and no law shall be passed, sanctioning, directly or indirectly, the suspension, by any bank or banking company, of specie payments.

(a) Every person, firm, corporation, limited liability company, or association, their trustees, lessees, or receivers appointed by any court, doing business in Indiana, shall pay each employee at least semimonthly or biweekly, if requested, the amount due the employee. The payment shall be made in lawful money of the United States, by negotiable check, draft, or money order, or by electronic transfer to the financial institution designated by the employee. Any contract in violation of this subsection is void.

[David Merrill]

Congratulations Mr Merrill I think your theory about us as individuals being considered banks by the fed is spot on.

Thank you. Scroll to the bottom - Section 202. In order to facilitate (more state banks)...

I have a gut feeling that they haven't pegged the value to the FRN because that would constitute a breach of the public trust in the governments duty to provide lawful money per the consitution.

Lately I find myself signing with the Great Seal as trustee for the resulting public trust. This is done in Application for a court order from a federal judge too. So that means I would be confessing to a class 5 felony if the position, affiliated with state business were not opened by that breach of the public trust.

One of the applications even ends with the signature line:

I am including $46 cash lawful money to open a Miscellaneous Case File and a Return Envelope prepaid postage for the clerk of court in Denver to send me back a marked copy of this Application and Order. Furthermore the Congressional Record indicates that the Territory of Colorado was never properly formed in early 1861. This is a breach of the public trust allowing me to be the trustee of the resulting trust.

Respectfully,

DAVID MERRILL.
TRUSTEE of this resulting trust.

On the SE Corner of these monuments we find an abundance of gold. It works out in BUCHANNAN's (President just before LINCOLN) War Chest, rather than a proper Territory scenario - GILPIN's fiat script being based in the '59er's gold field claims in Auraria and Central City.

I know that is a bizarre rendition of reality but the only reason I would present it is that it makes sense to me. The SW Corner is the Territorial Capital where GILPIN issued the script. When I view all these factors coming together mathematically I can appreciate the ability to decrypt patterns and furthermore extract patterns from noise.

I type this paragraph from The Essential Ernest Holmes from memory. It is found on Page 18, second paragraph:

The evolutionary process that impels things upward and onward, from lower to higher intelligence is occasioned because everything is impregnated with intelligence as an unconscious memory, not as an intellectual conception. The logic of the Holy Spirit is in the intellect, but the Holy Spirit is in the heart. The logic of faith may be in the intellect as a mathematical equation, but the Holy Spirit cannot be analyzed or dissected. You can kill the nightengale, but you cannot capture its song. Here is the spark that is the cause of all evolution.

I decrypt the term Spirit as used by Ernest Shurtleff in the same manner that the 1611 Book of Acts (KJV) calls for decryption. I add Holy before Spirit as in neshemah, not the slur leading to Separation - ruach. Western seminaries (primarily Roman Catholic priests) are taught the rabbinic slur that the Breath of Life breathed into Adam was ruach. There are three levels of spirit expressed in the original Bible Hebrew. There is the lower form - nephesh, the breath or wind - ruach, and the spirit of God - neshemah. The Pentateuch teaches us that God breathed His own Breath neshemah into Adam. The neshmat chaim. The rabbis taught the early priests that this term was ruach. Logically this would lead to a presumption of separation - that our breath is our own and not the Image of God in us.

Underlined on the bottom right - neshmat chaim.

That changes the entire equation in the paragraph by HOLMES; who did not understand his relationship, but spoke from the Holy Spirit just the same!

[AllanNR]

Wow just wow.
They consider us all ruach no wonder they don't respect our sovereignty as neshamah.
A pure Luciferian lie in order to exact punishment on Adam's descendants. Honestly the implications of all this are gonna take me a while to process.
I've always understood Genesis related the first account of the creation of man (ruach) and the second which was the creation of Adam (neshamah).
Yahweh Elohim baruch et Haaretz