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
Originally Posted by AllanNR
So you have arrived at the Tree of Life, guarded by an angel with a flaming sword.
http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/const/art11.html
Found number 7 and number 9 most interesting.
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.
Section 9. No bank shall receive, directly or indirectly, a greater rate of interest than shall be allowed, by law, to individuals loaning money.
What I found interesting about 9 is the phrase "to individuals". This implies the individual as the one loaning the money, and the bank collecting interest on said money. Obviously, the goal here with non-endorsement is to NOT allow them to fractionally lend on your money. I'm still digging, in the appendix of Miracle on Main street, I have found a few other interesting things.
1. Lawful money used to be defined in 12 U.S.C. 152, but was repealed in 1994 (The terms 'lawful money' and "lawful money of the United States' shall be construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States). As well
2. The attorney general from the state as defined in statute cannot render legal opinions to private parties. The question is, what party can they offer opinions too? What is lawful money as defined by this state? I actually know 2 judges...
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/incode/22/2/5/22-2-5-1
Seems every payment to any employee In Indiana needs to be in lawful money in the account of the United States.
(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.
Do you receive lawful money from your employer?
Also...look at B, again, what if you dont endorse?
Lending deposited money
Sec. 4. (a) A savings bank may do the following:
(1) Lend the money deposited in the savings bank upon:
(A) individual credit;
(B) the security of comakers or personal endorsement;
(C) the mortgage or pledge of personal property, either tangible or intangible; or
(D) the pledge of choses in action.
(2) Discount, purchase, or otherwise acquire retail installment sales contracts, notes, bills of exchange, or acceptance or other choses in action.
(b) The savings bank may contract for and receive on loans and discounts described in this subsection the highest rate of interest allowed by Indiana law to be contracted for and received by individuals.
Last edited by mikecz; 02-17-13 at 08:40 PM.
If you are good with legislative history please see what you can find about Title 31 USC §371:
Apply for an (Order for an) opinion with a $46 Miscellaneous Case file.
Last edited by David Merrill; 02-17-13 at 10:30 PM.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tips_a.../message/17135
" To stop the use of the POMC Congress voided 31 USC 371 and had the states prosecute those that used the POMC improperly. I never did discontinue using the POMC because we have a statute in Louisiana that is identical to 31 USC 371. I have found that most states have a similar statute. To avoid any retaliation the Louisiana Public Office Money Certificate was modified to say: “void where prohibited by law.” Of course there is no law prohibiting the use of the POMC. Using the POMC is the most fun of all patriot issues. All it is saying is:”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. "
So thats the thing, 31 USC 371 had to do with keeping money in the account of the US. That was banned, I think because of Saussy's efforts. But as this suitor explains, most states have identical sections in their constitutions. In Louisiana, theirs read...
"R.S. 1§53. Money accounts in dollars and cents
The money accounts of this state shall be expressed in dollars or units, cents or hundredths, and mills or thousandths; and all accounts in banks and public offices, and all proceedings in the courts of this state, shall be kept in conformity herewith. "
In Indiana, ours states I believe more clearly dealing with actual payments made...
"(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."
It's almost a presumption of lawful money. Much the opposite of what we assume. I think that is why an endorsement is required. Anyway, as I read this code, I believe the POMC would also be applicable here in Indiana as with Louisiana. We have a very similar if not more specific code. I have to admit, I was a little blown away when I read this, I'm thinking every freaking paycheck given out MUST BE BY LAW in the form of LAWFUL MONEY. Obviously lazy politicians haven't updated the code (maybe they aren't as tactful as the Feds).
Ok, so this is what I need help with. If I give a POMC to someone and they accept iut, I assuming it basically states 1. They have accepted that the debt is discharged and the burden of proof is now on their shoulders. 2. They then need to define lawful money, and present the POMC back to the payor (me) with the definition for redemption of said lawful money. 3. We all know we can't pay in gold and silver, therefore the service is discharged without actual payment. Crazy right?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote