Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 63

Thread: Make Demand At Treasury

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Alan View Post
    I noticed that the suitor's supporting schedule reserved the right to make another demand nunc pro tunc to an earlier date.

    Why is this in the mind of the suitor, if his documentation only reaches the last three months of 2011?
    That probably stems from a notion one might get all their taxes back because of a social fraud by omission. Bottom line though is that if David Merrill can find it (remedy), anybody can.


    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Alan View Post
    Yes! I am very happy to have learned the difference, and agree the effect is profound. I have new insights every day regarding its meaning, and feel empowered by it.
    That makes my day!

  2. #22
    Each individual transaction that uses FRNs generates more debt BECAUSE each one is a PROMISE to pay, an IOU-based transaction because it is based on liability (PROMISE) instruments. Each one of these needed to be backed-out by a corresponding REDUCTION entry!!! AWESOME!!!

    One is actually helping to PAY debts and thereby reduce the national debt. One is helping correct the mistake THEY made by PRESUMING that FRNs were being used in such transactions. These must include all withholding-based transactions as well, since both the debt and the reduction is TRANSACTION-BASED! THIS IS S KEY CONCEPT THAT MUST BE UNDERSTOOD! Each transaction that assumes FRN usage must be backed-out (reversed) to settle the national debt.

    One could easily prove each FRN transaction increases the national debt by auditing any check deposits at any bank and see if these funds are included in the reserve required for fractional reserve lending. One can see the multiplier effect in the diagram at that website, and also see why bank employees get fired for not respecting demands for lawful money, because all of the multiplier "ripples" of mistakenly-created and un-bonded debt that has to be backed-out/reversed!

    By following FRCP 803(6) rule of hearsay exceptions, one is making a substantive record on documents used in the normal course of business. By writing "lawful money is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411" on all commercial instruments (deposit slips, checks, etc), one enables the equitable title transfer of the credit (labor) held by the the United States Treasury via the Federal Reserve Banks since the April 5, 1933 Executive Order 6102 of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, which transfer then enables the Trustee to setoff the national debt to that extent.

    This reduction therefore, in effect if not in essence, constitutes FOR-GIVENESS of the national debt. It is applying the prepaid labor credit of the people loaned to the corporations that enabled them to pro-duce goods and services for the people.

    The Beneficiaries have NOT been doing their duty of authorizing the application of lawful money to PAY debts, by demanding lawful for all transactions. Using FRNs is only a PROMISE to pay, and each such PROMISE is fractionalized, as well as each derivative transaction from the prime transaction which mainly is one's GROSS PAY-check.
    Last edited by doug555; 05-08-13 at 12:15 AM.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by doug555 View Post
    This reduction therefore, in effect if not in essence, constitutes FOR-GIVENESS of the national debt. It is applying the prepaid labor credit of he people loaned to the corporations that enabled them to pro-duce goods and services for the people.

    The Beneficiaries have NOT been doing their duty of authorizing the application of lawful money to PAY debts, by demanding lawful for all transactions. Using FRNs is only a PROMISE to pay, and each such PROMISE is fractionalized, as well as each derivative transaction from the prime transaction which mainly is one's GROSS PAY-check.
    Doug555, I had not thought of it that way. Thank you for pointing out that a person is actually forgiving the debt when he makes his demand. This is a new concept for me, so I will think about what it means to me. The idea of paying down the debt was one of my motivations for considering making demand at Treasury.

    But now I'm seeing that, instead of paying it down (as a surety for the state) a person can actually forgive the debt!

  4. #24
    Before you get too far along with your concept of reducing the (Federal Reserve) debt, let's look at how the banking system views your transaction. Suppose your employer (?) sends you a paycheck (actually sends a computer file from payroll to the bank, instructing them to credit your account). The "money" exists only as a computer balance in the employer's bank account. Since you noticed the bank that you want to redeem lawful money, the bank must credit your account with LM, ie, it must not add your new balance to their 'reserve balance' which they report weekly to the FR, and upon which they can advance fractional reserve lending to others. Your balance exists as LM, but there are no actual dollars involved. Now suppose you buy a car, pay the dealership $30k in LM; your LM balance is reduced by $30k. The dealership deposits your check in their Federal Reserve account, having endorsed the credit. Presto! the LM is now back to being 'fiat money,' now endorsed by the dealership. No new debt was accepted by you, so the FR debt was not reduced, it was just not enlarged by your non-endorsement. But as soon as you circulate (spend) your LM, it goes right back to being legal tender, and now can be used to increase fractional reserve lending (thus increasing the debt). If everyone would demand lawful money, the bank's fractional reserve lending balance would be driven to zero, and they could not increase the debt by creating more unbacked fiduciary media, but as long as the total users of LM remain trivial, there is no effect on the national (Federal Reserve) debt. Note also that the FR is creating over $1 trillion in new unbacked fiduciary media this year, by their program of buying $40 billion per month of bad MBS (Mortgage Backed Securities) paper from the banks and from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and $45 billion per month of new Treasury bonds (interest bearing debt notes). [see this link: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...improves.html] The 'money' the Fed creates when it buys the newly-issued Treasury bonds is actually just computer entries in the government accounts at various FR banks; these 'credits' are then transferred to SNAP cards, SS checks, and other government giveaway programs, and shows up as credits in those voter's bank accounts, thus increasing the reserve balance at those banks, thus allowing more creation of unbacked fiduciary media by those banks.

    So the effect of demanding lawful money on reducing the national debt is trivial. The more important feature is the concept of removing your assets from admiralty to common law, and taking it outside the purview of Title 26, thus avoiding the irrecusable obligation to pay income taxes on the excised privilege of dealing in FR credit (which is an admission that you are bankrupt, and are not discharging the debt, merely promising to pay at some future date). By using LM, you are actually discharging your debt, paying in sound money, backed by silver (which has intrinsic value) not tendering elastic currency debt notes, which are promises to pay, not backed by anything but your future labor.

  5. #25
    I hear the buzz is that nearly half of the IRS agents are going into retirement.

  6. #26
    So the effect of demanding lawful money on reducing the national debt is trivial. The more important feature is the concept of removing your assets from admiralty to common law, and taking it outside the purview of Title 26, thus avoiding the irrecusable obligation to pay income taxes on the excised privilege of dealing in FR credit (which is an admission that you are bankrupt, and are not discharging the debt, merely promising to pay at some future date). By using LM, you are actually discharging your debt, paying in sound money, backed by silver (which has intrinsic value) not tendering elastic currency debt notes, which are promises to pay, not backed by anything but your future labor.
    How can LM - the way it currently manifests - be backed by silver? And how is LM not fractionalized, seeing that it is the resulting trust created by demanding redemption of fractionalized FRNs?
    Last edited by Keith Alan; 04-10-13 at 02:16 PM.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    I hear the buzz is that nearly half of the IRS agents are going into retirement.
    Well that's interesting. I wonder if it has anything to do with IRS hiring more agents as per the Affordable Care Act?

  8. #28

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by doug555 View Post
    By following FRCP 803(6) rule of hearsay exceptions, one is making a substantive record on documents used in the normal course of business. By writing "lawful money is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411" on all commercial instruments (deposit slips, checks, etc), one enables the equitable title transfer of the credit (labor) held by the the United States Treasury via the Federal Reserve Banks since the April 5, 1933 Executive Order 6102 of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, which transfer then enables the Trustee to setoff the national debt to that extent.

    This reduction therefore, in effect if not in essence, constitutes FOR-GIVENESS of the national debt. It is applying the prepaid labor credit of the people loaned to the corporations that enabled them to pro-duce goods and services for the people.

    The Beneficiaries have NOT been doing their duty of authorizing the application of lawful money to PAY debts, by demanding lawful for all transactions. Using FRNs is only a PROMISE to pay, and each such PROMISE is fractionalized, as well as each derivative transaction from the prime transaction which mainly is one's GROSS PAY-check.
    Wonderful contribution - thank you! I had not thought about checking for the law curing 30 days after the Bankers' Holiday. I think the Note in my Public Papers and Addresses book might help shed light. Image attached.

    You also bring to light why this Schedule was refunded in full. - GROSS Paycheck.


    Attached Images Attached Images

  10. #30

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •