Redeeming Lawful Money on Daily Paul

[David Merrill]

HJR-192 was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Perry v. U.S. (1935).

The real substance of the confiscation of gold was was the power of condemnation/eminent domain.

That is very interesting but you need to supply more dots for me to connect?

[allodial]

[**wrong thread**]

[Chex]

I think David shikamaru is trying to take you here: http://www.reformation.org/roosevelt...ates_gold.html

Page 92 @ http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CON...-1992-10-6.pdf

Taxation.—In laying taxes, the Federal Government is less narrowly restricted by the Fifth Amendment than are the States by the Fourteenth. The Federal Government may tax property belonging to its citizens, even if such property is never situated within the jurisdiction of the United States, 100 and it may tax the income of a citizen resident abroad, which is derived from property located at his residence. 101

The difference is explained by the fact that protection of the Federal Government follows the citizen wherever he goes, whereas the benefits of state government accrue only to persons and property within the State’s borders. The Supreme Court has said that, in the absence of an equal protection clause, ‘‘a claim of unreasonable classification or inequality in the incidence or application of a tax raises no question under the Fifth Amendment.

The government paid the "official" price of $20.67 per ounce in 1933. What would a "just" price be for "numismatic" gold coins? To administrate the grading and pricing of each individual coin would present a monumental task. Since the purpose of the recall was to force the citizens back into the banking system it made no sense to worry about "a pimple on the elephant." Most of the gold was now in the hands of the government. They had increased their holdings from $4 billion to $7 billion and laid off "paper money" on the citizens in exchange.

This was a sad day for freedom in America. Whatever happened to the laws laid down by our founding fathers? As they stated in the Constitution of the United States of America, Art 1 sec. 8 and 10, "The Congress shall have the power...to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures... No states shall make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payments of debts."

"You're the target because you're where the money is."

By stripping our money of a gold backing we created the seeds of inflation. The government was free to create money at will without discipline. Politicians quickly learned how to "buy votes" with borrowed money - called deficit spending these days. The unavoidable result was massive government debt. We are now facing a debt crisis, one you could argue was caused ultimately by the confiscation of gold. And it is aimed at us!

[shikamaru]

That is very interesting but you need to supply more dots for me to connect?

Read the case above I presented, then read this:

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...eminent+domain

HJR-192 is "watch the birdie" while we do our real stuff over here.

More dots ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Clause_Cases
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...ull=1#post5827

[David Merrill]

The people filled the bill for what was under charter "state banks".

Since the purpose of the recall was to force the citizens back into the banking system...

This endorsement of salary checks was (and still is) voluntary but the relenquishing of the gold was not. Lately on the brain trust we are examining that question - where is Our Gold?

...What I am getting at upon the scriptural premise below is that the gold is held in trust for only as long as the trustees are in honor – abiding in state law. When they violate the state law, the law of resulting trusts abounds. I accepted the position of Trustee for the State of Colorado when the Secretary of State violated trust with a man on the Colorado Republic – and that is what accomplished (after three attempts and rejections) publication of my $20M lien. Some of you may remember how the SoS sent Articles of Incorporation for Donald DREW’s corporation with my second or third rejection to publish? I sent it on to the Republic completing what the Secretary was obligated to do, formally accepting the position of Trustee for the resulting public trust. Read it for yourself. Here is how I sent that last page of the Lien. I am the trustee because of these various conflicts of interest evolving around the Bar. The original Thirteenth Amendment attached to all our Libels of Review express how on the not-quite Territory of Colorado the Titles of Nobility are forbidden in de jure government. So we find the incompetent defaulting into admiralty and municipal home rule of non-organized METRO organization…

Well I have that handled too through my perpetual inheritance (Section VI):

[David Merrill]

P.S. A response read like this:

DM wrote:

but more that you might understand our role as the brain trust in taking a rightful position globally of Trustee for the Resulting Public Trust. – Even above the United Nations combinatorial mathematics and non-organizations of major creditors like the Club of Paris; even above fraternal societies like the Masons, Skull and Bones and the Club of Rome.

I believe I'm beginning to see your point here David.


I don't know how this will play out in the reality show that is life on earth, but I can see how it may possibly fit into the plan of R4Cing the mark of the beast, when the time comes.


For the new suitors who may not know where I'm coming from with this, but would like to know, read this to see what I mean by R4C the mark of the beast.

I wish to amplify my historicism - rather than the stated futurism, "when the time comes". That is to say the prophecies of Daniel, like all true prophecy manifest in an initial fulfilment, an ongoing fulfilment and may manifest yet (futurism) in a final fulfilment. Therefore there may be a Great Tribulation, time will tell. For me then the Book of Revelation explains how God will behave in response to our communication and creation (including "miscreations" from fear-based thought). He (God) has always been like this, behaving like this and responding like this. This is an examination of God's law. The point being applied here that one best learn non-endorsement and refusal for cause (complete with record-forming) now, rather than when it hits the fan. Applied then I would say that God is calling people out of mammon represented by a municipal (City of Babylon) world-wide harlot.

Elsewhere I have pointed out the research of Dr. Dale LIVINGSTON, Esquire who clarifies the faulty nature of George WASHINGTON's inauguration (including the faulty ratification with only Alexander HAMILTON signing for New York) on the steps of the Mason Lodge by his ancestor Robert LIVINGSTON, chief justice of NY and current Grand Master of the Lodge.


My point under discussion with the brain trust is that the only legal condition would be that the gold is being held in trust by government. Now it appears that government has gone municipal - or maybe a better mental model is democracy operating on a republic - and in doing so that government has breached trust. An example is to ask yourself about only hours after my $20M lien was published as linked above the judiciary here in the not-quite territorial capital of the war chest (gold in Auraria and Central City - 59'ers) converted to bogus oaths, across the board. Examine the local District Attorney - see how it is complete with an admission that he deviates from the IN GOD WE TRUST trust on the money by avoiding the SO HELP ME GOD trust required by statute on the Oaths of Office by including the $5K Traveler's Insurance policy on his oath? The de jure trusts (oaths) I mention here (until my lien was published) bond with the state treasury - like a couple days before with my $20M lien based on proper oaths conforming to statute.

I am sure that most or all constitutions, like the Colorado constitution guarantee a republican form of government so this move toward global municipality (METRO) is fraud and breach of trust. Therefore the opportunity to be the trustee for the Resulting Trust presented itself and I took it. This is ongoing and if you are competent (suitors for example) then you may participate as you wrap your minds around it - you become trustee of the original estate too. The Secretary sent the correspondence to me with the second rejection of publishing my lien. Look at why the Secretary was reluctant to communicate directly - the Notice on Page 2:

[David Merrill]

P.P.S.

In a quick summary, this collection in a Treasury vault on the SE Corner of the Golden Rectangle (capitol survey - territorial capital is bristling with military might to protect the utilitarian capitol in Littleton, the Federal Center) is or represents that metal from the 49'ers diverted into a War Chest for use in fiat, and subsequently elastic currency.




I have attached some other images from the Money of the Civil War exhibit:

[Chex]

see how it is complete with an admission that he deviates from the IN GOD WE TRUST trust on the money by avoiding the SO HELP ME GOD trust required by statute on the Oaths of Office

I am sure that most or all constitutions, like the Colorado constitution guarantee a republican form of government so this move toward global municipality (METRO) is fraud and breach of trust.

I agree.

Background: from http://www.academicamerican.com/revo...rthwestord.htm

During the American Revolution the Americans resolved not to treat their territories as colonies. Following the war Congress sold millions of acres of land to large companies, but those companies had trouble attracting settlers. Congress therefore realized that some form of control was necessary in the territories that were not yet states.

Some historians have claimed that the principles established in the Northwest Ordinance are so important that they actually form part of the Constitution. The reason is that the Northwest Ordinance promised a republican form of government for inhabitants of those territories.

"It guaranteed that residents in the territories of the United States would not be treated as second class citizens, and that when they were eventually admitted as states, they would enter under the same terms as those states that were already part of the union."

The principle behind the Northwest Ordinance was carried into the Constitution in Article IV, Section 4, which states:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”

Provisions for Admission to Statehood for New Territories was, aside from winning the war, the greatest achievement of the Confederation. Gradually all western lands were ceded to government and quickly became states. The Indian inhabitants were unfortunately forced to move farther westward.

There is a Lawsuit Attacks Republican Form of Government: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012...of-government/

Robb Ryder touched upon the Northwest Ordinance. http://robcourtofrecord.wordpress.co...t+Ordinance%27

And in the end most of the the preambles to the current constitution are in God and to a Republican Form of Government: http://www.usconstitution.net/states_god.html

I saw that money before:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGziX...are_video_user

[allodial]

Perhaps this is like unto David Merrill's notion of breech of trust and resulting trust. Imagine being on a cruise ship and the entire crew is extremely drunk, fallen ill or stricken with debilitating sickness--the same with those who are on just for the ride. The ship is headed for a big, big, big rock. Only a handful of you are sober or competent enough to take any action. What do you do? What do you do? What *can* you do? Maybe the crew and others might shout and demand: "Get drunk like us!" "Get sick like us!" Is it a question of what do you do when the rock hits the fan or what do you do Right now whether its to redirect the ship or to save yourselves?!

One issue with oaths of office is it seems that most everyone should be verifying all government officers as to whether they have an oath of office on file. If there is any official in a given forum required to see to it that offices are held only in respect to a valid oath of office, that official could be put on the hot seat for allowing any office to be 'held' without the oath OR their superior could simply be held accountable for the misdeeds of any person lacking a proper oath of office. It seems that any city clerk or county clerk would have the responsibility of seeing to it that an office is not held without a valid oath of office being taken and held by the holder. The question begs: who is allowing persons to hold office conformity to relative laws?

[itsmymoney]

I am rethinking the Signature Card from the bank. It seems to me that the OCC has sent out a memorandum, but not publicly. If so publicly I might have missed it. But the banks are starting to refuse the novation to the Signature contract. No problem. That is easy to get around if the banks are refusing across the board. Serve the nearest Fed bank. Then serve that Proof of Service on your bank and forget about the Signature Card. Keep non-endorsing your paychecks when you can but your demand is already properly done.

As I live this vicariously through suitors I believe the big part is not the doumentation at the bank, it is keeping a record of your demand. It would seem with electronic deposit anymore that a Notice and Demand is best made directly to the nearest Fed Bank and that proof of service published in the USDC (hopefully you can get a $46 Miscellaneous Case opened; we are working on that) and then you simply serve that on your bank and forget about the Signature Card if you like one of the banks that does not like non-endorsement. They are served and your demand is clear. You have done your part.

David, a composite of your comments above.

Some thoughts here if the bank refuses your novation and a strike-thru of W-9 verbiage (declaring 'U.S. person or U.S. citizen), relative to presenting your FRB lawful-money demand letter/proof-of-service:

If your lawful money demand is consistently executed and your record-keeping is pristine in that regard, would you think there is still any conflict with signing to that W-9 verbiage i.e. 'U.S person/citizen'?

As you have mentioned on many occasions the remedy necessary as written in law, I would think your demand and proper execution of that demand would supercede signing to that 'U.S. person/citizen' declaration (under duress no less).

Would like your thoughts (and others) relative to this example. I'm embarking on a new account and trying to cover my tracks and know the law.