Redemption of Lawful Money at US Bank

[Lawful]

Great post!
Thanks

[David Merrill]

Great post!
Thanks

I have noted it is important to remember the 1984 context of that article.

[Chex]

Sorry OT don’t mean to change this subject on you: you can always get back to it.

You correct David, it’s all changed from 1984.

Now here is something a little bit more up to speed.

Kind of has reference to the lawful money we all want in exchange for FRN’s.

All the hype about National Defense Authorization Act:
http://www.digitalprecursor.org/entr...a-Battleground

Most people are quoted saying:

All the relief is what most people think is the answer: need to read 1031 first.
Meaning: of this quoted passage is – ”they can but are not required to detain us citizens”

From another blog or any other blog:

First, read Section 1031 subparagraph (b) Covered Persons. If you meet that definition than you should be worried.

Next, read Section 1031 subparagraph (e) Authorities. It's very clear that this section relating to the detention of US citizens does not "affect existing law or authorities". Let me explain that to you. That means that your rights under the law as a US citizen can not be circumvented by this section.

Last, read Section 1032 Requirement For Military Custody subparagraph (b) (1) United States Citizens - "The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."

Now read The Fourteenth Amendment: (maybe Wikipedia). They didn’t write this for “that blacks could not be citizens of the United States” it’s a contract that they (blacks) also pay the “use” of private credit.

If they do pass this bill onto the 14th “person” my question is what or whose identification are the “residents” need to carry now?
I don’t think the state id is going to be enough.

Here’s the bill:
The bill http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:s.01867:

Let’s dig a little deeper on the Amendments For S.1867

The Cosponsors: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...2:SP01126:@@@P

Number 62: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...emp/~bdaYdRJ:1[1-381](Amendments_For_S.1867)&./temp/~bdPe5G

TEXT OF AMENDMENTS:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...W3YQF:e499778:

SEC. 1099. ATTEMPT TO EVADE OR DEFEAT TAX.

SEC. 1099. ATTEMPT TO EVADE OR DEFEAT TAX.
Section 7201 of the Internal Revenue Code is amended--
(1) by striking ``$100,000'' and inserting ``$500,000''; and
(2) by striking ``$500,000'' and inserting ``$2,500,000''.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...W3YQF:e499778:

Thank you Dianne "public"

If you "look" Low and behold you find there are more “rules” that are ready to be implemented for you're 14th amendment “person”:

Better have those 1040’s in proper order for that 1040 statue.

Sure: All the relief is what most people think is the answer “us citizens.”

[freedave]

I would like to point out that I have not received a response to my last post, especially the following:

I don't see any of my FRN bills labeled "US Treasury note." I think what I need to find out is what are the necessary elements that legally make something a note.

When I take a check to a bank and sign it in order to cash it, I thought I was signing to transfer payment to my account, not to guarantee the check. How does signing the check on the back obligate me to anything except to pay a bounced check fee if it bounces?

Obligation:
2 : an inscription (as a signature or notation) on a document or instrument
esp
: an inscription usu. on the back of a negotiable instrument that transfers or guarantees the instrument

[freedave]

Since this remedy seems to be something which could bring down the Fed and the IRS, I wonder why there is not more care taken to explain it to someone who could potentially spread it broadly...