If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. If you would like to post in these forums please send a PM directly to David Merrill.
All transactions on PayPal and elsewhere are demanded to be redeemed in lawful money as found in Section 16 of the Fed Act and at Title 12 USC 411.
Thank you so much for enjoying StSC! If you are getting popups please try clearing your browser cache.
Now I do not want to unwind the trust, but rather begin using it skillfully in commerce.
A new suitor quickly learns his or her true name. This seems like silliness or even idiocy to any attorney reading here. And it has very little effect on the surface. The effect is however profound.
True Name gains the choice of being the trustee for the Legal or Full Name. First Middle Last becomes the name of the FIRST MIDDLE LAST trust that is available for First Middle to use.
I've been reluctant to make demands on checks, because I don't see what is in it for the banks. After seeing the supporting schedule referenced above, I now understand the motivation for keeping a good record, but still question why it's necessary. 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?
Last edited by Keith Alan; 04-08-13, 02:05 PM.
Reason: Corrected a factual error
A new suitor quickly learns his or her true name. This seems like silliness or even idiocy to any attorney reading here. And it has very little effect on the surface. The effect is however profound.
True Name gains the choice of being the trustee for the Legal or Full Name. First Middle Last becomes the name of the FIRST MIDDLE LAST trust that is available for First Middle to use.
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.
It actually sparked yet another thought: the difference between lawful money and legal tender. It appears to me that lawful money is money held under the common law, whereas legal tender is in admiralty.
Only problem is that much of lawful money is fiat currency i.e. demand notes, greenbacks, etc.
The key difference I have seen concerning lawful money vs legal tender is who the issuer is.
The U.S. Treasury issues lawful money. The Federal Reserve issues legal tender.
By the above, US Treasury Notes and Bonds would be considered lawful money.
Interestingly enough US Treasury Notes and Bonds are, in part, reserve currency for the issuance of FRNs.
Only problem is that much of lawful money is fiat currency i.e. demand notes, greenbacks, etc.
The key difference I have seen concerning lawful money vs legal tender is who the issuer is.
The U.S. Treasury issues lawful money. The Federal Reserve issues legal tender.
By the above, US Treasury Notes and Bonds would be considered lawful money.
Interestingly enough US Treasury Notes and Bonds are, in part, reserve currency for the issuance of FRNs.
Well, aren't we saying the very same thing? Treasury and Congress are not authorized to issue private equity currency, which is why (I think) the Federal Reserve was created/authorized. I don't think the issue of fiat currency matters as long as - like you say - the issuer complies with its jurisdictional authority. What matters is under which jurisdiction the currency is operating. Upon being redeemed, the same physical (including digital) currency becomes lawful money, not legal tender.
What started me along this way of thinking was, demanding lawful money results in the currency being removed from admiralty (where it's subject to siezure) and coming into common law (where it is not) as per the saving to suitors clause. After all, there is no physical alternative to what appear to be FRNs. But as we all know, the right side of the note belongs to Treasury. Also, there exists a potential that all FRNs in existence could be redeemed, resulting in $ trillions of lawful money in circulation, all fiat.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
Tweet
Comment