Treasury Letter from 1984

[Chex]

BLBereans. Are you wishing/hoping for something by making a demand or are you wishing/hoping that your demand will be done by the law?

Keep it simple [insert Name here] redemption on all transactions Title 12 Sec. 411.

Is Congress who has the power to define money all private credit from the FRB?

Is that what the law of this congress is telling you there is no lawful money there's only private credit?


Great than redeem my lawful money to Sec. 152. Lawful money reserve of associations issuing gold notes; receiving notes of other associations

"Every association organized under section 151 of this title shall at all times keep on hand not less than 25 per centum of its outstanding circulation, in gold or silver coin of the United States; and shall receive at par in the payment of debts the gold notes of every other such association which at the time of such payment is redeeming its circulating notes in gold coin of the United States, and shall be subject to all the provisions of title 62 of the Revised Statutes: Provided, That, in applying the same to associations organized for issuing gold notes, the terms ''lawful money'' and ''lawful money of the United States'' shall be construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States; and the circulation of such associations shall not be within the limitation of circulation mentioned in title 62 of the Revised Statutes."

Do what ever you have to do just redeem it.

Thus, is it possible that the breakdown of law and order plaguing our land originates not in the streets, as the media would have us believe, but in our public offices?


Bronson v Rodes, 74 US 229 defines lawful money:
"Lawful money of the United States could only be gold and silver coin, or that which by law is made its equivalent, so as to be exchangeable therefore at par on demand, and does not include a currency which, though nominally exchangeable for coin at its face value, is not redeemable on demand."

There are so many citations available that it seems like every citizen is required to go all the way to the Supreme Court before he or she can get a ruling in favor of gold and silver. The citizens would not have to go to this expense if they were not hoodwinked by previous administrations.

[BLBereans]

redeem = to buy back
shall = may, will; in the sense of futurity (prior to Middle English use: ought, must)

Who "will do" the "buying back"?

'wish' and 'hope' are not the same word as they are not spelled the same:

example: "A parent's wishes" is not equivalent to "A parent's hopes". The former must be recognized and the latter is one's own personal aspirations for the future.

Who is the master and who is the servant? A servant must comply with the master's wishes.

No one can interfere with my wish to demand lawful money. The redeeming of lawful money, after my wish to make demand, is up to the ones authorized and obligated to execute redemption. Who are the ones authorized and obligated under the relating law? Is it you?

[Chex]

No one can interfere with my wish to demand lawful money. The redeeming of lawful money, after my wish to make demand, is up to the ones authorized and obligated to execute redemption. Who are the ones authorized and obligated under the relating law? Is it you?

No argument there.

Redeem means "to pay back all the principal and interest on a loan, debt or a mortgage." It means to recover something after paying back any sum due.

Shall definition legal, rules and laws: indicating that something must happen or somebody is obliged to do something because of a rule or law, determination: used especially in formal speech and writing to indicate determination on the part of the speaker that something will happen or somebody will do something

Who used after a noun or pronoun to show which group of people you are talking about

Law of agency

Wish See also: conatus, demand, desire, end, intent, market, predisposition, purpose, request, volition, will

Hope verb assume, expect, feel sure, give credence to, have faith in, have no doubt, have no reservations, look forward to, place reliance in, pray for, presume, put ...

Master. An individual who hires employees or servants to perform services and who directs the manner in which such services are performed.A court officer appointed by ...

Servant. n. an employee of an employer, technically one who works for a master. A servant is distinguished from an"independent contractor" who operates his/her own ...

[David Merrill]

If one googles, "mobley m milam us asst attorney" one may find some interesting pages to view regarding MILAM's past employment. It seems that it would have been the ultimate incompetent oversight for MILAM to not mention to his attorney that Title 12 USC 152 clearly defined what "lawful money" as it relates to Title 12:

Sec. 152. Lawful money reserve of associations issuing gold notes;
receiving notes of other associations

"Every association organized under section 151 of this title shall
at all times keep on hand not less than 25 per centum of its
outstanding circulation, in gold or silver coin of the United
States; and shall receive at par in the payment of debts the gold
notes of every other such association which at the time of such
payment is redeeming its circulating notes in gold coin of the
United States, and shall be subject to all the provisions of title
62 of the Revised Statutes: Provided, That, in applying the same to
associations organized for issuing gold notes, the terms ''lawful
money'' and ''lawful money of the United States'' shall be
construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States; and the
circulation of such associations shall not be within the limitation
of circulation mentioned in title 62 of the Revised Statutes."

This may have been repealed in 1994just NOT in the context of the Title 12 citation (411)

Fascinating!

[allodial]

Perhaps some might forget the National Banking Act and the Federal Reserve Act are two separate things. Source:Laws of the United States Relating to Loans and the Currency, Coinage and Banking (1886).

[Michael Joseph]

Bronson v Rodes, 74 US 229 defines lawful money:
"Lawful money of the United States could only be gold and silver coin, or that which by law is made its equivalent, so as to be exchangeable therefore at par on demand, and does not include a currency which, though nominally exchangeable for coin at its face value, is not redeemable on demand."

What about lawful money of "The United States" or "UNITED STATES"? Its own board of directors might decide to use a certain paper currency within its corporate boundary. Craft as it were might prosper thru policy.

This would be funny if it wasn't so sad. The whole planet is run as a business. And we no longer see men and women but at the common law but rather we see employees governed by U.C.C. and policies of the corporation.

Eventually little boxes will be bought up and become big boxes. And then the board of directors of the single big box will appoint a president to rule them all.

legal tender is lawful to USE but may not be lawful money. Lawful money is always legal tender.

Shalom,
MJ

[David Merrill]

What about lawful money of "The United States" or "UNITED STATES"? Its own board of directors might decide to use a certain paper currency within its corporate boundary. Craft as it were might prosper thru policy.

This would be funny if it wasn't so sad. The whole planet is run as a business. And we no longer see men and women but at the common law but rather we see employees governed by U.C.C. and policies of the corporation.

Eventually little boxes will be bought up and become big boxes. And then the board of directors of the single big box will appoint a president to rule them all.

legal tender is lawful to USE but may not be lawful money. Lawful money is always legal tender.

Shalom,
MJ

The religion of Mammon.


The basic etymology is fear and want:


doubt
debt
death

[allodial]

...The whole planet is run as a business. And we no longer see men and women but at the common law but rather we see employees governed by U.C.C. and policies of the corporation....

Perhaps there is a "world government" that is but the combined Territorial Government of all U.N. Members? A treaty entered into by a low contracting party would only bind it territorially but not 'organically'. The sovereign members of a confederation would remain unaffected by the treaties of the confederation though those treaties might be binding upon the territories thereof--unless the sovereign members ratified such treaties. For example Agend21 and other UN Treaties to knowledge might only apply within the territories of the United States. In 'international law' parties to treaties are expected to know and be aware of the internal mechanisms of the other parties to a treaty.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

What if "the land" is the territory of the United States?

P.S. Low contracting party seems to be for some reason resonant with 'legal positivism'.

[JohnnyCash]

Perhaps some might forget the National Banking Act and the Federal Reserve Act are two separate things.

Yes, but remember federal excise tax was due on the amount of national-bank notes issued; payable by the issuer (Veazie Bank v. Fenno). And .
"They shall be issued and redeemed under the same terms and conditions as national-bank notes..." http://www.scribd.com/embeds/2047859...?start_page=23

Therefore, it follows that federal excise tax is due on the issuance of FRNs - payable by the issuer - the endorser on the backside of the paycheck. Oops!

[allodial]

Yes, but remember federal excise tax was due on the amount of national-bank notes issued; payable by the issuer (Veazie Bank v. Fenno). And .
"They shall be issued and redeemed under the same terms and conditions as national-bank notes..." http://www.scribd.com/embeds/2047859...?start_page=23

Therefore, it follows that federal excise tax is due on the issuance of FRNs - payable by the issuer - the endorser on the backside of the paycheck. Oops!

Perhaps every endorsement is perhaps a 'new issue'? Speculation: And perhaps the national bank notes are now called 'bank drafts' or cashier's checks or are simply intertwined with the FRN? And perhaps the tax has something to do with seigniorage?

P.S. Bank notes are also called 'bills of credit'.

Bills of credit may be defined to be paper issued and intended to circulate through the community for its ordinary purposes, as money redeemable at a future day. 4 Pet. U. S. R. 410; 1 Kent, Com. 407 4 Dall. R. xxiii.; Story, Const. Sec. 1362 to 1364 1 Scam. R. 87, 526.

Redeemable for what? For lawful money?

[Chex]

Perhaps there is a "world government" that is but the combined Territorial Government of all U.N. Members? A treaty entered into by a low contracting party would only bind it territorially but not 'organically'. The sovereign members of a confederation would remain unaffected by the treaties of the confederation though those treaties might be binding upon the territories thereof--unless the sovereign members ratified such treaties. For example Agend21 and other UN Treaties to knowledge might only apply within the territories of the United States. In 'international law' parties to treaties are expected to know and be aware of the internal mechanisms of the other parties to a treaty.

get the best of it here from the Dollar Tree for 1 FRN, the book is written by Dick Morris and his wife Eileen McGann United Nations and their globalist allies in the United States determined to take away our national sovereignty.

The author(s) explains that our existing democratic system is outdated and obsolete in this modern globalized world and the players

The Road to Serfdom

Wow! Some people are just devastated!

[Michael Joseph]

What about lawful money of "The United States" or "UNITED STATES"? Its own board of directors might decide to use a certain paper currency within its corporate boundary. Craft as it were might prosper thru policy.

This would be funny if it wasn't so sad. The whole planet is run as a business. And we no longer see men and women but at the common law but rather we see employees governed by U.C.C. and policies of the corporation.

Eventually little boxes will be bought up and become big boxes. And then the board of directors of the single big box will appoint a president to rule them all.

legal tender is lawful to USE but may not be lawful money. Lawful money is always legal tender.

Shalom,
MJ

Property placed into trust is a concept that was around into antiquity. For we read at Genesis 25:29-33 that Esau sold his birthright [inheritance] to Jacob. Therefore, this implies a construct for transfer of an estate thru the exchange of consideration. If the trust was made for ourselves and our posterity - then Esau traded his future interest for consideration. This exchange of "future interest" in the Estate not only bound Esau but his heirs as well.

In Adam all fall from Spiritual life into physical death - fleshly existence; in Christ we are quickened. Therefore in Adam our posterity inherit into death; but in Christ we and our children are made alive into Spirit.

Adam/Eve submitted and consented to be governed by a created being. This is analogous to accepting a man-king - one we can perceive with our five senses - death. So we see the "tree marker" - the fig - marking transfer of government - yet there was consideration for the exchange - a future benefit - whether or not it has been received - I leave to you to acknowledge.

Therefore property in its simplest form is RIGHTS. But one must ask - who established those rights? This will lead you to ORIGINS - and you must each stand at the point of Singularity - and determine for yourself - are you created. If you are created then your only possible claim is in the Creator - whereupon said claim is subject to the terms of use established by the Creator. Now then, the only aspect of property that can be exchanged is the FRUITS of the property. For the property belongs to the Creator, but the fruits belong to man.

Jesus understood this principle explicitly - give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's but give unto God what is God's. This goes to rendering fruits. Which is to say the nature of the Estate in Property. Land is property - Corn is fruit.

Therefore we see "Do not muzzle the mouth of the oxen that treadeth out the corn".

Take off the citizen hat and put on the hat of a king and you will see. A trust reposed - is to place all rights inherit in man into a throne. The throne may be setup upon posterity or bloodlines. Therefore we see Adam holding Eve in trust. The two are one. These two form a kingdom. But these two submitted themselves to another. So they no longer had Christ at their head.

There is nothing new under the sun. Many run to and fro and setup this and that - absent asking the King of kings - thru the Administration of the Kingdom of Heaven - is this the will of The King? Meaning the claim is vassal to the Creator. Is man's claim the will of The King or the lusts of greed?

We sell ourselves everyday - Esau Company. Therefore that which we hate rules us. Therefore, the problem is internal but will naturally reveal itself in society - therefore one will eventually stand and rule the all.

The banker naturally desires the first of the fruits as well - fees. But do the sons pay for the sins of their fathers? Not so. Therefore we can overturn all of this in an instance. For one pays tribute to the kingdom in which one undertakes within. One in limited liability will naturally pay tribute [fruit] to the Husbandmen [Ceasar].


The Earth belongs to the Creator - overlays [venue] is established by man and man's inventions. Is the Kingdom created by man subject to the Administration of the Holy Spirit or the greed of man?

Shalom,
MJ

[Michael Joseph]

The legal title might be in one party or group but the use might be in another party or group. So we can see it is convenient to have a Corporation Sole holding Title as Trustee on behalf of another group - a Church - which acts upon the Use. It is not therefore difficult to see a State holding the Legal Title and the beneficiaries enjoying the USE.

Therefore the USE can be in a Church and the Ownership in the State.

Shalom,
MJ

[allodial]

...in the United States determined to take away our national sovereignty.

I don't suspect the United States (singularity) was ever a sovereign nation in the organic sense--it seems to most always have been the creature of sovereign states. If we go back to the Articles of Association, the United States was a creature of colonies. Consider the case for hen's teeth. Many defending it and seeking to protect but it doesn't exist in the first place. The confederacy named "The United States of America" itself was sovereign only relative to the territory afforded her by the sovereignties which comprised her. The United States's sovereignty was never in respect of its creators but only with respect to that over which it was is sovereign. While the United States might have relative sovereignty with respect to its territories, possessions or districts--it has never had more and can lose no more than it has any more than your neighbor can lose your shoes that he doesn't have. The 50 States of the United States are subdivisions of the United States like counties are to a state. The district courts are akin to state circuit courts.

The sovereignty the United States has with respect to its territories/districts/possessions is the only sovereignty that it ever had. The District of Columbia is a territory for all practical purposes which is why Congress has plenary power over it.

During Shay's Rebellion, Geo. Washington sent troops into the district of Pennsylvania. He did not send them into de jure and organic Pennsylvania land.

[Chex]

The sovereignty the United States has with respect to its territories/districts/possessions is the only sovereignty that it ever had. The District of Columbia is a territory for all practical purposes which is why Congress has plenary power over it.

Plenary power - Interesting