Remedy - lawful money solution

[David Merrill]

Depending on character and experience it might be beneficial to handle coins for a bit; as a training tool. This 1984 Article is oriented around coins being lawful money. Mentally substitute in US notes in the form of Federal Reserve notes and then you will be functional...

But that is just the start of the journey!

[doug555]

Depending on character and experience it might be beneficial to handle coins for a bit; as a training tool. This 1984 Article is oriented around coins being lawful money. Mentally substitute in US notes in the form of Federal Reserve notes and then you will be functional...

But that is just the start of the journey!

Yes, exactly... It is your mental choice which seal on the FRNs is controlling for your transactions.

[Michael Joseph]

Yes, exactly... It is your mental choice which seal on the FRNs is controlling for your transactions.

You know it is not called Left-teous; rather Right-teous. The body is ONE in Trust. Therefore the laity demands lawful money so that the Trustees might perform as per their oath and office. Nevertheless 12USC95a2 is also in effect. A charity.

It is only those who claim against the Will that have the problems. These by their own deed as Maker create their own liability. Perhaps that is too deep for this simple subject and that is JUST MAKE YOUR DEMAND - Keep it simple. A copy of the check is plenty of evidence to support your non-endorsement of a 3rd party.

I myself keep it simple the Code says by demand therefore I have a stamp which says : "Demand is made for Lawful Money per 12 U.S.C. 411 by:"

I guess I am a simple man. Notice the Present Tense. I am making a judgment for all law is in the future - Judgment brings it into the present tense. Therefore DEMAND IS MADE. Is all time PRESENT. Keep it simple. The administration over the Use may want to make demand upon the trustee for an accounting [return] - therefore in good faith - I must prove my Right-teousness. And this is only fair and just. Else a presumption arises in liability that must be cured by its Maker.

If you are not tracking - the Maker of the liability would be the one who endorsed the FRS. Thus the obligation of benefit [banking] and its liabilities fall upon the shoulders of the Maker of that liability - he who places a "naked endorsement" on back of check absent claim for lawful money.

I mean think about it, how are you going to hold the officials to an oath when you yourself give them permission to treat you as a customer? Why would they need an oath if you yourself are undermining the Trust - taking against the Will?

[allodial]

AFAIK The rightmost seal is likely the 'highest' underwriter. On the dollar bill, technically its the U.S. Great Seal (working your way from front to back).



The dollar bill was designed that way in 1935. The FR system is underwritten by the other three seals. This perspective is per heraldry and plain ol' bill endorsement analysis. All of the other bills might have the White House or the US Capital Building on the back. Perhaps the FRN is on the front and the US Note is on the back? Could the pyramid represent the territorial governmental system and the Great seal represent the organic Federal government established under the Articles of Confederation?

[NONOFED]

AFAIK The rightmost seal is likely the 'highest' underwriter. On the dollar bill, technically its the U.S. Great Seal (working your way from front to back).

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2269[/ATTACH]

The dollar bill was designed that way in 1935. The FR system is underwritten by the other three seals. This perspective is per heraldry and plain ol' bill endorsement analysis. All of the other bills might have the White House or the US Capital Building on the back. Perhaps the FRN is on the front and the US Note is on the back? Could the pyramid represent the territorial governmental system and the Great seal represent the organic Federal government established under the Articles of Confederation?

Im under the impression that the pyramid has to do with the NWO which is the FED is associated with.

[NONOFED]

I would like to thank itsmymoney, Michael Joseph, ag maniac, JohnnyCash, doug555, David Merrill, and allodial for the information and support that you have provided.

[Michael Joseph]

Im under the impression that the pyramid has to do with the NWO which is the FED is associated with.

Look carefully at the seal to the left. I see Genesis Chapter 1. There were five foolish and five wise virgins - / +.

[allodial]

Im under the impression that the pyramid has to do with the NWO which is the FED is associated with.

As for "New" World Order...nothing new about ziggurats or step pyramids.

[Chex]

Look carefully at the seal to the left. I see Genesis Chapter 1. There were five foolish and five wise virgins - / +.

And Matthew 25:2

1. This high quality documentary proves the following points about the two Seals on the back of the One Dollar Bill with clarity and precision:
2. Symbolism on the One Dollar Bill
3. "ANNUIT COEPTIS," meaning "He (God) favors our undertaking."
4. Symbols on the Dollar Bill and the Secret Beliefs of America's Founding Fathers

[NONOFED]

----------

[NONOFED]

For clarification, please respond.

Can someone take a check to its bank of issue and actually get coins?

For instance, a $1000 check be redeemed in coin. Are they obligated to pay it in coin if that is what is demanded?

After further research there seems to be no restrictions on acquiring large quantities of coin. Also I cashed check at drawers bank, and was paid in coin. Using coin in daily purchases now. Am converting all FRN to coin.

[itsmymoney]

NONOFED,

Why did you delete your #25 post today at 9:31 am? If anyone does not remember, NONOFED basically stated (NONOFED, correct me if I'm wrong) that if FRN's are also considered "lawful money", then how does the IRS/Fed know that we are demanding NON-Federal-Reserve "lawful money"? In other words, demanding our pay be redeemed by U.S. Treasury's funds outside any private credit being extended by the Fed either to the Treasury or to the suitors making the demand.

Here is an interesting notation about lawful money from the FRS website. Most of us know that the true definition of "lawful money" means the U.S Note/coinage variety, i.e. NON-FRN's. This website appears to stretch the true definition of "lawful money", and other than Milam, I don't know what other court cases state that FRN's are "lawful money" as such (meaning, NOT the true definition that we the suitors know it to be)... http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_15197.htm

My point is: Why are 'we' not being more explicit in our demand? For example, perhaps something like the following...

"Lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions explicitly with the U.S. Treasury, per 12 USC 411 and 95a(2)". Or the simpler...
"Demand in lawful money explicitly with the U.S. Treasury per 12 USC 411".

D555 (and others) have stated that we should not leave anything to chance, especially with these 'people'. So I'm curious why our current demand methods are not more explicit as to NOT wanting anything to do with the so-called "lawful money" of the Fed. My original demand letter to the Treasury back in 2013 states as such, the excerpt here...

"This demand is made for the express purpose of exercising my remedy under the law and to rebut the false and presumptive notion that I voluntarily endorse the private credit of the Federal Reserve. I expressly do not endorse private Federal Reserve credit in any form."

Perhaps I'm missing something here. I'm just surprised that we are not a little more emphatic in our novations.

[Michael Joseph]

The cestui que use is the IRS acting as agent for those who created the Use. The CQT is you acting as Trustee. You received the estate as Grantee and now the IRS wants a return which is basically an accounting of the Estate. Fair enough.

Now the presumption is that you were engaged in false balances. And it is always the duty of the trustee to prove his/her innocence. Don't make this too difficult with the crap about persons and who you are and all this other stuff. Keep it simple.

Now they are presuming that you were about credit systems understanding by signature endorsement the FRS. Which is to say a 3rd party to the Constitution by appointment. Since you received the benefit of the estate you have the obligation to file a return if a good faith request is made upon you or if you have a liability.

But is is ALWAYS presumed you have the liability because 99.999999999 percent of folks use false balances - out of the left side of the boat. Therefore you must prove your innocence. This is easily done by ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS. And your Admin Remedy is achieved by making a written demand on the back of your check - on the signature card - and on any commercial instrument touched. Copies of this record are kept to support your obligations to the CQU.

One will say I AIN'T GOT NO OBLIGATION - wrong friend - you as Trustee are assumed to be guilty. And you will go to jail if you don't rebut that assumption. It does not matter one hill of beans what is given to you or me. I went to a closing one time where I was trustee and we were selling an easement to a local government. The county attorney upon looking at our deed asked concerning 12USC411 - he said we can't pay you cash - I just laughed realizing that he knew what we were up to - I said we have fulfilled the law [ever hear that one in church] by making our demand - what you give us is of little concern. We will slap a demand on that too.

Chew on this bone until you are ready but it really is not that difficult. In fact it is too easy. So easy that most if not all just cannot and will not believe. So what is new under the sun? Nothing.

For you Scripture students who realize what you are looking at:

Heb_10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.


FRN's can't extinguish a debt. Consider and perhaps you will see why it is so important to fish out of the Right side of the boat.


Regards,
MJ

P.S. The solution is between your ears with knowledge and understanding not in some magical words that you utter and place on a document. Know Thyself and what Thou doest and the rest will fall into place. Else you might stand before a Judge he ask "Woman who gave thee those words?" Can you answer to what is lawful to use and what is lawful money? If not, you had best sit on the sideline a bit longer.

[NONOFED]

NONOFED,

Why did you delete your #25 post today at 9:31 am? If anyone does not remember, NONOFED basically stated (NONOFED, correct me if I'm wrong) that if FRN's are also considered "lawful money", then how does the IRS/Fed know that we are demanding NON-Federal-Reserve "lawful money"? In other words, demanding our pay be redeemed by U.S. Treasury's funds outside any private credit being extended by the Fed either to the Treasury or to the suitors making the demand.

Here is an interesting notation about lawful money from the FRS website. Most of us know that the true definition of "lawful money" means the U.S Note/coinage variety, i.e. NON-FRN's. This website appears to stretch the true definition of "lawful money", and other than Milam, I don't know what other court cases state that FRN's are "lawful money" as such (meaning, NOT the true definition that we the suitors know it to be)... http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_15197.htm

My point is: Why are 'we' not being more explicit in our demand? For example, perhaps something like the following...

"Lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions explicitly with the U.S. Treasury, per 12 USC 411 and 95a(2)". Or the simpler...
"Demand in lawful money explicitly with the U.S. Treasury per 12 USC 411".

D555 (and others) have stated that we should not leave anything to chance, especially with these 'people'. So I'm curious why our current demand methods are not more explicit as to NOT wanting anything to do with the so-called "lawful money" of the Fed. My original demand letter to the Treasury back in 2013 states as such, the excerpt here...

"This demand is made for the express purpose of exercising my remedy under the law and to rebut the false and presumptive notion that I voluntarily endorse the private credit of the Federal Reserve. I expressly do not endorse private Federal Reserve credit in any form."

Perhaps I'm missing something here. I'm just surprised that we are not a little more emphatic in our novations.

I removed post because there wasn't a response to my questions and figured that I had most information I needed to proceed. I concluded that FRNs are FRNs regardless as there is no distinction between it, its printed by the FED, its source issuing authority is corrupt, is already in circulation, you cant change its nature, the deed is done. I want nothing to do with FRNs. Coin is considered lawful money, and the process i'm using to redeem is taking all cash and converting it to coin. In so doing I am redeeming for non-debt currency as coin, it has no association with the FED and is of the US Treasury. The banks can keep their FRN notes and I only do business in coin. Thus putting coin in circulation, creating a "demand", and not supporting FRN currency period. The FED has to purchase coin at face value from the treasury and is obligated to put it into circulation. Thus generating revenue for US Treasury and reversing debt incurred from the FED.

[Chex]

The cestui que use is the IRS acting as agent for those who created the Use. The CQT is you acting as Trustee. You received the estate as Grantee and now the IRS wants a return which is basically an accounting of the Estate. Fair enough. Keep it simple. .

Uploaded on Dec 14, 2010

Martha A. Crocker

judge Crocker New Hampshire CQV Cestui Que Vie Trust