Redeeming Lawful Money on Daily Paul

[Chex]

http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/finfac.htm

The recent decision by the members of the IMF to establish a trust fund for the benefit of the poorest countries financed by the sale of IMF gold was the second. http://www.princeton.edu/rpds/papers/WP_67.pdf

Role of gold. The Second Amendment to the Articles of Agreement in April 1978 fundamentally changed the role of gold in the international monetary system by eliminating the use of gold as the common denominator of the post-World War II exchange rate system and as the basis of the value of the Special Drawing Right (SDR). It also abolished the official price of gold and ended the obligatory use of gold in transactions between the IMF and its member countries. It furthermore required that the IMF, when dealing in gold, avoid managing its price or establishing a fixed price. http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/gold.htm

[EZrhythm]

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'?

The W-9 section on the bank signature card is a permission granting the bank to share your account information with the IRS. In my experience it requires a separate initialing or signature on the form. I merely refused to sign it. The bank clerk then said that the account would not be able to received any interest on deposits. EXACTLY! That's what I asked for in the first place. "Do you offer any non-interest bearing checking accounts?"

They wanted me to sign the e-pad but I insisted on placing wet ink on paper. They said that after I sign the e-pad that they could print me a copy. I said I would be happy to have a copy of my wet ink signature on paper. ;-) They gave in.

[David Merrill]

The W-9 section on the bank signature card is a permission granting the bank to share your account information with the IRS. In my experience it requires a separate initialing or signature on the form. I merely refused to sign it. The bank clerk then said that the account would not be able to received any interest on deposits. EXACTLY! That's what I asked for in the first place. "Do you offer any non-interest bearing checking accounts?"

They wanted me to sign the e-pad but I insisted on placing wet ink on paper. They said that after I sign the e-pad that they could print me a copy. I said I would be happy to have a copy of my wet ink signature on paper. ;-) They gave in.

Very agile. That is the kind of de-conditioning I like to hear about!

[allodial]

Here here!

[gdude]

Great job EZ!

In my experience, the W9 was included as part of the signature card.

[Goldi]

[QUOTE=David Merrill;9600][QUOTE]

[mikecz]

[QUOTE=Goldi;10078][QUOTE=David Merrill;9600]Umm.. this actually might be a big deal.

The only change I see between it and 371 is...

" and all accounts in the public offices and all the proceedings in the courts shall be kept and held in conformity to this regulation"

That is the part we need to find...

[Chex]

That is the part we need to find...

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title12/USCODE-2011-title12-chap3-subchapX-sec371a/content-detail.html

[David Merrill]

Thank you Chex!


[QUOTE=mikecz;10084][QUOTE=Goldi;10078]

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USC...nt-detail.html

[Goldi]

[QUOTE=mikecz;10084][QUOTE=Goldi;10078]Here's how I see it. When you look up 31 USC 5101, it shows the authority as R.S. 3563. Revised statutes are to be nothing more than a restatement of the statute. How do I know this? I have a copy of Title 31 from 1940 [31 USC 371] showing the exact language of 1 stat 250-251, and it's source of authority in that version was 1 stat 250 and R.S. 3563. This was a restatement of section 20 of the 1792 coinage act @ 1 stat 250-251. So what we have here is a distinct modification of language of the original source in the current code, by the use of simply dropping a bunch of words from it. And you know what? They can drop all the words they want, but if you cite the origin of the code, you got them by the nuts. So don't cite the code, cite the source/authority for the code.

[Goldi]

I found an interesting case on a subscription based website and when I went to PACER to locate it in the 11th circuit, it cannot be found.
The following is a summary and it cannot be accessed without additional charges:

Appellant's Reply Brief

Gary A. GOLDMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Respondent-Appellees.United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit.April 07, 1999No. 98-09451.1999 WL 33646074

1. Whether Goldman has a right to redeem his Federal Reserve notes for lawful money? 2. Whether Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta is Government Agency like CIA? Appellee Federal Reserve Bank...

...tangible interest in redeeming his personal Federal Reserve notes, on demand, for lawful money, from the Bank. All this Court must do is decide...

...has a right to redeem his Federal Reserve notes, on demand, for lawful money, and that it is the private corporation Federal Reserve Bank...

...Appellant's right to redeem his particular Federal Reserve notes, on demand, for lawful money, is a claim specific, and standing to adjudicate this controversy...

...right to demand redemption of this Federal Reserve notes, on demand for lawful money, and the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta has a duty...

[Goldi]

Hehe David, I also see a couple of libel of review actions have been filed associated with the demand for lawful money. Michael-Guy MALLONEE out of Wash, Jeffrey DAVID out of North Carolina and Victor E. NISKA out of Minnesota. Wanna update us on the outcomes of those 3 cases?

[David Merrill]

Suitors who understand the Libel of Review know the outcome is an evidence repository in the "exclusive original cognizance" of the United States government.

Study the template. Especially pay attention to the Instructions at the end, and the sample clerk instruction in the middle. That is what makes the LoR worthwhile. All the LoRs get dismissed.

[Chex]

Scott County District Judge Caroline LennonThe law is very clearState law requires judges to take an oath before entering the duties of the office Oath for Caroline Lennon not found

http://www.startribune.com/local/248301011.html?page=all&prepage=1&c=y#continue=

The damages could be enormousOath of Office for judges

[Michael Joseph]

Scott County District Judge Caroline LennonThe law is very clearState law requires judges to take an oath before entering the duties of the office Oath for Caroline Lennon not found

http://www.startribune.com/local/248301011.html?page=all&prepage=1&c=y#continue=

The damages could be enormousOath of Office for judges

Hey Chex, thanks for this post. You know this goes directly to IMPLIED trust. Now consider carefully where you are in terms of VENUE when you endorse the Federal Reserve. Does the Judge require and Oath? Answer = no. He sits in bank to collect for his Masters.

You cannot have it both ways - the Debtor is SLAVE to the Lender.

Now if the judge sits in banc, then, he is biased as a taxpayer. As such, if you don't utter a peep, then it is IMPLIED that you WANT judgment. So what is it? You are the master of your domain so what is it? Will you stake your claim, or consent to be ruled?

THE SYSTEM IS VOLUNTARY. AND if you endorse the Federal Reserve there is NOTHING in that Constitution that can help you. Consider and you will see!

Google search: Federal Reserve cities and districts - it is an eye opener.

Have you been RE--VENUE --ED?

Shalom,
MJ