Got a letter back from the FED today...

[mikecz]

I just asked a couple of questions, I thought the response was interesting...

Particularly the 2nd answer.

[David Merrill]

What an excellent letter, as a source of good information! Thank you for sharing it here.

There is a reference to the January 21, 1971 decision which is the basis for considering redeemed lawful money as US notes in the form of Federal Reserve notes. Look at the last paragraph.

United States notes serve no function that is not already adequately served by Federal Reserve notes. As a result, the Treasury Department stopped issuing United States notes, and none have been placed into circulation since January 21, 1971.

[Anthony Joseph]

The best part of the letter is the admission, and the extant belief/understanding by the FED, that U.S. notes (redeemed lawful money) are NOT to be used as a reserve - U.S. notes are inelastic currency.

The significant part of making the demand per 12USC411 is the desire to direct one's converted energy and labor (via the FIRST MIDDLE LAST transmitting utility) toward the public good and NOT toward the increase of the interests of the private and foreign bank known as the Federal Reserve via ordering up more debt credit by conventional signature endorsement. This is an honorable and peaceful stance amidst the commercial war being waged.

The other part of the equation is to make it clear that one makes NO claim of ownership/title to ANYTHING in the FIRST MIDDLE LAST; pursuant to 12USC95a(2), ALL reversionary interest in the NAME is assigned, conveyed, transferred to and for the account of the United States. The profit and gain from ALL use of the FIRST MIDDLE LAST is realized solely by the United States as beneficial owner; we are third party beneficiaries through this agreement and we exercise special interest in the beneficial use of the FIRST MIDDLE LAST (and any rights, property or accounts therein) as special ministers for the public trust. We desire to assist the injured and wounded on the battlefield of commerce by facilitating discharge/set-off via the designated U.S./State/County/local City municipal trustee who is obligated to administer the affairs of the FIRST MIDDLE LAST in honor and according to the law(s) they serve.

[Robert Henry]

Credit Unions are not and can not be Federal Reserve Banks?

Are they not holding and using Federal Reserve Notes?

"...for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose..."

What else can they be then?

[Robert Henry]

The best part of the letter is the admission, and the extant belief/understanding by the FED, that U.S. notes (redeemed lawful money) are NOT to be used as a reserve - U.S. notes are inelastic currency.

Just caught this bit at the end:

requires the Secretary of the Treasury to destroy any United States notes that may be presented to the Treasury, there is no basis for concern that any United States note that you might deposit would be "used as a reserve."

This is very interesting. I will investigate 31 USC 5119.

An attempt to destroy remedy by destroying lawful monies as they are returned to Treasury? How might this square with the declaration of the duality of Fed notes quoted by David Merrill above? Based on that, it would seem that even though all physical US notes might be destroyed, lawful money would have to live on, regardless. Unless, perhaps, that nature of Fed notes were to be changed by legislation, perhaps due to another (seemingly imminent, at least to me) bankruptcy?

What in the current remedy would prevent this? Saving to suitors itself? I must admit that full comprehension of that clause and it's application to current remedy eludes me.

I hope the greater minds than mine here will speak to this.

[Freed Gerdes]

Question for AJ: What is the purpose of redemption of your estate out of the usufructuary trust created by the Bankruptcy Act of 1933 if not to take legal title to your estate, ie, to remove it from the bankruptcy trust created for the benefit of the Secretary of the Treasury (who is not a US govt official), as trustee? The banks set up this debt money trap to control the assets of the citizens, who stupidly allowed themselves to be trapped into a presumptive contract with the Federal Reserve, which contract makes them liable for income taxes as an excise tax on the amount of Federal Reserve private credit used (dealing in securities of the Fed is the excised act). By accepting the trust relationship with the Sec of the Treasury, citizens give up legal title to their estate and accept equitable title in its stead. But by demanding lawful money, you break the contract with the Fed concerning debt money: your demand rebuts the presumption that you wish to deal in Fed securities, ie, FRN's. This demand is also an appearance, so it also rebuts the presumption that you are dead, a necessary condition for the cestui que vie trust to exist. This collapses the trust, and the res reverts to the rightful owner. By these steps, your property is now no longer 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,' making the rest of 12USC95a(2) irrelevant. You have a perfect right to own your name, and to own your estate. Why do you refuse to acknowledge this right?

[David Merrill]

Credit Unions are not and can not be Federal Reserve Banks?

Are they not holding and using Federal Reserve Notes?

"...for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose..."

What else can they be then?

I think it clarifies that state banks are credit unions of the Fed.

[doug555]

Question for AJ: What is the purpose of redemption of your estate out of the usufructuary trust created by the Bankruptcy Act of 1933 if not to take legal title to your estate, ie, to remove it from the bankruptcy trust created for the benefit of the Secretary of the Treasury (who is not a US govt official), as trustee? The banks set up this debt money trap to control the assets of the citizens, who stupidly allowed themselves to be trapped into a presumptive contract with the Federal Reserve, which contract makes them liable for income taxes as an excise tax on the amount of Federal Reserve private credit used (dealing in securities of the Fed is the excised act). By accepting the trust relationship with the Sec of the Treasury, citizens give up legal title to their estate and accept equitable title in its stead. But by demanding lawful money, you break the contract with the Fed concerning debt money: your demand rebuts the presumption that you wish to deal in Fed securities, ie, FRN's. This demand is also an appearance, so it also rebuts the presumption that you are dead, a necessary condition for the cestui que vie trust to exist. This collapses the trust, and the res reverts to the rightful owner. By these steps, your property is now no longer 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,' making the rest of 12USC95a(2) irrelevant. You have a perfect right to own your name, and to own your estate. Why do you refuse to acknowledge this right?

Very well put Freed! To explicitly rebut the presumption of death, I also recorded a "Proof of Life" in the county.

Perhaps the UCC-3 entitled "UCC Doc # 2012088865 - Secured Order For Reconciliation" at the link below, since it demands "LAWFUL MONEY" in item #2, is something that successfully reclaims that right and estate for each living being on this planet.

See https://drive.google.com/folderview?...Vk&usp=sharing

Perhaps one needs to explicitly accept this "Order for Reconciliation" via one's own UCC-1 and then assign on a UCC-3 some of its Returned Value to a bank upon execution of a private contract with the bank who would create a drawing account for a discount fee of 10% of the deposited amount of lawful money.

See more on this topic at http://www.quicktopic.com/50/H/VNAL6Qbi9kNe

[EZrhythm]

The other part of the equation is to make it clear that one makes NO claim of ownership/title to ANYTHING in the FIRST MIDDLE LAST; pursuant to 12USC95a(2), ALL reversionary interest in the NAME is assigned, conveyed, transferred to and for the account of the United States.

I and others have been having great success when receiving an account statement indicating an amount due. With this verbiage placed on the statement and mailed back, I haven't heard another peep;
This name and account number are property of the UNITED STATES
Please forward to the owner in care of the Treasury of the United States

(Sign) Authorized Representative (Date)

The success hasn't just been with one or two instances but many.

[David Merrill]

This could use some amplification:

Redeemed Coupon.

[Anthony Joseph]

Question for AJ: What is the purpose of redemption of your estate out of the usufructuary trust created by the Bankruptcy Act of 1933 if not to take legal title to your estate, ie, to remove it from the bankruptcy trust created for the benefit of the Secretary of the Treasury (who is not a US govt official), as trustee? The banks set up this debt money trap to control the assets of the citizens, who stupidly allowed themselves to be trapped into a presumptive contract with the Federal Reserve, which contract makes them liable for income taxes as an excise tax on the amount of Federal Reserve private credit used (dealing in securities of the Fed is the excised act). By accepting the trust relationship with the Sec of the Treasury, citizens give up legal title to their estate and accept equitable title in its stead. But by demanding lawful money, you break the contract with the Fed concerning debt money: your demand rebuts the presumption that you wish to deal in Fed securities, ie, FRN's. This demand is also an appearance, so it also rebuts the presumption that you are dead, a necessary condition for the cestui que vie trust to exist. This collapses the trust, and the res reverts to the rightful owner. By these steps, your property is now no longer 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,' making the rest of 12USC95a(2) irrelevant. You have a perfect right to own your name, and to own your estate. Why do you refuse to acknowledge this right?

Some people believe that they can own (claim title to) things that exist in the paper world created by another. I cannot find my signature on the CERTIFICATE OF BIRTH or on the currency notes that circulate among the people on this land nor do I hold any original paper.

I prefer to claim the original organic trust/covenant found in Scripture at Genesis 1 which grants me dominion/usufruct of the whole living earth by the Most High God and Creator of ALL things.

I prefer to exercise the extant and inherent immunity from man's law, mandatorily written into ALL of man's laws - consent/contract makes the law and the living must have escape.

I prefer to abstain from adverse claims of ownership/title of things that will perish and not enter into the Kingdom of God.

I prefer to seek and find peace being in the world yet NOT of the world.

I prefer to give everything that this body produces (labor and energy) for the benefit of mankind (the public good); yet, I can choose to demand that said labor and energy be upon proper balances, and just weights and measures, when it is converted/monetized by the public trustees via the FIRST MIDDLE LAST transmitting utility provided for our beneficial use.

I prefer to continuously move in special ministry, seeking only to assist in keeping the peace and helping others who are in need.

These are the goals I have set for my life and I am trying to accomplish them in the proper manner and method - in truth and in peace according to the Will of the Most High God by and through our Lord and Savior, Yehoshuah the CHRIST.

[mikecz]

They always use the loaded term...

"United States notes serve no function that is not already adequately served by Federal Reserve notes. "

Adequately served...indeed I believe this could be interpreted as a dual purpose note. Adequatly served, serving more purposes then just a simple federal reserve note. Presumption is it's used as private credit. I'm still wrapping my head around the individual acting as a state bank, but, I think another letter is in order questioning the language of the above statement.

[Freed Gerdes]

The Fed response letter makes an interesting misdirection, perhaps assisted by the inquiry with regards to 31 USC 5115, by pretending that the reserve issue in question is something other than the reserve used for fictional reserve banking. The correct issue of reserves is found at 12 USC 461; FR banks are required to keep (an insignificant) reserve against their demand accounts. This required reserve balance is calculated and reported by each FR bank weekly, to the regional Federal Reserve bank. Lawful money may not be used as part of this reserve. So the letter response was intended to confuse this issue, further to their long held strategy of blurring the distinction between lawful public money, issued by the Treasury under the Constitution, and private money, issued by the Fed, which is not money, but debt obligations. I got a similar line of obfuscation from the Chief Legal Counsel of the Richmond Fed bank; under no circumstances is anyone going to get in writing the true nature of the relationship between Federal Reserve debt money and income taxes.

As to the UCC-3 Reconcilation Statement issue, I have seen a lot written on the subject of how to 'correct' your Treasury account. The IRS uses this account to track the taxes they will demand, and will hold you the natural person liable for the tax debt assigned to the trust. (The IRS has to use a trust account as they are a corporation, and cannot contract with a natural person.) This is the primary purpose of the cestui que vie trust. When you collapse the trust by making an appearance, proving that you are not dead, the trustee (Sec of Treasury) has one and only one remaining duty: to return the res to you, the rightful owner. The trustee is responsible for any debts he may have allowed the trust to accumulate while he was responsible for it, so you can just leave the wreckage of the trust in his care. (You still have the duty to pay any income taxes due for the interval when you were still using their debt money, ie, this year's taxes.) Once you remove your assets, the trust has no validity. Further, since you have severed your contract with the Federal Reserve, the trust will not accumulate any new debts; the trust is non-operational as of the date of your demand. And you have no further interest in it. If the trustee made a mess of it, through fraud, false accounting, acceptance for value of your birth certificate, etc, it is his mess to clean up. You take your estate out of the bankruptcy and back into the clean air of Constitutional money. You now have no trust in the Federal government; you use real money, not debt, and you pay for your assets in full, so the Federal Reserve does not perfect liens against your assets in the future. At this point you have no contractual relationship with the Federal Reserve; you have escaped the bankers' plot to steal your assets. Let's END THE FED.

Finally, I have seen a lot written here about how the government 'owns' your legal name. This is clearly wrong; the government has established a CQVtrust in your legal name, in which the Sec of Treasury holds legal title to your estate, and you enjoy equitable title, which means you get to use the estate, but the govt owns it. Once you collapse the CQV trust by making an appearance and demand, legal title reverts to your legal name as the fictional entity/corporate person who can contract, with you the natural person as the accommodation agent. I took the further step of registering my legal name as a dba in my state, to take it out of US jurisdiction, and to make it clear that I the natural person own the name. Now the government still has a Treasury account in my legal name, but I have no interest in it, and do not use it. This is probably a clearer explanation of what EZ means when he says that the government owns that account (but it is not correct to say that the government owns the name).

[EZrhythm]

Very good and well said, FG!

David- That is a very interesting coupon. I have seen that done with a DMV registration to which the fees were deemed "paid" and the new registration stickers were sent. What was written on the statement and sent back to the DMV was the "lawful money" verbiage AND the "This name and account number are the property of the UNITED STATES..."

[David Merrill]

I have seen it work, and even heard rumors it was recalled or billed again later. See how this example is left open for the Treasury to reclaim the debt as valid?

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/3774/slpage1.jpg

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/3079/slpage2.jpg

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/4373/slpage3.jpg