Federal Reserve Act - Remedy video.

[David Merrill]

This is my second video about the Fed. I produced this about a year after the first because I wanted to lose that computer voice for one thing but mainly because I felt that I could explain remedy much better after thinking about it and discussing it for a year.

I have received a few more compliments from the later video. A also got one comment about including the JFK Zapruder footage at the end; that it really distracts the viewer's attention from all the great points about remedy. I did so much researching about the JFK assassination and in doing so I guess that I numbed out a bit to the fact that a fine man is seen being killed, and that it is gory to watch on the original close up footage. [What you see is the first digital rendering from the original film off a documentary about preserving the Zapruder Footage.] The intention was that you believe that the left-handed Secret Service driver William GREER inspected the sniper's work, determined that it was insufficient to kill JFK, draws his pistol, takes aim, and shoots JFK in the head. Secret Service if you don't already know, is Treasury.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[martin earl]

Few people realize that the Secret Service are Treasury officers and the only Government agents authorized to have loaded firearms when the President is near.

Not even the Marine Color Guards at the white house have loaded firearms if the man is around is what I have been told.

[David Merrill]

Few people realize that the Secret Service are Treasury officers and the only Government agents authorized to have loaded firearms when the President is near.

Not even the Marine Color Guards at the white house have loaded firearms if the man is around is what I have been told.

I grabbed a snippet from Bones.

[Metheist]

David, thank you for your posting of this. Even though I have seen the claim that FRN's could be redeemed in lawful money, I didn't comprehend how it was so.

Seeing that it is written into the FRA, I now have the lights on...

Thanks

Metheist

[David Merrill]

David, thank you for your posting of this. Even though I have seen the claim that FRN's could be redeemed in lawful money, I didn't comprehend how it was so.

Seeing that it is written into the FRA, I now have the lights on...

Thanks

Metheist

You are quite welcome.

[Frederick Burrell]

http://stormthunder.com/federal-reserve-act/

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00000411—-000-.html

http://stormthunder.com
This is why “Constitutional” arguments cannot be brought. It is contract law. Every one of us has agreed by signature.
Our government was hijacked by a group of international bankers in 1913 that understood this.
The Federal Reserve is a private corporation. Corporations have owners. The government of the United States borrows it’s own money, from this private corporation, pay interest on it, and collects that interest through it’s (the Federal Reserve) arm the I.R.S. The national debt is nothing more than the interest owed on the loans our government has received from this corporation for it’s own money.
To put it plainly and in the interest of brevity, If the Fed ended tomorrow, our debt would be gone. That’s oversimplified, yes but it’s not complicated.
Proof: There is only one President in history that has ever paid off the national debt. Andrew Jackson. How did he do it? He took back control of our own currency. He stopped the bank. Debt stopped accumulating, and we were able to pay all outstanding debts before his term ended. Conspiracy “wako”? No. It has happened before. >Look it up.
That wiki article is just tip of the iceberg but worth pointing out is the mention of the use of class warfare and it’s central theme in the discussion:
“The classic statement by Arthur Schlesinger was that the partisan politics during the Jacksonian period was grounded in class conflict. Viewed through the lens of party elite discourse, Schlesinger saw inter-party conflict as a clash between wealthy Whigs and working class Democrats”(Grynaviski).
President Andrew Jackson strongly opposed the renewal of its charter, and built his platform for the election of 1832 around doing away with the Second Bank of the United States. Jackson’s political target was Nicholas Biddle, financier, politician, and president of the Bank of the United States.
Apart from a general hostility to banking and the belief that specie (gold and/or silver) was the only true money, Jackson’s reasons for opposing the renewal of the charter revolved around his belief that bestowing power and responsibility upon a single bank was the cause of inflation and other perceived evils.
“Other perceived evils” indeed. Jackson understood as did many others that with this kind of fiat currency in place and not under the control of the United States we would soon become a nation of slaves to a debt that we could never repay.
Interesting that Wikipedia mentions that he was a slave owner in the first paragraph, but it isn’t until the bottom of the page that there is a small blurb that he was the first and only President to ever pay off the national debt. Immediately followed by “However, this accomplishment was short lived. A severe depression from 1837 to 1844 caused a tenfold increase in national debt within its first year.”
I could go into how the war of 1812 and the depression following Jackson’s term were both caused directly by the international bankers to renew there charter in the first case, and re institute their charter in the second, but that is not the focus of this discussion. You are encouraged to read up on it yourself. As are you encouraged to read up on all of this yourself.
What I’m giving you is not conjecture. There are many that are doing this now, and have been for some 2 years. Many of the “tax arguments” in existence today have focused on the wrong things. “Constitutionality” and “Supreme Court” case law, it’s been right there in the Act the whole time.
Make no mistake, as the video on the homepage points out, it’s all about the exact “verbiage” that you use. If you get it wrong, you are in violation of your agreement with the Fed. By contract you have agreed to bond your substance for their credit. That’s what it means when they have said “income tax is voluntary”.
Did your parents ever explain why you are supposed to endorse the backs of your checks? I betting no. It’s something we are simply conditioned to do. We are never taught that our signatures are “worth” something.

[allodial]

Few people realize that the Secret Service are Treasury officers and the only Government agents authorized to have loaded firearms when the President is near.

Not even the Marine Color Guards at the white house have loaded firearms if the man is around is what I have been told.

Something very interesting I found years ago in maybe Massachusetts's or Maine's statutes pertained to who can carry a gun or who/what was exempt from the State's gun control laws. One of them was something along the lines of creditors to the state or something. Consider it for a moment..maybe even look it up.

Now consider for a moment that the President of the United States is also a commissioned officer in the U.S. Army and also in the US. Navy. Now according to some, such a soldier would be property of the United States. Would there be logic, therefore, in a division of the United States Department of the Treasury providing full-time, 24/7 protection to public property of the United States?

And not to denigrate or diminish the man John Fitzgerald ..but in the juristic perspective on former U.S. President John F. Kennedy having been a flag officer of the United States Army and U.S. Navy, the Zapruder Film would be evidence of overt, outright, intentional, conspiratorial destruction of public property. The aftermath of pondering that....

(b) Exceptions.--The provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply to:
(1) Constables, sheriffs, prison or jail wardens, or their deputies, policemen of this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions, or other law-enforcement officers.{such as State Treasury agents? Revenue collectors? Do wardens or police protect public property such as police cars?}
(2) Members of the army, navy, marine corps, air force or coast guard of the United States or of the National Guard or organized reserves when on duty.
(3) The regularly enrolled members of any organization duly organized to purchase or receive such firearms from the United States or from this Commonwealth.
(4) Any persons engaged in target shooting with a firearm, if such persons are at or are going to or from their places of assembly or target practice and if, while going to or from their places of assembly or target practice, the firearm is not loaded.
(5) Officers or employees of the United States duly authorized to carry a concealed firearm. {Treasury Agents}
(6) Agents, messengers and other employees of common carriers, banks {Treasuries are often likened to banks}, or business firms, whose duties require them to protect moneys, valuables and other property in the discharge of such duties. {such as Treasury Agents?}
(7) Any person engaged in the business of manufacturing, repairing, or dealing in firearms, or the agent or representative of any such person, having in his possession, using or carrying a firearm in the usual or ordinary course of such business.{you mean like..Treasury (govt. bank)/Revenue Agents, flag officers or bank employees?}

Its been so long..who knows..but I recall an overt exception to do with creditors (perhaps it had to do with repossession companies) or something like that. It was a long time go reading that. But nonetheless...revenue/treasury agents (agents of creditors) are given some pretty wide berth arent they?

[EZrhythm]

Nice article to accompany Fredrick's post; http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclop...ed-States-Note

[Reigne]

Regarding the FedRes remedy ... and if this Q was answered previously, I apologize:
Since Nixon took us off the gold standard, doesn't that nullify the remedy to 'redeem in lawful money' since there is none now?

[shikamaru]

Regarding the FedRes remedy ... and if this Q was answered previously, I apologize:
Since Nixon took us off the gold standard, doesn't that nullify the remedy to 'redeem in lawful money' since there is none now?

US Notes are lawful money.
Postal money orders are lawful money too.
Gold and silver certificates as well as gold and silver coin are lawful money.
Coins produced by the US Mint would be lawful money as well.

The term lawful money refers to the issuer of the currency, in this case, the Sovereign (or quasi-sovereign).
What makes lawful money lawful is the issuance by the Sovereign.

FRNs are issued by a private bank i.e. Federal Reserve Bank.

US Notes and FRNs are both notes.... which is another discussion in itself.

It so much about gold and silver as it is about control and regulation of money and the money supply.
Gold and silver are used primarily as a measure of just weights and balances. Gold and silver is fungible, divisible, resists rusts, durable, etc.
All money initially begins as a system of weights and measures.

The demand for lawful money is enough to open a can of worms .

[Reigne]

Thanks for the reply )

My Q is really about us being OFF the gold/silver standard cuz of what Nixon did .... since there is nothing tangible to back the Notes (frn, postal [which postal are you referring to?] money orders, US/Treasury Notes (as far as I can tell they haven't been been available to us for some time cuz that is what they are actually giving the FedRes in return for the overpriced FedNotes).

If what we can obtain (FRN's, postal money orders, etc) are backed by NOTHING, then HOW can the Sovereign be what makes it lawful money?
The US (corp/de jure govt) is bankrupt - therefore they GAVE UP their sovereignty as a "nation".

Additionally, I personally can see where gold/silver (heck any tangible thing) can be manipulated by TPTB, so I am not completely "sold" that we should be on the gold/silver standard (esp since nobody knows what's in Fort Knox, etc, however I do speculate the ONLY thing in FtKnox are only footprints leading out the door).

I do appreciate the time to consider my question ... so far, wherever else I've posted the same Q I either get no response or am told I am an "idiot" for not fully trusting the gold/silver standard.

[shikamaru]

Thanks for the reply )

My Q is really about us being OFF the gold/silver standard cuz of what Nixon did .... since there is nothing tangible to back the Notes (frn, postal [which postal are you referring to?] money orders, US/Treasury Notes (as far as I can tell they haven't been been available to us for some time cuz that is what they are actually giving the FedRes in return for the overpriced FedNotes).

To be backed by something is referred to as reserves.
Reserves fulfill the purpose of limiting or preventing inflation of the issuing medium of exchange.
This is a facet of representative or commodity money that uses paper at some point for transactions or exchange.

If what we can obtain (FRN's, postal money orders, etc) are backed by NOTHING, then HOW can the Sovereign be what makes it lawful money?
The US (corp/de jure govt) is bankrupt - therefore they GAVE UP their sovereignty as a "nation".

The Sovereign determines what the "coin of the realm" will be.
For example, in England the "coin of the realm" for centuries were tally sticks (wood), in addition to copper, silver, or gold coin.
It doesn't really matter what is used as a medium of exchange. Gold and silver just do a really nice job of acting as a medium of exchange.
The Sovereign can just as easy declare a particular medium no longer as lawful tender. This is called demonetization.
Law is the will of the sovereign.

Additionally, I personally can see where gold/silver (heck any tangible thing) can be manipulated by TPTB, so I am not completely "sold" that we should be on the gold/silver standard (esp since nobody knows what's in Fort Knox, etc, however I do speculate the ONLY thing in FtKnox are only footprints leading out the door).

You are doing better than me on this aspect. I didn't realize this until recently!

I do appreciate the time to consider my question ... so far, wherever else I've posted the same Q I either get no response or am told I am an "idiot" for not fully trusting the gold/silver standard.

If a person insults you for asking intelligent questions, it means either they are hiding something or they themselves are clueless.
Insults serve to cover one's ignorance of the subject in addition to being a wasteful distraction.

[Reigne]

To be backed by something is referred to as reserves.
Reserves fulfill the purpose of limiting or preventing inflation of the issuing medium of exchange.
This is a facet of representative or commodity money that uses paper at some point for transactions or exchange.

And that is where I - mentally, conceptually, understandingly - get stuck. IF there really are no "reserves" then there is nothing backing it nor is there any 'full-faith & credit of the people' since the people (the majority of them anyway) are not aware of this.

The Sovereign determines what the "coin of the realm" will be.
For example, in England the "coin of the realm" for centuries were tally sticks (wood), in addition to copper, silver, or gold coin.
It doesn't really matter what is used as a medium of exchange. Gold and silver just do a really nice job of acting as a medium of exchange.
The Sovereign can just as easy declare a particular medium no longer as lawful tender. This is called demonetization.
Law is the will of the sovereign.

From my understanding, it was the King who decided upon using tally marks upon sticks/wood. That means HE was the sovereign, not the People. Are we not in the very same situation right now? THEY decided we should use FRN's, THEY decided to take us off the gold standard. This is where my own conundrum begins regarding 'redeemed for lawful money' & believing we "should" be back on the gold standard.
However, I have yet to find anything that says we are limited to contract, therefore, if I want to bargain/exchange/trade with you, that would fall under Private Contract (which it does appear we would HAVE To PROVE to avoid being 'taxed')

You are doing better than me on this aspect. I didn't realize this until recently!

Ha ha ha you should see my "No Trespassing" sign (only have it cuz I did research on land/ownership and fully understand all Rules/Regulations/Codes pertain to THEM not me. And please don't think I'm doing better than you - I guarantee you have more insight/knowlegde than I do in many other areas.

If a person insults you for asking intelligent questions, it means either they are hiding something or they themselves are clueless.
Insults serve to cover one's ignorance of the subject in addition to being a wasteful distraction.

Yes, I am well aware of those tactics/defenses.
I only acknowledge/thank for considering my Q's because I was kicked out of Catholic Church cuz I asked too many Q's they could not answer ... well, not 'kicked out' but was told "...there is no reason for you to return here again."
That is why I do my best to acknowledge forthcoming/open folks when I pose Q's/statements/beliefs/etc. - because I truly do appreciate the time, consideration & effort.

[shikamaru]

And that is where I - mentally, conceptually, understandingly - get stuck. IF there really are no "reserves" then there is nothing backing it nor is there any 'full-faith & credit of the people' since the people (the majority of them anyway) are not aware of this.

There are some reserves behind FRNs, but not "reserves" in the traditional sense.
Fractional-reserve lending has some levels or limits that a bank has to maintain.

FRNs are backed by the labor and assets of the American people. These properties have been pledged as collateral for FRNs.
It is not the FRNs so much as the Treasury bills and Treasury notes the government sells in which said government owes interest on.

By the by, Treasury bills and Treasury notes are lawful money as well .

From my understanding, it was the King who decided upon using tally marks upon sticks/wood. That means HE was the sovereign, not the People. Are we not in the very same situation right now? THEY decided we should use FRN's, THEY decided to take us off the gold standard. This is where my own conundrum begins regarding 'redeemed for lawful money' & believing we "should" be back on the gold standard.

True. The Constitution may have been a false bill of goods for the majority of people.
A gold or silver standard would be no better. Check out the movie, "The Secret of Oz" on YouTube.com
I would make the demand for lawful money however. It would seem to have tax implications in your favor.

However, I have yet to find anything that says we are limited to contract, therefore, if I want to bargain/exchange/trade with you, that would fall under Private Contract (which it does appear we would HAVE To PROVE to avoid being 'taxed')

You can do private contracts in gold, silver, or sheepskins if you like. Private is private.
In fact, you can do better for yourself negotiating private contracts in gold and silver than FRNs, in my opinion.

[Reigne]

Okay, so we do NOT have to prove a private contract .... Yippeee (somewhere in my head tho I thought we would need to PROVE a private negotiation ... maybe cuz I believe - in the courts/law eyes we are guilty till proven innocent).