Making Sense of the Federal Reserve

[allodial]

Stocks and obligations of the United States Government are exempt from taxation by a State or political subdivision of a State.

Likely, to reiterate, the FRN isn't an obligation of the United States until its redeemed for lawful money. Also, tax as an interest collection action shouldn't apply to a foreign money system (principal isn't taxed, interest is).

[Michael Joseph]

There is no deception here. If one makes a use of intellectual property or a thing that is possessed or under the dominion of another, then that one subjects himself to the bylaws which govern the use. In other words, when one endorses the central banking scheme, then that one subjects himself to the bylaws established and settled by He who made the Use [Cestui Que Use] and as such the User is a Grantee and therefore with the benefit of the grant and as such simultaneously with the obligation of the duty. Thusly the Grantee is also Trustee.

A 1040 is nothing more than the Cestui Que Use [by and thru the I.R.S.] requiring its trustees to file each year showing how the trustees made a Use of the central banking estate. Since the Use is a benefit upon the grantee, the Trustee purchases the Use subject to the bylaws which govern the Use.

Now one will say, I don't endorse the central banking system I make a demand for lawful money. Well that is great! But now one has made a use of the bylaws which govern the United States districts and therefore one subjects one's self in the same manner as aforementioned. So now in the stead of being a trustee for the central bank - one is a trustee for the United States.

I once too thought a 1040 was a self indictment - but that is false thinking. The evidence of the Grantee/Trustee relationship is on the back of every check endorsed. So when folks ask "Where is the Law?" - what? Is the judge going to teach said one years of Trust Law overnight or in 15 minutes? I think not.

One will argue it is unconstitutional. And that shows their complete lack of comprehension. You are free to subject yourself to different agreements - and once one submits and consents to the service as Trustee to the central bank, then the Constitution actually wars against that one - BECAUSE at Art 1 Section X - the State cannot interfere with obligations of an existing contract. Since the central bank is endorsed of the United States, we plainly see that the United States will stand surety per 12USC411; and, we can see that indeed this is completely constitutional. A choice has been placed before you : Death [left] --- Life [Right]. You choose.

Such is all of life - this is just a small mirror of a larger fractal.

Best regards,

MJ

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/412

[tommyf350]

https://www.facebook.com/federalreserve

I have not been here in a little while but just to give you guys a heads up they just started their own Facebook page to "educate" the public.

[Michael Joseph]

https://www.facebook.com/federalreserve

I have not been here in a little while but just to give you guys a heads up they just started their own Facebook page to "educate" the public.

Jas 4:13 Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain:

Jas 4:14 Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.


Jas 5:1 Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you.

Jas 5:2 Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten.

Jas 5:3 Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days.

[pumpkin]

Such is all of life - this is just a small mirror of a larger fractal.

Withholding information to detain a man in an unfavorable position is fraud. There is no meeting of the minds to form any agreement, it is done by fraud and fraud alone. The judge damn well knows that the people before him have not been properly informed, so he is only complicit of the crime. Justifying a wrong with trust law is only evil, not justice. The judge should at least force the evil side to bring forth the trust law within pleadings to make such a case, instead the judge simply presumes it, creating the case for the evil party in his own mind.

[Michael Joseph]

Such is all of life - this is just a small mirror of a larger fractal.

Withholding information to detain a man in an unfavorable position is fraud. There is no meeting of the minds to form any agreement, it is done by fraud and fraud alone. The judge damn well knows that the people before him have not been properly informed, so he is only complicit of the crime. Justifying a wrong with trust law is only evil, not justice. The judge should at least force the evil side to bring forth the trust law within pleadings to make such a case, instead the judge simply presumes it, creating the case for the evil party in his own mind.

I once knew an angry man but I had to walk away from him. Until this very day he remains in anger fighting against an enemy of which he does not comprehend. He says - it just isn't fair. He refuses to learn about the mechanisms which bind him and in reality what was just said was he refuses to learn of his own self. And since he knows very little about his self, he can know very little about the ties that bind. He always looks outside of himself for others to justify him. He looks even now to society to give him satisfaction - if he continues in this path, he will never be justified or satisfied. He will always be searching and pointing at others for he looks in the wrong place. And so he continues to maintain he has been defrauded by others but he is never willing to accept his own liability. This fact is clear in his rhetoric as he always points to others who rule over him - judges and the like.

He always goes back to the ties that bind him searching for some hole in the "fence" of which he might technically escape. If only he could escape. But he never really bothers to consider that perhaps he is the problem. He is his own warden. He subjects himself to that which he hates and thus he remains on the wheel of hatred and thus angry at the world for his sad state.

So he became a hermit. And he escaped from all interaction with the world - or so he thought. Long ago decided that he could trust noone and that all were brain dead. He never considered that perhaps he was in the same judgment pot. So he solved the problem by not engaging anyone - but this is only a lie he tells himself. For now he is on the "teat" of government - sucking the milk of welfare from the very system that he hates! He makes a USE of all the systems of which he professes to hate and then turns around and calls the benefit fraud.

Said man takes from "silly women" as he scares them into thinking the sky is falling and then he takes from them everything he can steal. So now, he takes from Society - that which he considers dead - and he justifies himself by thinking "they" are all asleep and he is the only one awake. But in reality he is in a sadder condition than they for he willingly and knowingly takes of those who are giving to support their societal forms. They are asleep but he is a raving lion - seeking houses to destroy. Depressed, manic and lonely, he goes thru life complaining and unhappy and worst of all angry.

And now he just withholds from himself for to deal with self is akin to appearing before a judge who withholds information. He defrauds himself. As such, the "mirror of the mind" turns upon him and he is his own worst judge. For while he constantly looks outside his window casings [eyes] for justification, in reality he constantly judges himself worthless. For if he had any value at all he would look within himself to find truth and then said truth would set him free from what is without. So then he pardons that which is unpardonable thinking himself to escape judgment but this is just another lie he tells himself so that he can cope with the hell he has built.

Said man thinking he has faced Goliath as he has stood before judges and won his cases, remains confused and angry. In reality he has yet to confront himself as he keeps going back to the same authority of which he hates. It must be a miserable existence to suck at the teat of a woman one hates. And now we come to "a house divided cannot stand."

I will not suffer this man any more of my time. I had to cut him away from me and move on. I don't judge him good or bad - simply I cannot with him anymore. One will say his doublemindedness is caused by a system which pushes folks to such a sad state of being - but I say - he does this to himself. He refuses to look into the "mirror of the mind" to meet himself. And thusly he always looks outside his "windows" at what others give unto him. Finding only takers - he has become what he hates - a chameleon.

This state is of course avoidable. Consider the following language carefully:

I AM HAVING POSSESSION - that statement agrees in totality with the two pillars - I will it and I have it [Jachin and Boaz]. Said another way in another place - Light Be.

There is knowing and expressing a truth and then there is doing truth. The latter is freeing the former is just an observation. The former is like looking in the mirror and beholding one's image and then walking away and forgetting what one looks like. Doing the truth sets one free.

One who seeks freedom as a grant of another [judge] is not free at all. He who would be free sits under his own Palm Tree.

Jdg 4:4 And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.

Jdg 4:5 And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment.

Nevertheless, what is freedom? I wonder if anyone can define it? For when I look at my own body, I notice that my hand is not free, it is subject to my mind and all that is the body. But then, I noticed another thing - that which is within my skin is not subject to my mind- it does work absent my thought. Consider the heart - it takes no thought of the brain in order to do its work. And yet it works. So it must be subject to a higher power within that is unknown to my Mind.

Now I look without and find that everything without is subject to my Mind. Therefore my Mind is a judge regarding that which is subject to the senses [external sensations] of and unto the body. And i looked again to discover my mouth. And I found that my lower jaw is only constrained by the ligaments of the jaw - otherwise the Mind allows the lower jaw to move [eat] which is akin to the lower mind - Carnality - or Carnal Mind.

Notice at once that the cells within the body are not able to exert will to demand a certain food. This is a great mystery! So we see many times what is eaten [external - lower carnal mind] has to be accepted and dealt with that which is within. We take thought regarding what is eaten without - and that which is within has no say in regard to acceptance or acknowledgment. Only that is to say if the food is sub-standard - the entire body becomes sick. So we see the Carnal Mind is at war with the Divine Mind - and it will remain as such, until we have the courage to look within and find ourselves.

Rom 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

The Carnal Mind eats what it wants to eat - subjecting that which is within sometimes to swine's flesh - which is full of sickness. We can see this physically but also meta-physically in terms of philosophy. Reference the parable of the one who builds on Rock vs the one who builds on sand.

But now I considered my upper jaw [Higher Mind] and found that it does not move - it is completely subject to the head [Divine Mind which is Spirit]. So in consideration of the body, I found that each cell is subject to higher powers. And finding that man-kind is constituted just like the body of a man - each cell with its own office - whereof said office is subject to a higher power - how then is individual man not subject to the Societal body of which he is a member?

So I ask again - define freedom. Is the best that can be achieved LIBERTY? I think that is so while man-kind continues to look without his windows. But one day man will begin to look within himself to find himself and then, also find Divine Mind [Spirit] and then Merge into Oneness - but as Man-Kind is the WIFE of the Eternal of Days, then it is said of the wife to submit to the Husband. So now, even the Scriptures do not help the Angry One who thinks he desires freedom.

In fact, as far as I can tell, given my limited knowledges, man kind is the only kind that does not make distinction between the male and female in name. For instance, consider the dog. While there are different specie of dog, there is only dog-king. And therefore there is male dog and female dog [with many different specie]. Now consider man-kind. Why is female-man called Woman? Therein is a great mystery hidden in plain sight.

continuing....

[Michael Joseph]

continuing....



Mary Magdalene knew the mystery. As evidenced herein her Gospel:

1) But they were grieved. They wept greatly, saying, How shall we go to the Gentiles and preach the gospel of the Kingdom of the Son of Man? If they did not spare Him, how will they spare us?

2) Then Mary stood up, greeted them all, and said to her brethren, Do not weep and do not grieve nor be irresolute, for His grace will be entirely with you and will protect you.

3) But rather, let us praise His greatness, for He has prepared us and made us into Men.

4) When Mary said this, she turned their hearts to the Good, and they began to discuss the words of the Savior.


===================

Now then I ask anew - what is freedom? And how can man-kind who subjects him/her self to another, be free? For at once when one asks to be free, one by said request confirms one's slavery. For why ask, if one is not under the authority of another? And if one is under the authority of another, then one should obey that authority. Else one should leave his Mother and his Father and go build a new House to make it ready in support of a wife.

A king will not suffer a suppliant before the throne to make demand. Mary knew - He has prepared us and made us into Men - is a statement regarding Leadership - Kingship. For Female-Man can lead as Queen Elizabeth does show.

Humorous to me

Gen 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam [Man], in the day when they were created.


Shalom,
MJ

[David Merrill]

The only thing between you and the Kingdom is between your ears.

[allodial]

And God prepareth the man in His image; in the image of God He prepared him, a male and a female He prepared them. Genesis 1:27 --YLT

A male and a female He hath prepared them, and He blesseth them, and calleth their name Man, in the day of their being prepared. Genesis 1:27 YLT

Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. Genesis 5:2 KJV

In the book of Genesis it is clear that mankind (men) were made male and female from the very start. Today we use the term 'woman' to refer to those of mankind of a female/passive bodily and spiritual type. Today we use the term 'man' to refer to those of mankind of a male/active mode. The prefix 'wo' may connote 'binds with' or 'joins with'.

To say that Jesus made women in to men makes sense exactly how in light of the book of Genesis? That is:

Why would Jesus make women into men when they were men in the sense of being of mankind or 'female men' and part of mankind from the very start? Technically, 'man' is not a strictly gender because it generally refers to mankind generally. The term woman is used to connote one of mankind who is 'female'. The terms 'male' and 'female' connote genders respectively. A male is not a female and nor is a female a male. The body does not dictate its own gender that is very important to comprehend. The terms 'men' or 'man' are said to relate to the word 'Manu'.

Note: fe-male vs male and wo-man vs man.

There is a lot of heretical and misleading nonsense driving feminism, lesbianism and sodomy and as of late it has been clearly laid bare. Men and women are of mankind but males are not females and females are not males. To regard men and women as different species is utter, vile and misleading nonsense. Even, if you look at lesbian couples, one of a couple always takes on a active and dominant (more masculine) role and the other a more passive and submissive role. Clearly they have no trouble with that kind of arrangement!

Anyone who actually observes the behavior of females will see that they always seek to follow a man--this is by design. Even the so-called 'independent females' regard the State as their husband and police as their bodyguards for lack of an actual husband. Females are under a father or brother or they are under a husband. Anyone who comprehends the scriptural doctrine of coverture will see through the fallacies. Females were made to be joined to males. The male (ACTIVE) husband guards the female (A REAL MOSTLY-EMOTIONAL, SUBCONSCIOUS and PASSIVE BEING WITH TWO LEGS--NOT A MERE ABSTRACTION) just as the conscious acts as a guard for the subconscious.

Note: the word husband connotes a man who protects assets rather than liabilities. Failing to see when a female/maiden/women is a liability rather than an asset might be at the heart of many social ills (Who in their right mind guards a liability?).

And God prepareth the man in His image; in the image of God He prepared him, a male and a female He prepared them. Genesis 1:27 --YLT

Hmmm seems rather suspicious for anyone to insist that they are revealing something hidden-yet-revealed-by-some-long-lost-book when its plainly there in Genesis. Man in the sense of meaning 'mankind' has two forms: males and females or men or women.

[walter]

I understood woman to be "womb+man".

[pumpkin]

I do not buy the justification of blaming the victim. People in government took the job, for pay, of the fiduciary of the public trust. Then they use some BS commercial laws to bind the beneficiaries into undisclosed things that is not in their interests. That is a breach of duty. Some would like to argue that government is not a trust, that is wrong. The tax money and public buildings and lands are the trust property, only people pay the taxes (no matter how it is collected, takeout the people and no tax is collected) making them the settlor / beneficiaries, the constitutions are the trust documents. But what of the duties? The courts will not impose them upon themselves or other government officers, but instead will violate their own rules, statutes, precedents and constitutions to do what they will. Has the servant tricked the crown from the king.

[David Merrill]

I do not buy the justification of blaming the victim. People in government took the job, for pay, of the fiduciary of the public trust. Then they use some BS commercial laws to bind the beneficiaries into undisclosed things that is not in their interests. That is a breach of duty. Some would like to argue that government is not a trust, that is wrong. The tax money and public buildings and lands are the trust property, only people pay the taxes (no matter how it is collected, takeout the people and no tax is collected) making them the settlor / beneficiaries, the constitutions are the trust documents. But what of the duties? The courts will not impose them upon themselves or other government officers, but instead will violate their own rules, statutes, precedents and constitutions to do what they will. Has the servant tricked the crown from the king.

I like that Pumpkin;

In my thinking, with the federal repository available the whole while, Congress offered remedy in Section 16 of the Fed Act (1913). It sure looks like murder in March of 1933 - "died suddenly" so applying the Fed Act to people as state banks to fight a made-up war carries things over the top. But if I can see it, then so can anybody and maybe allowing yourself to be defrauded invites legalization of fraud through consented criminal syndicalism.

Therefore I carry my mental argument to the Supreme Court - literally and figuratively - by carrying the Constitution. Congress was given Fiduciary Responsibility as you describe, and delegated it to the Fed (Board of Governors) in 1913 - to regulate the value of money. The Fed, under Congress' supervision has driven the value of the US Dollar so far down, snapping back to $42.22/fine troy ounce over a three day Bankers' Holiday would certainly be perceived as a total crash, especially to gold bugs.

All virtual gold (contracts) would vanish I am sure. And those with the real thing would feel very cheated since the paper would be carrying the same weight in operating theory.

So that is where one can only make sense of my lien, in the acceptance that the breach of trust (idealistically) creates a void, firing the trustee (Congress) and opening a void called Resulting Trust. I accepted the position of resulting trustee.



P.S. I watched a powerful movie recently, the kind only Anthony can pull off - Armistad. One might believe that it is possible to exert the force of heritage, watching that performance. - Calling on one's ancestors. See the Attachments, especially Attachment 2.

Doc 1 True Bill
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Certificate of Service on US Attorney General
Certificate of Mailing on Colorado AG
Certificate of Mailing on Colorado Governor

[David Merrill]

P.S. I think that maybe the point on this topic is found in the US Court of Federal Claims. Mr. Victor J. WOLSKI was recused as a federal judge, having appeared to defend the all upper case deviation on his oath of office - SO HELP ME GOD. But I am referring to the opening of jurisdiction. WOLSKI made comment that he was not sure whether the USCFC had jurisdiction, and even expressed doubt. But the clerk wrote a letter of instruction that I read before filing.

It was crucial that I explain the nature of the contract so to prove that the US owed in (lawful) money. Fortunately that caught my eye. After several months Mr. WOLSKI is still unable to make utterance in his own case, being that he is now a defendant.


USCFC Complaint

Docket Report 7/25/16


It really strikes me, though through projection of my filters, that understanding how I acquired the jurisdiction around the clerk instruction that was designed to defeat any legal tender (endorsed private credit) claims might really cut to the chase about the nature of the Federal Reserve. Explaining it to the USCFC correctly was crucial in conveying the authority back to me/the record.


P.P.S. Please be aware that I am dedicating real attention to the paid students at www.lawfulmoneytrust.com so if you find this evidence repository interesting you should check it out and come inside where the real in-depth explanations in terms of trust law are happening.

[Michael Joseph]

I understood woman to be "womb+man".

Yes walter. I hear you loud and clear.

Psa 110:3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.

Queen Elizabeth doth show a woman who is male in deed.

[Michael Joseph]

The only thing between you and the Kingdom is between your ears.

I'm hip to your gnosis. No wait did you just tap into my unconscious? Oh no - my mind - I no longer have control. How did you do that? I'm melting, melting...