Lawful Money ...??

[shikamaru]

Ramsey is alright. Kiyosaki is better in my opinion.
Then there are other materials that will increase one's financial intelligence.

[motla68]

Ramsey is alright. Kiyosaki is better in my opinion.
Then there are other materials that will increase one's financial intelligence.

Really? I found it quite shocking a couple years ago when I was invited to one of his
introductory seminars, this was the downslope of the economy where he was asking
people to negotiate increasing the credit on their credit cards with the banks to pay
for his advanced training course and then later negotiate another increase with another
card to go get a house to flip, he noted it as hard money.
This guy Kiyosaki is a showmen and so are a couple of his associates, they make
money off of doing seminars in a downed economy taking advantage of people and
that is about it, Needless to say I left not to return the next day.

I tore up all credit cards, paid off loans back in 2003, no more lines of credit either since
then. If your serious about Lawful Money you cannot be playing around with bank money,
this is double mindedness and destroys the cause laid out for a sound Republic.
Banks are doing what we should have been doing, investing in the treasury in lawful money,
then the treasury allows them to fractionalize it at the expense of taxpayers, another words they get paid twice and we are left to look like fools.
There is more of us then there is of them, it is the free will wants of the people that determine the direction of the currency flow. I see the treasury as like one of those old dumb terminal computers, it knows nothing, what you put into it is what you are going to get out of it

Food for thought,

motla68

[David Merrill]

Really? I found it quite shocking a couple years ago when I was invited to one of his
introductory seminars, this was the downslope of the economy where he was asking
people to negotiate increasing the credit on their credit cards with the banks to pay
for his advanced training course and then later negotiate another increase with another
card to go get a house to flip, he noted it as hard money.
This guy Kiyosaki is a showmen and so are a couple of his associates, they make
money off of doing seminars in a downed economy taking advantage of people and
that is about it, Needless to say I left not to return the next day.

I tore up all credit cards, paid off loans back in 2003, no more lines of credit either since
then. If your serious about Lawful Money you cannot be playing around with bank money,
this is double mindedness and destroys the cause laid out for a sound Republic.
Banks are doing what we should have been doing, investing in the treasury in lawful money,
then the treasury allows them to fractionalize it at the expense of taxpayers, another words they get paid twice and we are left to look like fools.
There is more of us then there is of them, it is the free will wants of the people that determine the direction of the currency flow. I see the treasury as like one of those old dumb terminal computers, it knows nothing, what you put into it is what you are going to get out of it

Food for thought,

motla68

Now you are starting to get my perspective on the people in the course. Not RAMSEY. However RAMSEY cuts a Credit Card in half on stage in Lesson One. The facilitator though, he admits that he still keeps a CC because of his wife.

I am there to guage shock testing.

[shikamaru]

Really? I found it quite shocking a couple years ago when I was invited to one of his
introductory seminars, this was the downslope of the economy where he was asking
people to negotiate increasing the credit on their credit cards with the banks to pay
for his advanced training course and then later negotiate another increase with another
card to go get a house to flip, he noted it as hard money.
This guy Kiyosaki is a showmen and so are a couple of his associates, they make
money off of doing seminars in a downed economy taking advantage of people and
that is about it, Needless to say I left not to return the next day.

I would not know as much as I know about finance and money had it not been for Kiyosaki. In fact, Kiyosaki's information got me out of debt. Kiyosaki's information got me from plumb ignorance to having some idea of what is going on with and in money.
You have an advantage over most people because you know of law and finance as well as the relationship between the two.
I would tailor Kiyosaki's information based on your legal and financial knowledge as well as your personal dispositions.
Ramsey's information is far, far too basic in my opinion. I consider Kiyosaki's information fairly advanced in comparison to Ramsey.
Corporations are designed for engaging in debt and risk with limited liability immunity. Use them for that purpose.

I tore up all credit cards, paid off loans back in 2003, no more lines of credit either since
then. If your serious about Lawful Money you cannot be playing around with bank money,
this is double mindedness and destroys the cause laid out for a sound Republic.
Banks are doing what we should have been doing, investing in the treasury in lawful money,
then the treasury allows them to fractionalize it at the expense of taxpayers, another words they get paid twice and we are left to look like fools.
There is more of us then there is of them, it is the free will wants of the people that determine the direction of the currency flow. I see the treasury as like one of those old dumb terminal computers, it knows nothing, what you put into it is what you are going to get out of it

Food for thought,

motla68

Fair enough.
As far as republicanism goes, most people have no interest in bringing back or living within a republic. They are quite content with their private credit of the FRB as well as their agent telling them what to do and how to live.
My public/private model accounts for both the private credit of the FRB and lawful money. If at the very least, one can use the system to transition from Lex Mercatoria to American Common Law.

[David Merrill]

Such a government, in its highest degree, assumes a character very closely resembling that of a lawful government. This is when the usurping government expels the regular authorities from their customary seats and functions, and establishes itself in their place, and so becomes the actual government of a country. The distinguishing characteristic of such a government is, that adherents to it in war against the government de jure do not incur the penalties of treason...

I believe this is in alignment with what MJ is saying. I wish BY would facilitate discussion too by pointing out some interesting passages.

It is certainly in alignment with my point - about Financial Peace. - In that when I tried negotiating a Comptroller Warrant without resorting to citation of the UCC - Without Recourse only; the next morning was the Montana Freeman Standoff. Commanding the return of specie (pre-1861) against the US has manifest in that more than once.

[Michael Joseph]

I believe this is in alignment with what MJ is saying. I wish BY would facilitate discussion too by pointing out some interesting passages.

It is certainly in alignment with my point - about Financial Peace. - In that when I tried negotiating a Comptroller Warrant without resorting to citation of the UCC - Without Recourse only; the next morning was the Montana Freeman Standoff. Commanding the return of specie (pre-1861) against the US has manifest in that more than once.

1861 Confiscation Act

here's the thing: If the Military holds Titles [legal/equitable] and Property [rights of use] in Trust, as Trustee. And the beneficiary is government at that time, then we got to look at the structure of government at that time. And in fact "The United States of America" - style of the Art. of Confederacy - was already in default - so the United States comes in and does a thing for it see Preamble. So in fact The United States of America has already been placed into Trust and the United States is government as beneficiary to the Military as Trustee and the US Treasury held in Trust.

Tell me where a private man fits into this trust structure? Will you now argue against the Trustee in regard to his estate? I am neither trustee or beneficiary - I am without, acting as envoy, on behalf of the owner.

Will you, as Adam, cover the sin of one who would take against the Trust - by bond? If you would place a bond, don't you have an interest in said bond?

But then again, you are using Intangible Property of the Trust? = Money! Did you make a demand for lawful money or not? Did you create said money [intangible property]?

For I know I am not trustee and this is your estate in the [FIRST MIDDLE LAST], as cestui que trust; and, while I am authorized by legal right to Use the CQT, I do not intent to trespass the office of the Trustee in Trustee de son Tort.

7. Martial law extends to property, and to persons, whether they are subjects of the enemy or aliens to that government.

31. A victorious army appropriates all public money, seizes all public movable property until further direction by its government, and sequesters for its own benefit or of that of its government all the revenues of real property belonging to the hostile government or nation. The title to such real property remains in abeyance during military occupation, and until the conquest is made complete.

I am still waiting for one to show me the Peace Treaty that ended the Civil War.....


---------------------------------------
We have already seen that the people of the insurgent States, under the Confederate government were, in legal contemplation, substantially in the same condition as inhabitants of districts of a country occupied and controlled by an [75 U.S. 1, 13] invading belligerent. The rules which would apply in the former case would apply in the latter; and, as in the former case, the people must be regarded as subjects of a foreign power, and contracts among them be interpreted and enforced with reference to the conditions imposed by the conqueror, so in the latter case, the inhabitants must be regarded as under the authority of the insurgent belligerent power actually established as the government of the country, and contracts made with them must be interpreted and enforced with reference to the condition of things created by the acts of the govering power.

Turn your penny over and see if you can find the king of the throne!

[David Merrill]

I believe my perspective on it is unique.

[David Merrill]

Exactly - the BOND.

[Michael Joseph]

Exactly - the BOND.

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...ull=1#post2308

[Binbokusai Yagyuu]

Sorry ..
traveling has been of necessity

Let's start here

It was by this government exercising its power throughout an immense territory, that the Confederate notes were issued early in the war, and these notes in a short time became almost exclusively the currency of the insurgent States. As contracts in themselves, except in the contingency of successful revolution, these notes were nullities; for, except in that event, there could be no payer. They bore, indeed, this character upon their face, for they were made payable only 'after the ratification of a treaty of peace between the Confederate States and the United States of America.' While the war lasted, however, they had a certain contingent value, and were used as money in nearly all the business transactions of many millions of people. They must be regarded, therefore, as a currency, imposed on the community by irresistible force.