Originally Posted by
doug555
David,
Do you have any information confirming that Abraham Lincoln transferred all of the property of the USA to the Navy in the 1860's, creating a Public Trust and making the people the Beneficiaries and the Navy the Military Trustees, in order to preserve the Union, which the Creditors were trying to destroy?
Doug
The various mental models are fleeting.
Originally Posted by
motla68
Lieber Code:
45. All captures and booty belong, according to the modern law of war, primarily to the government of the captor. Prize money, whether on sea or land, can now only be claimed under local law.
Motla68 was banished for a spell, for pushing only the ethereal and whimsical side of the remedy. There are merits as found in Are You Lost at C? [Basically that in international law, to approach the peaceful inhabitant, central bankers must first file in the US District Courts.] What happened is when I demanded the verbiage on his Refusals for Cause (by any other name) he omitted the verbiage that expresses the current active law... or exchanged for (lawful money).
There was obviously a War (of Rebellion/Civil War) and its effects were to implement a regime of Executive Order. That war has been long over and I subscribe to a line of reasoning that the Power of Executive Order still remains but if you follow the thread of history, the Emergency - an extraordinary occasion - persists only within the realm of international banking practices. However, the gold seizure in 1933 upon saving the 1913 Fed System and 1917 Trading with the Enemy Act transmuted the use of elastic currency to that akin to a national mortgage on all real estate transactions:
This elastic money regime however depended and still depends on cooperation and voluntary signature bond by way of endorsement:
However, America supporting fiat at all - US Notes - is an indication that Emergency is still in progress in America. This supports a contradiction by Abe himself - that the People have the fundamental right to secede States from the Union but he managed to consider it a terrible thing to divide America into North and South confederations.
The political sentiment in America supports the executive regime. No State or Confederation of States are allowed to secede from the Union. Even though States or confederations can today. The Contradiction is that it is the money system that ties the whole thing together - the adhesion.~
We need to focus on a controversy that is ongoing here on the forums and even arises in the echo chamber of the brain trust. It is reflective of this seeming to be "my" Website too; in that I am intelligence nexus surrounded by sensory nodes, of which Motla68 is not included. When I prodded him to disclose the verbiage he (Coresource Solutions, an alternate think tank) would use on their R4C's he misdirected the readers here to think that the mental model of the Emergency and Lieber Code were the only active terms of agreement. After a few weeks I have decided that hashing it over - like this Post does exactly was the more beneficial method of teaching and learning both.
Indeed, a suitor has a very interesting success regarding a Setoff from a state DoR of taxes - retroactive back to before he was redeeming lawful money! [It bears his Signature-Style and he does not want to share it on this side of the echo, unfortunately, because he feels people will stumble over comprehending the trust structure in application.] But this much I am comfortable sharing; in that when he shared it with the suitors by broadcast:
Again, so that you can get it in your head - this has nothing to do with 12USC411 or refusal for cause - read carefully.
However, upon even the most cursory reading the Letter he authored utilized cited his usage of Title 12 U.S.C. §411 and he is rethinking, upon my correction his one-sided stance about what exactly the effective law was that effected the Setoff.
The issue being hashed out on the private side of the echoes is how clearly the trust structure was defined in current and ancient trust law, and how effective it was in being retroactive - in affecting the Setoff, way back for a State tax bill in 2005!
Not only that, I expect a tinge of regret that I would mention that at all here because of the sentiment that the trust structure - describing it with boxes and "private" v. "public" conventions on the front side and backside had any effect at all.
I am saying and he is saying:
David Merrill: The mention of current banking policy removing one from federal liability for Income Tax (the State liability depends on Federal liability) has potential on the challenge - Fraud by Omission. Nobody in good faith is teaching children about remedy* written into the Fed Act §16! - Leaving us in a position where we cannot sue our parents, tellers and civics teachers because they are as much victims of the fraud too. But by properly learning and applying Record-Forming we exhibit competence as courts of record and therefore getting the law (long forgotten) into the courts where an appeal tribunal will be compelled to opine and publish it for everybody.
Suitor: That the accurate description of the CQV trust structure was the effective remedy as it removed him from the virtual theater of war. - That by being a peaceful inhabitant he removed himself - primarily by offering to assist the trustee, therefore not being the trustee himself - from the post-1861 Emergency/extraordinary occasion.
Interstingly, this is done in every Libel of Review, in the "exclusive original cognizance" of the United States. It is the same old, in fact ancient mariner argument - What is the Contract? - The Law of the Flag:
Law of the flag: Man is created in the image of God and to reduce a man to chattel against the national debt is an affront to God. Exodus 13:16 and Genesis 1:27.
Exo 13:16 And it shall be for a token upon thine hand, and for frontlets between thine eyes: for by strength of hand the LORD brought us forth out of Egypt.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
This reflects a much more ancient trust and the suitor included that on the "private" side of the Letter - his confession of faith in the Christian Messianic Model. This would mean that there has been a payment, through the ancient Mosaic blood sacrifice by Jesus hanging on the Cross, that has covered his declining to become the Trustee - that he can refuse that position and appointment by right; deferring it back to the NY State DoR to act as trustee. And it did - Setoff.
Regards,
David Merrill.
~ Around 2005 the federal government was becoming stingy with State funding and there was an upsurge in local authoritian mumblings by sheriffs here and there. I suspected this was because the federal funding was becoming tight-fisted. My confirmation came though when a federal judge ordered a county clerk and recorder to remove a LoR Judgment. The county C&R made no response - and the Judgment remained untouched. After about six weeks the defense attorney for the Respondent filed/published the Order. That was all the C&R would permit apparently. The Judgment still stands published on the record.
* This may be a lot more remarkable than people might expect on the surface. Remember the suitor who got his full NY Refund? We were concerned for a moment though, because DoR NY delayed to reassess his self-assessment. The correspondence was that NY added $150 to his Refund because he forgot to claim his NY City School Credit! This showed obvious contemplation by the DoR. The agent handling it is obviously aware that this fellow has more than $6K Withholdings on Zero Income?
That is not my point though.
Upon discussion, neither he nor I were comfortable about receiving and spending the $150 from the NY DoR. We never really discussed why exactly. Maybe it is simply allowing the DoR agent to come in and reassess at all. So he made a couple phone calls and discovered the NY Schools will accept cash donations and even allow within parameters for the parent to dedicate that donation to a particular mission or category so the suitor included instructions for the school to include lessons about the Federal Reserve Act in their curriculum.
Sounds like nothing but the administrator (school principal) reading the request will have it lodged in his or her mind, now won't they?
Reply With Quote
