1. Stocks start off holding yesterdays gains, metals continue to pull back
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Good Tues Am. Gold continues to roll back and down 4.9 to 1272. Silver is down 3 to 1782. Crude is +12 to 4935, while the USD is down 3 to 9894
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Week of 4/22/2017 Closing prices & Chg Over Last Wk---- Gold $1289.10-- UP 0.60 Silver $17.85-- down 66 Oil $49.62-- down 3.80 USD $99.88 -- down 58

Lex mercatoria / Law Merchant

Discussion in 'Topical Discussions (In Depth)' started by BarnacleBob, Feb 11, 2017.



  1. David Merrill

    David Merrill Seeker Seeker

    Joined:
    May 15, 2010
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    71
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Excellent! Thank you Carl. By Michael Joseph's response I presumed you were contending our claim that redemption of lawful money is possible. Simply making the demand and creating a record (by whatever means, I prefer and advise the USDC clerk of court and PACER) one removes themselves from the Fed as a central bank. This was the intention from 1913-1933.

    I watch the effects of the last fifteen years - applying law to the convoluted delusion that debt has substance and value. One item of Code that has not been amended is Title 12 USC 411. I have read many an attorney try to alter the meaning of remedy in between readers' ears though. So it should make any reasonable mind wonder, with all this trying to distort the section of code going on, why doesn't somebody put a bill before Congress and amend or delete it?

    The Fed is an Instrumentality of the US Government.

    Thank you for that photo! Here are some for you.

    1928 bill high res.jpg

    1928 bill verbiage.jpg

    1928 US note not for duties on imports.JPG

     

    Attached Files:

  2. Carl

    Carl Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,881
    Likes Received:
    2,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Depends upon the time of day the question is asked
    Location:
    Texas
    Fifteen years you say?

    Gold Reserve Act 48 Stat. 337 - Here's the law that amends Title 12 USC 411.

    Gold Reserve Act of 1934 - Here's the explanation of the law that amends Title 12 USC 411.


    §411. Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption - Here's a source referencing the law that amends Title 12 USC 411.


    §411. Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption - Here's another source referencing the law that amends Title 12 USC 411.

    12 U.S.C. 411 - ISSUANCE TO RESERVE BANKS; NATURE OF OBLIGATION; REDEMPTION - Here's yet another source referencing the law that amends Title 12 USC 411.

    It appears that for the past 15 years, you've been laboring under false assumptions, and it took me less than 15 minutes with google to locate the correct information. Hint: The little numbers at the bottom of Title 12 USC 411 paragraph, are sourced amendments to the law.

    Currency is a generally accepted form of money, including coins and paper notes, which is issued by a government and circulated within an economy. Used as a medium of exchange for goods and services, currency is the basis for trade.

    Federal Reserve Notes are Currency Notes, produced and issued by the U.S.G. to the Federal Reserve, upon qualification, for the subsequent issue for circulation, upon demand from banking deposit account holders.

    Your efforts constitute an unqualified distraction from the real issues and the threat we currently face involving the central banking system that imposes upon us the false pretense that the debt based private credit they generate is equal to the U.S. legal tender money they legally owe.
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2017
  3. Michael Joseph

    Michael Joseph New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2017
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    solarion,

    The notes in the past related "redeemable in Lawful Money or Gold."

    If the note is redeemable in Gold or rather WAS REDEEMABLE - in Gold - which is no longer the case, then clearly even my dog can tell paper is not gold. And also, therefore the term redeemable must refer to some sort of transformation or exchange process for clearly paper is not metal. But now we must not forget the notes used to give notice that they were redeemable in Lawful Money. Now do I need to proceed any further?

    It is true that if one believes something to be then he gets what (s)he believes. Others including myself have enjoyed years of withholding returns. One student is now in this 6th year of returns. I can think of a student in New Jersey who overcame his fear and went to the local IRS office for three years before he got someone who was smart enough to bring in counsel. When they understood what he was doing, they related to him that he would be required to pay back taxes for the years he was not making his demand for lawful money but for the years he was he had no tax burden. That's a fact Jack. So no amount of silly claims of something being bogus has any effect on me and those who know the truth by experience. I have been baptized by fire.

    I put Henry PAULSON's feet to the fire in his capacities as Governor of the IMF and Secretary of the Treasury and he defaulted in non-response. When I attached the United Nations thru the IMF they fell back on their Immunity Rights developed in previous charter. But they did not rebut my claim and understanding.

    solarion, it seems you too can read. Good on you. Don't let someone else deny you access to the Estate. It is your birthright - contend for it. The more you study this stuff the less confusing it becomes. I know all of the frivolous arguments by wrote now that the IRS uses to try to dissuade one from claiming his benefit in law. When you comprehend the flaws in those cases, then you can see how crafty wordsmiths twist and turn in effort to get you to back down.

    To the claim - "your remedy is bogus" - Cancel. Said statement is refused upon First Cause - I declared it in fact. I am. Remedy is also a term of art. I seek relief by making a claim upon which can be granted relief in law. The day, my friend in New Jersey received his withholdings with 8% interest attached for the multiple years the IRS made use of said funds - well, like I said, experience trumps frivolous claims! Luckily for those who are obtaining the benefit of duty free money, they don't listen to fear based frivolous statements.

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

    Regarding the trust concept: Clearly Notes are property with certain rights and privilege associated as governed and administrated by law. He who holds or enjoys property is either in Usufruct, a Trustee or an Owner - Agents act in accord with the Trustee. Possession may be in an Owner but it does not have to be. In fact, it is true that all property is in the State as ultimate owner and that's a fact. This fact relates to the term Kingdom as in King's Dominion and his exercise over the Estates granted of the Titular Head [the King].

    The Right of Land granted of the King, in medieval times, was vested in a Lord, Baron, Earl - etc [Superior Trustee - clothed in royalty] - and Estates were granted In FEE to inferior trustees called terre-tenants - who occupied on the land in Tenancy. Quit rents were the consideration [FEE] collected of the Superior Trustees from the Terre-Tenants - other consideration included Socage [military service] - for example.

    Consider now the Right of Money - HEY READER- do you see you name on the Note? Is one who pays a rent a true owner? You decide. One may take first fruits [profits] for one's maintenance but one must pay the rent for the use. A true owner does not pay rent. Therefore, clearly the situation is a Fiefdom.

    To our Success, Most Graciously in Honor We Trust: I am Michael Joseph
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2017
  4. Carl

    Carl Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,881
    Likes Received:
    2,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Depends upon the time of day the question is asked
    Location:
    Texas
    It's funny when people who can't defend their proven false positions attempt to talk around the arguments that destroyed theirs, as if the successful arguments were never made.

    "Nevermind the facts, just follow my ritualistic bullshit. To our Success, Most Graciously in Honor We Trust: I am Michael Joseph"

    Funny.............
     
  5. arminius

    arminius Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,347
    Likes Received:
    2,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    420 healer
    Location:
    right here right now
    only to pedantic abstruse morons trying to mislead...
     
    Bigjon likes this.
  6. solarion

    solarion Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    3,931
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Strange then that "Will Pay to Bearer on Demand" was not stricken from FRNs until when? 1963? ...coincidentally when more US Notes were put into circulation.

    ...so if you took one of those creepy FRNs to a notFederal noReserve branch to be "paid" what would you receive? Gold until 1971 right? ...so if that was ended and US Notes were never removed from circulation, then those are simply the only thing remaining to exchange FRNs for correct?
     
  7. arminius

    arminius Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,347
    Likes Received:
    2,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    420 healer
    Location:
    right here right now
    Welcome Michael Joseph. Good to have you aboard.
     
  8. Michael Joseph

    Michael Joseph New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2017
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Hey thanks. If I seem recondite or abstruse it is because I speak in a foreign language. Here's the thing - I am for freedom and the exercise of free will. I languish at those who are the gatekeepers who don't even know they are mere parrots spouting the party line. Have you ever noticed that the talk show guys radio and T.V. opine on and on about the problem? Do you ever hear any semblance of a solution slipping from their lips?

    These are mere clowns parroting slavery. And I a Moses who has awoken to my true Estate and now I must leave Egypt but I see my brethren struggling with their taskmasters where said "middlemen" being paid well unconsciously oppress their own people for material things. Whores and Prostitutes as far as the eye can see! Moses [the rational Mind] has to settle the dispute between these two warring thoughts. But then there is that nagging inner voice who made you a judge of us? As within so without. And anyone can see this is true.

    Here's a bit of a rattle snake:

    Similarly, the Ninth Circuit rejected the argument that when "currency was exchanged for a cashier's check, the currency, which is the res, `disappeared into the banking system and is no longer identifiable.'" United States v. $46,588 in U.S. Currency and $20.00 in Canadian Currency, 103 F.3d 902, 905 (9th Cir.1996)

    Res is the subject of a TRUST. And he who holds the property possesses it upon certain uses. This should be obvious even to a two year old.

    The RES as a legal entity is identical with the physical article [thing]. Furthermore:

    The forfeited res, as a legal entity, is identical with the physical article when the property is, for example, a sea vessel, an automobile, or a firearm. Currency, however, differs substantially from such objects. Paper currency, in the form of the Federal Reserve Note, is defined as an "obligation[] of the United States" that may be "redeemed in lawful money on demand." 12 U.S.C. § 411 (2002). These bills are not "money" per se but promissory notes supported by the monetary reserves of the United States.

    Now lets go back to school shall we? These bills clearly relates to Federal Reserve Notes......and I quote "These bills are NOT MONEY" but now we read they may be redeemed ON DEMAND in Lawful Money.... So as to abruptly and without mercy awaken (s)he that is still sleeping......These bills are not money.... are not money..... are not money..... are now money.....did you catch that last.....just kidding...seeing if you were paying attention....he heh.

    But may be redeemed in Lawful Money on demand. The demand for the benefit of the use of Money must be made! The choice was given to the people.... Moses instruct your people - choose ye this day whom ye shall serve will it be Life or Death - did anyone notice the Altar on Washington's head?

    There are many more obvious cites and we touch on just a few. Oh before you go back to sleep......THESE BILLS are NOT MONEY.....Rofl... I have to humor myself with this stuff. I used to give free seminars on trusts and notes. I would speak for hours and at the end maybe two people would ask a question. Afterwards, maybe one kept asking questions.

    One man plants, another man waters, God gives the increase. Change your thoughts and you change your world. I withdraw with a favorite Scripture:

    Isa 52:1 Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean.

    Comments:

    garments = thoughts
    city = consciousness
    unclean = he who misses the mark in sin due to ignorance of the Spiritual Law.
    Circumcision = He who comprehends the Laws of the Inner Temple and DOES THEM. He is a Jew who is one INWARDLY. Flesh and blood mean nothing.

    Isa 52:2 Shake thyself from the dust; arise, and sit down, O Jerusalem: loose thyself from the bands of thy neck, O captive daughter of Zion.

    Comments: Change our thoughts, you will change your reality.


    Zec 2:7 Deliver thyself, O Zion, that dwellest with the daughter of Babylon.

    Comments: Did you catch that......looking inwardly we can see that the daughter of confusion are desires based in fear, greed, lust or want. The blood of bulls and goats could never pay for sin. See that? These are mere symbols of the internal workings of the Mind and the unfulfilled desire missed in ignorance.


    Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
    Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:


    TRUE "DISCHARGE" is only effected by TRUE "PAYMENT", which means "substance", which means "lawful money". 12 USC 411 was not a remedy until it was discovered and tried. Do you see my connection? The blood of bulls and goats can only provide a discharge of sin [debt]....and a discharge begs a day of judgement when the debt is due. Are you connecting the dots? Are you seeing that the Gospel is playing out right before your very eyes in a way you might never expect?

    If you cannot see today, don't beat yourself up. One day you will. And that is a promise.


    To our Success, Most Graciously in Honor We Trust: I am Michael Joseph
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2017
  9. Bigjon

    Bigjon Silver Member Silver Miner Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,714
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What arguments?

    All I see is Carl posting links that regurgitate the same message and refute absolutely nothing.

    If you think you've proved something you have to present an argument that says something besides "it's bogus"

    The only thing bogus is you.
     
  10. Michael Joseph

    Michael Joseph New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2017
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    So now we shall look at global judgments which are in Rem.....

    A right in rem or a judgment in rem binds the world as opposed to rights and judgments inter partes which only bind those involved in their creation.


    ==========

    When an individual engages in a criminal transaction with paper currency, although the individual certainly uses the notes to accomplish the criminal end, the currency's monetary value funds the transaction and is also an appropriate target of forfeiture. This result also follows from the fact that an individual who uses legal documents representing ownership of land to raise funds for a criminal purpose renders the land itself subject to forfeiture. See United States v. RD 1, Box 1, Thompsontown, 952 F.2d 53 (3d Cir.1991). It would be absurd, in that case, to suppose that forfeiture could attach only to the document and not to the legal interests represented by that document. We therefore hold that the DEA did not abandon the res when it converted the currency to a cashier's check.

    In sum, we hold that the DEA properly exercised in rem jurisdiction over the $1,049 seized from Thomas. As the District Court correctly recognized in citing McGlory, no other issue that would normally go to the merits of a Rule 41(e) motion may be considered or adjudicated at this time. We therefore affirm the judgment of the District Court.

    ==========

    Take can imply abandonment.

    Jurisdiction in rem assumes the property or status is the primary object of the action, rather than personal liabilities not necessarily associated with the property. Seeing that the Earth is a THING we can see the "in rem" judgments bind the world. Contemplating a Close in terms of Law - the State is One.

    THEREFORE in rem jurisdiction relates to the power a court may exercise over property (either real or personal) or a "status" against a person over whom the court does not have in personam jurisdiction.

    When we speak of Legal Names as vessels in commerce we relate to in rem jurisdiction. That is plain to me. But now we see that the Law does not have respect unto persons. In accord with:

    Job 32:21 Let me not, I pray you, accept any man's person, neither let me give flattering titles unto man.
    Job 32:22 For I know not to give flattering titles; in so doing my maker would soon take me away.

    You want to see something neat? that may amaze you?

    Lets explore that term "flattering titles":

    H3655 - STRONGS CONCORDANCE
    כָּנָה
    kânâh
    kaw-naw'
    A primitive root; to address by an additional name; hence, to eulogize: - give flattering titles, surname (himself).


    H3655 - BROWN DRIVER BRIGGS
    כּנה
    kânâh
    BDB Definition:
    1) to title, surname, be surnamed, give an epithet or cognomen, give a flattering title
    1a) (Piel) to call by name, give a title, betitle


    AND FUTHERMORE...

    Did you catch man's person? That is a distinction made between man and man's role [person] or capacity of which man plays as the actor in the play of life. There is no respect unto the Role for that is just a mask pulled over what IS REAL see it now?

    To our Success, Most Graciously in Honor We Trust: I am Michael Joseph
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2017
  11. Michael Joseph

    Michael Joseph New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2017
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    He is merely playing the negative part in this play. I am grateful for Carl for he sharpens the minds of those who would read. Better said, If I would call myself Republican should not I know what it means to be Democrat? Actually I don't give a crap about either party, but you get my point. I hope anyways.

    Carl does a service and We appreciate Carl.

    To our Success, Most Graciously in Honor We Trust: I am Michael Joseph
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2017
  12. Carl

    Carl Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,881
    Likes Received:
    2,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Depends upon the time of day the question is asked
    Location:
    Texas
    You are mistaken. I'm not "playing a negative part" in your delusional play, I'm outright refuting it, and have refuted it, your invoked incantations notwithstanding. And you're not gonna wordsmith your way around that fact.

    Now, appreciate that.....
     
  13. Michael Joseph

    Michael Joseph New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2017
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Represent

    To exhibit or expose; to appear in the character of.

    When an item is represented, it is produced publicly. To represent an individual means to stand in his or her place, acting as his or her substitute or attorney.


    represent
    v. 1) to act as the agent for another. 2) to act as a client's attorney. 3) the state something as a fact, such as "I tell you this horse is only four years old." 4) to allege a fact in court, as "I represent to the court, that we will present six witnesses," "We represent that this is the final contract between the parties.

    ======

    What about Pro Se?

    pro se
    (proh say) prep. Latin for "for himself". A party to a lawsuit who represents himself (acting in propria persona), is appearing in the case "pro se."


    ======

    Does this seem like word magick to you? To represent means to stand in his or her place. Now then how can a man represent himself? Does not a man exist? Ponder that one for a moment. Can you hear me?

    While I am chuckling now - I am reminded of Adele - Hello from the other side....rofl. Do I have to be "out of my mind" to represent self? Think about that one. To represent Self - I act as an agent for myself.

    Hello God its just me Michael. Just plain ole Me. Thou shalt have no other Gods before Me.

    Oh how they do make merchandise out of the Souls of Man. Lex [law] Mercatoria [Merchant] ===> Lex Rex. Don't you know it's all about the economy? To the reader - see if you can find the works of Byron BEERS. You will not be disappointed.

    Let me see if I can name some character aspects of God:

    1. All knowing
    2. All powerful
    3. Omnipresent

    Does this not relate to the rule of the central banking overlay in conjunction with the central church/state of bogus external practice - bulls and goats cannot satisfy debt. There remains a day - a certain day - when discharged debt must be settled. Do not the priests of this system play their part in this great drama?

    Now then, I suppose I could accept that a man could represent his interests in his own Estate. Now then that makes sense. But then I would have to know the meaning of Charge. What an eye opener.

    CHARGE, contracts. An obligation entered into by the owner of an estate which makes the estate responsible for its performance. Vide 2 Ball & Beatty, 223; 8 Com. Dig. 306, Appendix, h. t. Any obligation binding upon him who enters into it, which may be removed or taken away by a discharge. T. de la Ley, h. t.

    And since it contemplates an Estate - now I just must know what LEGAL means:

    LEGAL. That which is according to law. It is used in opposition to equitable, as the legal estate is, in the trustee, the equitable estate in the cestui que trust. Vide Powell on Mortg. Index, h. t.

    2. The party who has the legal title, has alone the right to seek a remedy for a wrong to his estate, in a court of law, though he may have no beneficial interest in it. The equitable owner, is he who has not the legal estate, but is entitled to the beneficial interest.

    3. The person who holds the legal estate for the benefit of another, is called a trustee; he who has the beneficiary interest and does not hold the legal title, is called the beneficiary, or more technically, the cestui que trust.

    4. When the trustee has a claim, he must enforce his right in a court of equity, for he cannot sue any one at law, in his own name; 1 East, 497; 8 T. R. 332; 1 Saund. 158, n. 1; 2 Bing. 20; still less can he in such court sue his own trustee. 1 East, 497.

    LEGAL ESTATE. One, the right to which may be enforced in a court of law. It is distinguished from an equitable estate, the rights to which can be established only in a court of equity. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 1688.

    and finally I sought to know what Res means:

    RES, property. Things. The terms "Res," "Bona," "Biens," used by jurists who have written in the Latin and French languages, are intended to include movable or personal, as well as immovable or real property. 1 Burge, Confl. of Laws, 19. See Biens; Bona; Things.

    and then I wondered about RES-Ident. And then the light came on.

    RESIDENT, persons. A person coming into a place with intention to establish his domicil or permanent residence, and who in consequence actually remains there. Time is not so essential as the intent, executed by making or beginning an actual establishment, though it be abandoned in a longer, or shorter period. See 6 Hall's Law Journ. 68; 3 Hagg. Eccl. R. 373; 20 John. 211 2 Pet. Ad. R. 450; 2 Scamm. R. 377.

    but then I was confused again until I found this:

    RESIDENCE. The place of one's domicil. (q. v.) There is a difference between a man's residence and his domicil. He may have his domicil in Philadelphia, and still he may have a residence in New York; for although a man can have but one domicil, he may have several residences. A residence is generally tran-sient in its nature, it becomes a domicil when it is taken up animo manendi. Roberts; Ecc. R. 75.

    2. Residence is prima facie evidence of national character, but this may at all times be explained. When it is for a special purpose and transient in its nature, it does not destroy the national character.


    and now I connected the Res to Character which connects to Represent - and then to Person. And now finally to Domicil

    DOMICIL.

    2. A man cannot be without a domicil, for he is not supposed to have abandoned his last domicil until he has acquired a new one. 5 Ves. 587; 3 Robins. 191; 1 Binn. 349, n.; 10 Pick. 77. Though by the Roman law a man might abandon his domicil, and, until be acquired a. new one, he was without a domicil. By fixing his residence at two different places a man may have two domicils at one and the same time; as, for example, if a foreigner, coming to this country, should establish two houses, one in New York and the, other in New Orleans, and pass one-half of the year in each; he would, for most purposes, have two domicils. But it is to be observed that circumstances which might be held sufficient to establish a commercial domicil in time of war, and a matrimonial, or forensic or political domicil in time of peace, might not be such as would establish a principal or testamentary domicil, for there is a wide difference in applying the law of domicil to contracts and to wills. Phill. on Dom. xx; 11 Pick. 410 10 Mass. 488; 4 Wash. C. C. R. 514.

    =====

    Legal Name is Resident in State. It is the personage or the thing upon which is the object of Law. But we saw in Thomas as follows:

    "It would be absurd, in that case, to suppose that forfeiture could attach only to the document and not to the legal interests represented by that document."

    And there you have it - you have been given a dingy which is tied to the USS Enterprise it has a Captain at its helm - Kirk - K in Hebrew is Ch and there are no vowels in Hebrew so Kirk renders CHURCH. The first captain was Pike - ring a bell? The last was James T. Kirk... K.T.J. Knights of The [new] Jerusalem. A city in Consciousness in Unity.

    The new Church is M.A.N. and its members "son of Man". M is feminine - see the chalice? A is masculine - see the blade. N is the unity of the Chalice and the Blade which is to say the Son. MAN was the first church-State and will be the last. Question remains will Man be devoid of God or recognize his Creator? "Repugnant is the creature who would squander the ability to lift an eye to heaven conscious of his fleeting time here" - Right in Two - by Tool


    We made ourselves small by entering into a creation made by another for us. Another man built the House in which we abide. We were given a new name - not that which mom and dad gave but that which the Grand Man of the Grand House gave us. The new name was memorialized on a Certificate under the Seal of Authority of the Grand Man. Somewhere I can hear the Scripture students lamenting with me - a man shall leave his mother and father and shall cleave to his wife and they two shall become one. Jesus relates I shall go and build a house and return for my bride. The story is the same from the beginning.



    To our Success, Most Graciously in Honor We Trust: I am Michael Joseph
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2017
  14. Michael Joseph

    Michael Joseph New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2017
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Thank you Carl. We appreciate you.

    To our Success, Most Graciously in Honor We Trust: I am Michael Joseph
     
  15. David Merrill

    David Merrill Seeker Seeker

    Joined:
    May 15, 2010
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    71
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I have been watching the evolution of IRS and bank attorneys for fifteen years.

    I feel that my efforts clarify the solution presented by Congress.
     
  16. Carl

    Carl Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,881
    Likes Received:
    2,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Depends upon the time of day the question is asked
    Location:
    Texas
    I know, facts don't matter when you believe and boy howdy, you guys believe.

    Religious zealotry in all its splendor.......
     
  17. Michael Joseph

    Michael Joseph New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2017
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male

    Why thank you Carl. You continue to amaze the readers with your useful rhetoric. We do so appreciate you being apart of the discourse. As always, thank you for your comment in regard to splendor. Yes indeed. I am splendid.

    Of course the readers are left to decide what is valuable. Again many thanks for your contributions to our education. We appreciate you.

    To our Success, Most Graciously in Honor We Trust: I am Michael Joseph
     
  18. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,087
    Likes Received:
    9,048
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    Equality is Equity

    Persons making purchases for a joint undertaking are held tenants in common in equity, although at law they are joint tenants. (See Lake v. Gibson and Lake v. Craddock^
    2 Wh. and Tud. L. C. Eq. 8th ed. 973.) Equity, where possible, always favours a tenancy in common as opposed to a joint tenancy.

    Equity regards the spirit and not the letter.

    Equity looks at the intention of the parties, and not at the actual words employed in any transaction.

    https://archive.org/stream/cu31924021688670/cu31924021688670_djvu.txt
     
  19. Carl

    Carl Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,881
    Likes Received:
    2,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Depends upon the time of day the question is asked
    Location:
    Texas
    Yes, I have that affect on thinking people, too bad you don't fit that category, all you can do is repeat your ritualistic dictionary dogma and pray that with enough words you can make the facts go away.

    P.S. Do you really believe that no one notices that you don't address my arguments?
     
  20. David Merrill

    David Merrill Seeker Seeker

    Joined:
    May 15, 2010
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    71
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I do however feel I will enjoy myself by ignoring Carl. I think he just wants attention so he grabs a thread with pictures.


    I think the forums for equitable settlement of private credit of the Fed have graduated into Criminal Syndicalism out of my demanding proper oaths of office from judicial officers. Sometimes I call it "coerced equity" but there is no such thing. It rolls off the tongue as a contradiction in terms.
     
  21. Michael Joseph

    Michael Joseph New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2017
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Years ago I went looking for proper oaths of Sheriff's on every county in North Carolina. I started in the Capitol - Raleigh - which is Wake County. Sure enough when I asked the Clerk to the Board of Adjustments which, strangely enough, is the custodian of the oaths said clerk could not produce the Sheriff's oath. I gave them three days to produce the Sheriff's oath.

    And I sent them purchase money which bound the contract with the clerk. Now what happened was somewhat funny and sad at the same time. I gave notice that if they defaulted then a resulting trust would exist and I will not go further than that except to say on the last day they sent an oath overnight by FedEx so that I might receive the oath on time. I can't remember the exact days but let me say what happened is I issued my letter on the 17th of the month with a first class cancelled stamp on its face. On the 19th the Sheriff swore out his oath and they sent it to me arriving on the 20th.

    But here is the amazing thing. An officer is supposed to take his/her oath BEFORE entering office. To take it afterwards does not cure the blatant breach of trust. And in North Carolina all foreclosures are special proceedings which start with the Sheriff's Office. Now since the Sheriff had a vacant office in terms of his oath that is very suspicious to me. And his oath taken after the fact did not cure anything - it only served as evidence of fraud. I can say fraud because the judges and clerks know better!

    Now for the sad part, I grew up across the street from this man and knew him personally. I would have never thought he would be without an oath of office and yet there was no oath. It wasn't that "So Help Me God" was left off- he literally had no oath on file.

    I spoke to a County Engineer the other day about this very matter and he informed me that he was very careful to take his oath to the public BEFORE entering office. Otherwise the people have no fungible bond upon which they might demand recourse. One may later argue implied trust by usage and custom [time] but that is just fraud.

    On one hand one cannot say we are under the Constitutions and then on the other hand refuse to obey the Constitutions. That is breach of trust to the public and breach of contract to the parties of the Constitution. But no private man has any right to complain as no private man is a party to the Constitutions. So a private man must take his case to the State and the State can decide if anything should be done. Chain of command as it were. This protocol is related in Padelford vs. Mayors of the city of Savannah.

    But what equitable recourse would one have if the State waives a breach? Where are the oaths which might restore equity? Furthermore why aren't the men and women in breach of trust/contract liable in their individual capacity as trustees de son tort?

    Now I play Ed McMahon to your Johnny: What happens when the State has been noticed and nothing happens and then the Feds are notice and nothing happens? Where is remedy found? Does one petition the Bishop of Rome in his office as Ceasar? In light of Motu Proprio it seems there is no immunity when faced with blatant breach of trust. Okay I set em up for you.....

    To our Success, Most Graciously in Honor We Trust: I am Michael Joseph
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2017
  22. Michael Joseph

    Michael Joseph New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2017
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    In case anyone has forgotten: In USA v THOMAS

    "Paper currency, in the form of the Federal Reserve Note, is defined as an "obligation[] of the United States" that may be "redeemed in lawful money on demand." 12 U.S.C. § 411 (2002). These bills are not "money" per se but promissory notes supported by the monetary reserves of the United States. "

    These bills are not money...not money... not money....
    BUT
    they may be redeemed in Lawful MONEY - on demand.

    Reader you decide - this is an opinion from the Supremes. These bills are NOT money... yet the Supremes say they may be redeemed in Money if a demand is issued. Someone mentioned Equity. We have an equitable right in the Trustee to perform if a demand is made. And the trustee has a legal duty to perform should said demand be made. See meaning of the term LEGAL - Bouvier Law Dictionary.

    Hey BarnacleBob - I like that quote from Saint Augustine.

    To our Success, Most Graciously in Honor We Trust: I am Michael Joseph
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2017
  23. Bigjon

    Bigjon Silver Member Silver Miner Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,714
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Lawful money is NON-ELASTIC money. It has no excise tax applied to it as it is issued by the treasury of the United States without interest attached to it.

    FRN's are credit based money and are fractionalized in their role as elastic money and need to be drawn down via income tax to keep the monetary supply from inflating away the value of it's issue in excess FRN's.

    Carl is not even aware of this and has not refuted anything.

    I think we should all go back and read the original article that started this.

    I think I understand what Carl means when he says this distracts from the real issue, which to me is that we don't need no stinkin Jew Banksters creating debt based money as the treasury can create all the money we need and keep the money supply in balance with the total economy to avoid inflation and deflation.

    BUT, if everyone demands lawful money we create just that situation.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2017
    BarnacleBob likes this.
  24. Carl

    Carl Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,881
    Likes Received:
    2,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Depends upon the time of day the question is asked
    Location:
    Texas
    Bigjon, stringing unrelated terms together and repeating the unsubstantiated stories you've learned does not prove me wrong, it merely proves you don't know what you're talking about.

    I posted evidence of fact that challenged David Merrill's and Michael Joseph's, claims and the only response they've offered in return was to repeat their claims, as if repeating them will somehow nullify that evidence and make what they're spewing correct. This is what they do, that's how the argue.
     
  25. Bigjon

    Bigjon Silver Member Silver Miner Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,714
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Typical Carl, you say nothing and think it means something.

    You refute nothing with your silly ad hominem attacks.
     
  26. Bigjon

    Bigjon Silver Member Silver Miner Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,714
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Trophy Points:
    113
    http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/convincing.html

    Convincing Congress to Abolish the Fed
    Freedom League, Sept/Oct 1984

    When Congress borrows money on the credit of the United States, bonds are thus legislated into existence and deposited as credit entries in Federal Reserve banks. United States bonds, bills and notes constitute money as affirmed by the Supreme Court (Legal Tender Cases, 110 U.S. 421), and this money when deposited with the Fed becomes collateral from whence the Treasury may write checks against the credit thus created in its account (12 USC 391). For example, suppose Congress appropriates an expenditure of $1 billion. To finance the appropriation Congress creates the $1 billion worth of bonds out of thin air and deposits it with the privately owned Federal Reserve System. Upon receiving the bonds, the Fed credits $1 billion to the Treasury's checking account, holding the deposited bonds as collateral. When the United States deposits its bonds with the Federal Reserve System, private credit is extended to the Treasury by the Fed. Under its power to borrow money, Congress is authorized by the Constitution to contract debt, and whenever something is borrowed it must be returned. When Congress spends the contracted private credit, each use of credit is debt which must be returned to the lender or Fed. Since Congress authorizes the expenditure of this private credit, the United States incurs the primary obligation to return the borrowed credit, creating a National Debt which results when credit is not returned.

    However, if anyone else accepts this private credit and uses it to purchase goods and services, the user voluntarily incurs the obligation requiring him to make a return of income whereby a portion of the income is collected by the IRS and delivered to the Federal Reserve banksters. Actually the federal income tax imparts two separate obligations: the obligation to file a return and the obligation to abide by the Internal Revenue Code. The obligation to make a return of income for using private credit is recognized in law as an irrecusable obligation, which according to 'Bouvier's Law Dictionary' (1914 ed.), is "a term used to indicate a certain class of contractual obligations recognized by the law which are imposed upon a person without his consent and without regard to any act of his own." This is distinguished from a recusable obligation which, according to Bouvier, arises from a voluntary act by which one incurs the obligation imposed by the operation of law. The voluntary use of private credit is the condition precedent which imposes the irrecusable obligation to file a tax return. If private credit is not used or rejected, then the operation of law which imposes the irrecusable obligation lies dormant and cannot apply.

    In 'Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR Co.' 240 U.S. 1 (1916) the Supreme Court affirmed that the federal income tax is in the class of indirect taxes, which include duties and excises. The personal income tax arises from a duty -- i.e., charge or fee -- which is voluntarily incurred and subject to the rule of uniformity. A charge is a duty or obligation, binding upon him who enters into it, which may be removed or taken away by a discharge (performance): 'Bouvier', p. 459. Our federal personal income tax is not really a tax in the ordinary sense of the word but rather a burden or obligation which the taxpayer voluntarily assumes, and the burden of the tax falls upon those who voluntarily use private credit. Simply stated the tax imposed is a charge or fee upon the use of private credit where the amount of private credit used measures the pecuniary obligation. The personal income tax provision of the Internal Revenue Code is private law rather than public law. "A private law is one which is confined to particular individuals, associations, or corporations": 50 Am.Jur. 12, p.28. In the instant case the revenue code pertains to taxpayers. A private law can be enforced by a court of competent jurisdiction when statutes for its enforcement are enacted: 20 Am.Jur. 33, pgs. 58, 59. The distinction between public and private acts is not always sharply defined when published statutes are printed in their final form: Case v. Kelly, 133 U.S. 21 (1890). Statutes creating corporations are private acts: 20 Am.Jur. 35, p. 60. In this connection, the Federal Reserve Act is private law. Federal Reserve banks derive their existence and corporate power from the Federal Reserve Act: Armano v. Federal Reserve Bank, 468 F.Supp. 674 (1979). A private act may be published as a public law when the general public is afforded the opportunity of participating in the operation of the private law. The Internal Revenue Code is an example of private law which does not exclude the voluntary participation of the general public. Had the Internal Revenue Code been written as substantive public law, the code would be repugnant to the Constitution, since no one could be compelled to file a return and thereby become a witness against himself. Under the fifty titles listed on the preface page of the United States Code, the Internal Revenue Code (26 USC) is listed as having not been enacted as substantive public law, conceding that the Internal Revenue Code is private law. Bouvier declares that private law "relates to private matters which do not concern the public at large." It is the voluntary use of private credit which imposes upon the user the quasi contractual or implied obligation to make a return of income. In 'Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co.' 158 U.S. 601 (1895) the Supreme Court had declared the income tax of 1894 to be repugnant to the Constitution, holding that taxation of rents, wages and salaries must conform to the rule of apportionment. However, when this decision was rendered, there was no privately owned central bank issuing private credit and currency but rather public money in the form of legal tender notes and coins of the United States circulated. Public money is the lawful money of the United States which the Constitution authorizes Congress to issue, conferring a property right, whereas the private credit issued by the Fed is neither money nor property, permitting the user an equitable interest but denying allodial title.

    Today, we have two competing monetary systems. The Federal Reserve System with its private credit and currency, and the public money system consisting of legal tender United States notes and coins. One could use the public money system, paying all bills with coins and United States notes (if the notes can be obtained), or one could voluntarily use the private credit system and thereby incur the obligation to make a return of income. Under 26 USC 7609 the IRS has carte blanche authority to summon and investigate bank records for the purpose of determining tax liabilities or discovering unknown taxpayers: 'United States v. Berg' 636 F.2d 203 (1980). If an investigation of bank records discloses an excess of $1000 in deposits in a single year, the IRS may accept this as prima facie evidence that the account holder uses private credit and is therefore a person obligated to make a return of income. Anyone who uses private credit -- e.g., bank accounts, credit cards, mortgages, etc. -- voluntarily plugs himself into the system and obligates himself to file. A taxpayer is allowed to claim a $1000 personal deduction when filing his return. The average taxpayer in the course of a year uses United States coins in vending machines, parking meters, small change, etc., and this public money must be deducted when computing the charge for using private credit.

    On June 5, 1933, the day of infamy arrived. Congress on that date enacted House Joint Resolution 192, which provided that the people convert or turn in their gold coins in exchange for Federal Reserve notes. Through the operation of law, H.J.R. 192 took us off the gold standard and placed us on the dollar standard where the dollar could be manipulated by private interests for their self-serving benefit. By this single act the people and their wealth were delivered to the bankers. When gold coinage was thus pulled out of circulation, large denomination Federal Reserve notes were issued to fill the void. As a consequence the public money supply in circulation was greatly diminished, and the debt-laden private credit of the Fed gained supremacy. This action made private individuals who had been previously exempt from federal income taxes now liable for them, since the general public began consuming and using large amounts of private credit. Notice all the case law prior to 1933 which affirms that income is a profit or gain which arises from a government granted privilege. After 1933, however, the case law no longer emphatically declares that income is exclusively corporate profit or that it arises from a privilege. So, what changed? Two years after H.J.R. 192, Congress passed the Social Security Act, which the Supreme Court upheld as a valid act imposing a valid income tax: 'Charles C. Steward Mach. Co. v, Davis' 301 U.S. 548 (1937).

    It is no accident that the United States is without a dollar unit coin. In recent years the Eisenhower dollar coin received widespread acceptance, but the Treasury minted them in limited number which encouraged hoarding. This same fate befell the Kennedy half dollars, which circulated as silver sandwiched clads between 1965-1969 and were hoarded for their intrinsic value and not spent. Next came the Susan B. Anthony dollar, an awkward coin which was instantly rejected as planned. The remaining unit is the privately issued Federal Reserve note unit dollar with no viable competitors. Back in 1935 the Fed had persuaded the Treasury to discontinue minting silver dollars because the public preferred them over dollar bills. That the public money system has become awkward, discouraging its use, is no accident. It was planned that way.

    A major purpose behind the 16th Amendment was to give Congress authority to enforce private law collections of revenue. Congress had the plenary power to collect income taxes arising from government granted privileges long before the 16th Amendment was ratified, and the amendment was unnecessary, except to give Congress the added power to enforce collections under private law: i.e., income from whatever source. So, the Fed got its amendment and its private income tax, which is a banker's dream but a nightmare for everyone else. Through the combined operation of the Fed and H.J.R. 192, the United States pays exorbitant interest whenever it uses its own money deposited with the Fed, and the people pay outrageous income taxes for the privilege of living and working in their own country, robbed of their wealth and separated from their rights, laboring under a tax system written by a cabal of loan shark bankers and rubber stamped by a spineless Congress.

    Congress has the power to abolish the Federal Reserve System and thus destroy the private credit system. However, the people have it within their power to strip the Fed of its powers, rescind private credit and get the bankers to pay off the National Debt should Congress fail to act. The key to all this is 12 USC 411, which declares that Federal Reserve notes shall be redeemed in lawful money at any Federal Reserve bank. Lawful money is defined as all the coins, notes, bills, bonds and securities of the United States: 'Julliard v. Greenman' 110 U.S. 421, 448 (1884); whereas public money is the lawful money declared by Congress as a legal tender for debts (31 USC 5103); 524 F.2d 629 (1974). Anyone can present Federal Reserve notes to any Federal Reserve bank and demand redemption in public money -- i.e., legal tender United States notes and coins. A Federal Reserve note is a fixed obligation or evidence of indebtedness which pledges redemption (12 USC 411) in public money to the note holder. The Fed maintains a ready supply of United States notes in hundred dollar denominations for redemption purposes should it be required, and coins are available to satisfy claims for smaller amounts. However, should the general public decide to redeem large amounts of private credit for public money, a financial melt-down within the Fed would quickly occur. The process works like this. Suppose $1000 in Federal Reserve notes are presented for redemption in public money. To raise $1000 in public money the Fed must surrender U.S. Bonds in that amount to the Treasury in exchange for the public money demanded (assuming that the Fed had no public money on hand). In so doing $1000 of the National Debt would be paid off by the Fed and thus canceled. Can you imagine the result if large amounts of Federal Reserve notes were redeemed on a regular, ongoing basis? Private credit would be withdrawn from circulation and replaced with public money, and with each turning of the screw the Fed would be obliged to pay off more of the National Debt. Should the Fed refuse to redeem its notes in public money, then the fiction that private credit is used voluntarily would become unsustainable. If the use of private credit becomes compulsory, then the obligation to make a return of income is voided. If the Fed is under no obligation to redeem its notes, then no one has an obligation to make a return of income. It is that simple! Federal Reserve notes are not money and cannot be tendered when money is demanded: 105 So. 305 (1925). Moreover, the Ninth Circuit rejected the argument that a $50 Federal Reserve note be redeemed in gold or silver coin after specie coinage had been rescinded but upheld the right of the note holder to redeem his note in current public money (31 USC 392; rev., 5103): 524 F.2d 629 (1974); 12 USC 411.

    It would be advantageous to close out all bank accounts, acquire a home safe, settle all debts in cash with public money and use U.S. postal money orders for remittances. Whenever a check is received, present it to the bank of issue and demand cash in public money. This will place banks in a vulnerable position, forcing them to draw off their assets. Through their insatiable greed, bankers have over extended, making banks quite illiquid. Should the people suddenly demand public money for their deposits and for checks received, many banks will collapse and be foreclosed by those demanding public money. Banks by their very nature are citadels of usury and sin, and the most patriotic service one could perform is to obligate bankers to redeem private credit. When the first Federal Reserve note is presented to the Fed for redemption, the process of ousting the private credit system will commence and will not end until the Fed and the banking system nurtured by it collapse. Coins comprise less than five percent of the currency, and current law limits the amount of United States notes in circulation to $300 million (31 USC 5115). The private credit system is exceedingly over extended compared with the supply of public money, and a small minority working in concert can easily collapse the private credit system and oust the Fed by demanding redemption of private credit. If the Fed disappeared tomorrow, income taxes on wages and salaries would vanish with it. Moreover, the States are precluded from taxing United States notes: 4 Wheat. 316. According to Bouvier, public money is the money which Congress can tax for public purposes mandated by the Constitution. Private credit when collected in revenue can fund programs and be spent for purposes not cognizable by the Constitution. We have in effect two competing governments: the United States Government and the Federal Government. The first is the government of the people, whereas the Federal Government is founded upon private law and funded by private credit. What we really have is private government. Federal agencies and activities funded by the private credit system include Social Security, bail out loans to bankers via the IMF, bail out loans to Chrysler, loans to students, FDIC, FBI, supporting the U.N., foreign aid, funding undeclared wars, etc., all of which would be unsustainable if funded by taxes raised pursuant to the Constitution. The personal income tax is not a true tax but rather an obligation or burden which is voluntarily assumed, since revenue is raised through voluntary contributions and can be spent for purposes unknown to the Constitution. Notice how the IRS declares in its publications that everyone is expected to contribute his fair share. True taxes must be spent for public purposes which the Constitution recognizes. Taxation for the purpose of giving or loaning money to private business enterprises and individuals is illegal: 15 Am.Rep. 39; Cooley, 'Prin. Const. Law', ch. IV. Revenue derived from the federal income tax goes into a private slush fund raised from voluntary contributions, and Congress is not restricted by the Constitution when spending or disbursing the proceeds from this private fund. It is incorrect to say that the personal federal income tax is unconstitutional, since the tax code is private law and resides outside the Constitution. The Internal Revenue Code is non-constitutional because it enforces an obligation which is voluntarily incurred through an act of the individual who binds himself. Fighting the Internal Revenue Code on constitutional grounds is wasted energy. The way to bring it all down is to attack the Federal Reserve System and its banking cohorts by demanding that private credit be redeemed, or by convincing Congress to abolish the Fed. Never forget that private credit is funding the destruction of our country. [Reprinted from `Freedom League', Sept/Oct 1984]
     
  27. Carl

    Carl Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,881
    Likes Received:
    2,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Depends upon the time of day the question is asked
    Location:
    Texas
    Typical Bigjon, commenting from the great state of Denial. Like David Merrill and Michael Joseph, you believe that just because you can string a line of official sounding terms together, you're saying something of substance, you're not. At least David Merrill and Michael Joseph attempt to connect what they're spewing with some semblance of a reality while you, on the other hand, are just blathering unrelated terms.

    I posted links that substantiate my position and refute substantive portions of David Merrill and Michael Joseph's claims regarding their legal tender/lawful money and redemption arguments. They've chosen to ignore that and continue on as if it did not occur. You probably didn't even bother to read any of it and judging from your "argument", you wouldn't have understood it even if you did.

    P.S. Federal Reserve Notes Are Public Money.
     
  28. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,087
    Likes Received:
    9,048
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    There exists a clear distinction between the terms "Legal" & "Lawful"...

    "Legal" is cognizable in courts of law, as distinguished from courts of equity (Lawful), Legal is construed or governed by the "rules and principles of law", in contradistinction to "Lawful" being guided by the rules of equity.

    "In Law" & "At Law" are also two very distinct bodies of law. Both seek a form of justice yet use two very different methods & concepts to seek it. In-law/legal can be used by the sovereign to allow what would otherwise be considered unlawful & unjust in the kingdom... At-law/lawful provides civil relief & remedy (equity) from any injustice whether it be legal and/or unlawful. Pursuant doctrine, the sovereign can use legal methods to provide relief even tho it is immoral, unjust & unlawful, however as the doctrine of justice encoded thru usage & time immemorial has established, the sovereign must also provide remedy & relief to the injustice(s) created via operation of legal law.

    At least (supra) thats my understanding.


    What is LEGAL?

    1. Conforming to the law; according to law; required or permitted by law; not forbidden or discountenanced by law; good and effectual in law. 2. Proper or sufficient to be recognized by the law ; cognizable in the courts; competent or adequate to fulfill the requirements of the law. 3. Cognizable in courts of law, as distinguished from courts of equity; construed or governed by the rules and principles of law, in contradistinction to rules of equity. 4. Posited by the courts as the inference or imputation of the law, as a matter of construction, rather than established by actual proof; e. g., legal malice.

    See LAWFUL. As to legal “Age,” “Assets,” “Consideration,” “Cruelty,” “Damages,” “Day,” “Debts,” “Demand.” “Defense,” “Disability,” “Discretion,” “Duty,” “Estate,” “Evidence,” “Fraud,” $ LEGATES “Heirs,” “Holiday,” “Incapacity,” “Interest,” “Irregularity,” “Malice,” “Memory,” “Mortgage,” “Negligence,” “Notice,” “Proceedings,” “Process,” “Relevancy,” “Remedy,” “Representative,” “Reversion,” “Subrogation,” and “Tender,” see those titles.

    http://thelawdictionary.org/legal/


    What is LAWFUL?

    Law always concerneth things to the best. Wing. Max. p. 720, max. 193. Law concerneth every act to be lawful, when it standeth indifferent whether it should be lawful or not. Wing. Max. p. 722, max. 194; Finch, Law, b. 1, c. 3, n. 76. Law concerneth things according to common possibility or intendment. Wing. Max. p. 705, max. 189. Law [the law] concerneth things with equity and moderation. Wing. Max. p. 685, max. 183; Finch, Law, b. 1, c. 3, n. 74. Law disfavoreth impossibilities. Wing. Max. p. 606, max. 155. Law disfavoreth improbabilities. Wing. Max. p. 620, max. 161.Law [the law] favoreth charity. Wing. Max. p. 407, max. 135. Law favoreth common right. Wing. Max. p. 547, max. 144. Law favoreth diligence, and therefore hateth folly and negligence. Wing. Max. p. 665, max. 172; Finch, Law, b. 1, c. 3, no. 70. Law favoreth honor and order. Wing. Max. p. 739, max. 199. Law favoreth justice and right. Wing. Max. p. 502, max. 141. Law favoreth life, liberty, and dower. 4 Bacon’s Works, 345. Law favoreth mutual recompense. Wing. Max. p. 411, max. 108; Finch, Law, b. 1, c. 3, no. 42. Law [the law] favoreth possession, where the right is equal. Wing. Max. p. 375, max. 98; Finch, Law, b. 1, c. 3, no. 36. Law favoreth public commerce. Wing. Max. p. 738, max. 198. Law favoreth public quiet. Wing. Max. p. 742, max. 200; Finch, Law, b. 1, c. 3, no. 54. Law favoreth speeding of men’s causes. Wing. Max. p. 673, max. 175. Law [the law] favoreth things for the commonwealth, [common weal.] Wing. Max. p. 729, max. 197; Finch, Law, b. 1, a 3, no. 53. Law favoreth truth, faith, and certainty. Wing. Max. p. 604, max. 154. Law hateth delays. Wing. Max. p. 674, max. 176; Finch, Law, b. 1, c. 3, no. 71. Law hateth new inventions and innovations. Wing. Max. p. 756, max. 204. Law hateth wrong. Wing. Max. p. 563, max. 146; Finch, Law, b. 1, c. 3, no. 62. Law of itself prejudiceth no man. Wing. Max. p. 575, max. 148; Finch, Law, b. 1, c. 3, no. 63. Law respecteth matter of substance more than matter of circumstance. Wing. Max. p. 382, max. 101; Finch, Law, b. 1, c. 3, no. 39. Law respecteth possibility of things. Wing. Max. p. 403, max. 104; Finch, Law, b. 1, c. 3, no. 40. Law [the law] respecteth the bonds of nature. Wing. Max. p. 2G8, max. 7S; Finch, Law, b. 1, c. 3, no. 29.

    http://thelawdictionary.org/lawful/
     
    Carl likes this.
  29. TRYNEIN

    TRYNEIN Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1,394
    Likes Received:
    2,364
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    third cove on the right
    That's total BULLCHIT Carl



    “. . . checks, drafts, money orders, and bank notes are not lawful money of the United States . . .”
    State v. Neilon, 73 Pac 324, 43 Ore 168.







    I think you left a SMALL portion of the 9th circus' decision out of your quote...I'm sure you wouldn't do that on purpose, would you???

    Moreover, the Ninth Circuit rejected the argument that a $50 Federal Reserve note
    be redeemed in gold or silver coin after specie coinage had been rescinded

    but upheld the right of the note holder to redeem his note in current public money

    (31 USC 392 rev., 5103): 524 F.2d 629 (1974), 12 USC 411.



    whereas public money is the lawful money declared by Congress as a legal tender for debts
    (31 USC 5103), 521 F.2d 629 (1974).


    The key to all this is 12 USC 411, which declares that Federal Reserve notes shall be redeemed in lawful money at any Federal Reserve Bank.
    Lawful money is defined as all the coins, notes, bills, bonds and securities of the United States.
    Julliard v. Greenman, 110 US 421, 448 (1884):



    The Federal Reserve is NOT the United States
     
    Bigjon likes this.
  30. TRYNEIN

    TRYNEIN Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1,394
    Likes Received:
    2,364
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    third cove on the right
    Article published by Freedom League 1984:

    Actually the federal income tax imparts two separate obligations: the obligation to file a return and the obligation to abide by the Internal Revenue Code. The obligation to make a return of income for using private credit is recognized in law as an irrecusable obligation, which according the Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1914 ed.), is:

    “a term used to indicate a certain class of contractual obligations recognized by the law which are imposed upon a person without his consent and without regard to any act of his own”.


    This is distinguished from a recusable obligation which, according to Bouvier, arises from a voluntary act by which one incurs the obligation imposed by the operation of law. The voluntary use of private credit is the condition precedent which imposes the irrecusable obligation to file a tax return. If private credit is not used or rejected, then the operation of law which imposes the irrecusable obligation lies dormant and cannot apply.


    In Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR Co., 240 US 1 (1916) the Supreme Court affirmed that the federal income tax is in the class of indirect taxes, which include duties and excises. The personal income tax arises from a duty — i.e., charge or fee — which is voluntarily incurred and subject to the rule of uniformity.


    A charge is a duty or obligation, binding upon him who enters into it, which may be removed or taken away by a discharge (performance) Bouvier, p 459.

    Our federal personal income tax is not really a tax in the ordinary sense of the word but rather a burden or obligation which the taxpayer voluntarily assumes, and the burden of the tax falls upon those who voluntarily use private credit. Simply stated, the tax imposed is a charge or fee upon the use of private credit where the amount of private credit used measures the pecuniary obligation.


    The personal income tax provision of the Internal Revenue Code is private law rather than public law.

    “A private law is one which is confined to particular individuals, associations, or corporations”:

    50 Am.Jur.: 12 p 28.



    In the instant case the revenue code pertains to taxpayers. A private law can be enforced by a court of competent jurisdiction when statutes for its enforcement are enacted: 20 Am.Jur.: 33. pg. 58, 59.




    The distinction between public and private acts is not always sharply defined when published statutes are printed in their final form:

    Case v. Kelly, 133 US 21 (1890).



    Statutes creating corporations are private acts: 20 Am.Jur. 35, p 60. In this connection, the Federal Reserve Act is private law. Federal Reserve banks derive their existence and corporate power from the Federal Reserve Act:

    Armano v. Federal Reserve Bank, 468 F.Supp. 674 (1979).

    --------------------------------------------------------------
    The key to all this is 12 USC 411, which declares that Federal Reserve notes shall be redeemed in lawful money at any Federal Reserve Bank. Lawful money is defined as all the coins, notes, bills, bonds and securities of the United States.
    Julliard v. Greenman, 110 US 421, 448 (1884): whereas public money is the lawful money declared by Congress as a legal tender for debts (31 USC 5103), 521 F.2d 629 (1974).

    Anyone can present Federal Reserve notes to any Federal Reserve Bank and demand redemption in public money — i.e. legal tender United States notes and coins. A Federal Reserve note is a fixed obligation or evidence of indebtedness which pledges redemption (12 USC 411) in public money to the note holder.

    The Fed maintain a ready supply of United States notes in hundred dollar denominations for redemption purposes should it be required, and coins are available to satisfy claims for smaller amounts. However, should the general public decide to redeem large amounts of private credit for public money, a financial melt-down within the Fed would quickly occur.


    The process works like this: Suppose $1000 in Federal Reserve notes are presented for redemption in public money. To raise $1000 in public money the Fed must surrender US Bonds in that amount to the Treasury in exchange for the public money demanded (assuming that the Fed had no public money on hand). In so doing, $1000 of the National Debt would be paid off by the Fed and thus canceled.

    Can you imagine the result if large amounts of Federal Reserve notes were redeemed on a regular ongoing basis? Private credit would be withdrawn from circulation and replaced with public money, and with each turning of the screw the Fed would be obliged to pay off more of the National Debt. Should the Fed refuse to redeem its notes in public money, then the fiction that private credit is used voluntarily would become unsustainable.


    If the use of private credit becomes compulsory, then the obligation to make a return of income is voided. If the Fed is under no obligation to redeem its notes, then no one has an obligation to make a return of income. It is that simple! Federal Reserve notes are not money and cannot be tendered when money is demanded:
    105 So. 305 (1925).

    Moreover, the Ninth Circuit rejected the argument that a $50 Federal Reserve note be redeemed in gold or silver coin after specie coinage had been rescinded but upheld the right of the note holder to redeem his note in current public money
    (31 USC 392 rev., 5103): 524 F.2d 629 (1974), 12 USC 411.


    ----------------------------------------------------------



    Should the people suddenly demand public money for their deposits and for checks received, many banks will collapse and be foreclosed by those demanding public money. Banks by their very nature are citadels of usury and sin, and the most patriotic service one could perform is to obligate bankers to redeem private credit.

    When the first Federal Reserve note is presented to the Fed for redemption, the process of ousting the private credit system will commence and will not end until the Fed and banking system nurtured by it collapse. Coins comprise less than five percent of the currency, and current law limits the amount of United States notes in circulation to $300 million (31 USC 5115).

    The private credit system is exceedingly over extended compared with the supply of public money, and a small minority working in concert can easily collapse the private credit system and oust the Fed by demanding redemption of private credit. If the Fed disappeared tomorrow, income taxes on wages and salaries would vanish with it. Moreover, the States are precluded from taxing United States notes: 4 Wheat. 316.
     
    Hystckndle, arminius and Bigjon like this.
  31. TRYNEIN

    TRYNEIN Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1,394
    Likes Received:
    2,364
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    third cove on the right


    More bullchit by you Carl.

    Statutory law is NOT supreme to the constitutional law

    Using Private Credit is voluntary which means there MUST be a REMEDY to opt out from it.
    If Congress every tried to remove REMEDY, then that would mean it is forced upon us which is a violation of our (current) 13th Amendment.



    Amendment XIII

    Section 1.
    Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.



    Imagine that Carl.
    The government can not for me into INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE!!!


    This is from 1988.
    Read this until you understand what it says


    Involuntary Servitude
    “For purposes of criminal prosecution under § 241 or § 1584, the term "involuntary servitude" necessarily means a condition of servitude in which the victim is forced to work for the defendant by the use or threat of physical restraint or physical injury or by the use or threat of coercion through law or the legal process. This definition encompasses cases in which the defendant holds the victim in servitude by placing him or her in fear of such physical restraint or injury or legal coercion.”
    UNITED STATES V. KOZMINSKI, 487 U. S. 931 (1988)



     
    Bigjon likes this.
  32. David Merrill

    David Merrill Seeker Seeker

    Joined:
    May 15, 2010
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    71
    Trophy Points:
    28
    It is amusing how many times this is pointed out and still questioned by some. The statute between 1913 and 1934 is very revealing. Thanks for thinking of the simple mental puzzle:

    12 USC 411 pre 1934.jpg


    12 USC 411 annotated.JPG 12 USC 411 pre 1934.jpg


     
  33. Carl

    Carl Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,881
    Likes Received:
    2,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Depends upon the time of day the question is asked
    Location:
    Texas
    Federal Reserve Notes are not a check, or a draft, or a money order, or a bank note, or a debit card, or a credit card, or a deposit account.

    It was a verbatim 'cut-n-paste' quote from https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_15197.htm
    Here's the link to the case: https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/524/524.F2d.629.72-1666.html

    Federal Reserve Notes were/are the notes tendered in 'redemption'. If you're getting back that which was tendered, then you're not really 'redeeming' anything. Besides, the Gold Reserve Act 48 Stat. 337 , nullified the whole 'redemption' argument.

    Exactly! Federal Reserve Notes ARE: Public money, the lawful money declared by Congress as a legal tender for debts.




    As stated earlier; the Gold Reserve Act 48 Stat. 337 , nullified the whole 'redemption' argument.



    Exactly. As per (31 USC 5103) FRNs are lawful money.

    You are correct, the Federal Reserve is not the United States, it is an agency of the United States governed by U.S. Law. And nowhere in any U.S. law, does it grant to either the Federal Reserve or the U.S. banking system the right or privilege to create/coin/print United States legal tender money.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2017
  34. Carl

    Carl Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,881
    Likes Received:
    2,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Depends upon the time of day the question is asked
    Location:
    Texas
    Correct. Congress enacted statutory laws are authorized by the constitution.

    Exactly. That's been my argument for several years now, Fed and bankster generated asset-backed, debt-based, PRIVATE credit, is NOT a U.S. legal tender money, or a money of any type. It is 100% pure bank debt, and what they legally owe in payment of that debt is U.S. legal tender money as defined in law (31 U.S. Code § 5103) United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.

    That, is what the U.S.G. owes in final payment of its debts and that, is what the banks legally owe to their deposit account holders.
     
  35. TRYNEIN

    TRYNEIN Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1,394
    Likes Received:
    2,364
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    third cove on the right
    NO They are not...
    Even the 9th circus says so right here.

    WHY would the NOTE HOLDER redeem his notes for PUBLIC MONEY if it is already public money???



    Moreover, the Ninth Circuit rejected the argument that a $50 Federal Reserve note
    be redeemed in gold or silver coin after specie coinage had been rescinded
    but upheld the right of the note holder to redeem his note in current public money

    (31 USC 392 rev., 5103): 524 F.2d 629 (1974), 12 USC 411.






    BULLCHIT...all of it


    How can a private corporation print public money????



    “Federal Reserve Bank notes, and other notes
    constituting a part of common currency of country,

    are recognized as good tender for money,
    unless specially objected to."
    MacLeod v. Hoover (1925), 159 La. 244, 105 S. 305.
     
  36. Carl

    Carl Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,881
    Likes Received:
    2,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Depends upon the time of day the question is asked
    Location:
    Texas
    It is amusing how many times the Gold Reserve Act 48 Stat. 337 is pointed out as legally nullifying the entire 'redemption argument' yet, that bogus argument is still trotted out by some.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2017
  37. Carl

    Carl Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,881
    Likes Received:
    2,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Depends upon the time of day the question is asked
    Location:
    Texas
    See my above response, the facts of the matter as I've presented, haven't changed and my response hasn't either.

    What private corporation are you referring to????

    U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing, prints the legal tender, the U.S. Department of Treasury issues the legal tender to the Fed upon payment for the production of the notes and posting of collateral of equal value to the notes received, as per Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act. Federal Reserve notes represent a first lien on all the assets of the Federal Reserve Banks, and on the collateral specifically held against them.

    Legal Tender Status


    Please note the YEAR of that case. That all changed in 1934.
     
  38. Bigjon

    Bigjon Silver Member Silver Miner Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,714
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FRN's have 2 seals one seal for the U.S. Treasury and one seal for the Federal Reserve.
    U.S. Notes have 1 Seal for the U.S. Treasury.

    Until you make your demand for Lawful money the FRN you hold is private money of the Federal Reserve.

    Why else do they keep the law 12 USC 411 on the books?

    Because you still have to demand money in the form of lawful money.
     
  39. TRYNEIN

    TRYNEIN Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1,394
    Likes Received:
    2,364
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    third cove on the right


    Carl can't understand that his statutory law can not change constitutional law no matter how hard he tries...
     
    Bigjon likes this.
  40. Carl

    Carl Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,881
    Likes Received:
    2,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Depends upon the time of day the question is asked
    Location:
    Texas
    That's twice you've made that proclamation without tendering any support for it or connecting it to the subject so I have to ask: What are you babbling on about?
     

Share This Page