This fascinating topic about the torn paycheck boiled over onto related threads...
I am more on focusing on the right to public money. A suitor who is a notable author in macroeconomics says:
Quote:
Hi David:
Before making a fruitless trip to the federal Reserve, I called up the CITY NAME Fed and explained that pursuant to 12 USC § 411 I had the right to redeem Fed notes for United States notes.
The converstation was hilarious. I said that I wanted to redeem Fed Notes for United States notes. No one understood what I was asking. I was asked if I had foreign currency or a certificate of some kind or a bond or treasury bill. I said Fed notes for U.S. notes.
I was turned over to one employee after another until I got to a fourth very senior employee who said he never heard of a United States note and that I could only get other Fed notes for Fed notes.
This senior employee then directed me to call an 800 number and this time the head of the department told me that a law that required the Feds to keep 300 Million Dollars of United States notes for the purpose of redeeming Fed notes was repealed and so they do not keep U.S. notes anymore.
I was then asked to contact the Secretary of the United States if I needed any more information. I sent a certified mail to the Secretary asking him where I can get public money more that a week ago. No response yet.
I suspect the use of Fed notes is mandatory.
I do not think that U.S. Postal Money Orders are public money either. All the legislatures only pass public policy statutes in the interest of the nations creditors following the national bankruptcy.
All of our lives, labor, and property have been secretly and fraudulently (because we did not give power of attorney or consent) pledged by the politicians as surety for the national debt which is in default. We are presumed debtors who voluntarily use private credit to discharge debts thus creating an unrevealed commercial contract with the Fed. government and as a result we are bound by all the public policy statutes which are obligations of that unrevealed commercial contract.
But, every system of law must have a remedy and a recourse or else we are all slaves (in violation of the constitutions)
We all must protest the use of private credit and notes.
I routinely stamp both sides of the Fed notes I use with a red ink stamp USED ONLY BY NECESSITY UNDER PROTEST.
A better stamp would be USED ONLY BY COMPELLED NECESSITY UNDER PROTEST, WITHOUT RECOURSE, & WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC 1-308.
If we were to file class action suits against state legislatures for FRAUD against its citizenry, their defense will be that they provided us a remedy against their public policy statutes in the UCC @ 1-308 & 1-103.
Most people do not know what to say if asked by a public official what they mean by the phrase "Without prejudice UCC 1-308" in conjunction with their name.
The answer:
Quote:
|
I, John Doe, have exercised the remedy provided me under the Uniform Commercial Code at Article I, Section 308 whereby I might timely, validly, sufficiently, and explicitly reserve my common law Right not to be bound by, nor be compelled to perform under any contract, commercial agreement, or bankruptcy in which I did not enter intentionally, knowingly, and voluntarily, and by such reservation of Right, I have notified all administrative agencies of federal, state, and local governments that I do not and will not accept the liability associated with the compelled benefits of any such unrevealed contract, commercial agreement, or bankruptcy, especially including but not limited to the use of Federal Reserve notes to discharge debts in equity with limited liability. My use of Federal Reserve notes is not voluntary, is under protest, and is by compelled necessity as a matter of survival only.
|
When I hear from the Treasury, I will let you know.
Best Regards
True Name.
|
I highlighted a couple things.
Every law system has remedy. True in theory. The suitor
suspects that FRNs have become
mandatory. At least as I see it, those clauses are somewhat contradictory. In other words, he is saying that one must defeat all presumptions one has no remedy with every signature under contract law (the UCC). I am saying that is a cumbersome obligation.
I want to see it pressed that one not only has the right to public money from the moment they start using the non-endorsement stamp; one can retroactively defend against the presumption of private credit in the first place.
I am sure that if Shoonra was to put her mind to it she could find many Supreme Court cases that declare for all intents and purposes, the party making the presumptions without explicit good faith on the other party's part, is the one who must capitulate should it cause a dispute.
Along these lines:
Quote:
|
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.
|
Attached is evidence this is true when read by a trained attorney.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. Of course I will be checking the current state of Title 12 (Banking) §411. I admit I have been presuming to this point that code has not been repealed. Even if it has it should guide one clearly to the current remedy in place.