Question the jurisdiction or the assumption?

[dashboy]

Purchased a book a few days ago by Andrew Gause called "The Secret World of Money". Jason Whitney reccommended it to me and of course I read it all in one day! The book was so good that I am going back through it to highlite important sections.

However, I did come accross a section that really puzzled me and I was hoping some of you Brainiacs like Jerseee, Ice, Weis, David Merill, Jason or others could help me understand.
Page 58 of his book reads the following:

Do Americans surrender any constitional rights by accepting and using Federal Reserve Notes?

When we utilize the notes of a private corporation as a vehicle to discharge our debts, we unknowingly adhere ourselves to a complete body of contractual law that exist and operates outside the Constitution. Under Common Law, the maxim is that you enter a contract knowingly, with full knowledge, and unless you have full knowledge of every provision of the contract, you can't even enter it. However, under Admiralty Law (or Maritime Law, or Military Law), you can enter into a contract which is known as an implied contract without your consent. And unless you question the jurisdiction or the assumption that you've entered into that contract, then you have consented. It's that simple. Our acceptance and use of Federal Reserve Notes removes us from Constitutional protections, and into a host of implied contractual obligations, most of which are unknown to the general population. This really caught me off guard when I read it! But the part that is racking my pee brain is the part where it states: "And unless you question the jurisdiction or the assumption that you've entered into that contract, then you have consented. It's that simple."

How can you consent to something you don't know about? And what does it mean to Question the jurisdiction or the assumption and how do you do that?

dashboy~

[dadmoonbunny]

that ANY use of FRNs puts us under contract. However, it seems to me that it is not a correct and proper contract since it is not fully disclosed and arbitrary in nature in that it is the only widely accepted means of expenditure.


I have heard it said that if you inscibe each and every FRN you handle with UCC1-308, all rights reserved, then it has the effect of nullifing said contract. I realize that all of this doesn't answer the question, but I wish to bring these points up to further the discussion.

Sic Gorgiamus Alus Subjuctatos Nunc

[masterduke]

Your Kidding of Course??? Some unsigned pieces of paper drawn up by dead lawyers does not distribute "rights" to you Mr. And Mrs. Public. At best it bestows "constitional rights" for "federal Government Employees" (what ever that means?!) It is a Diversion, Plain and Simple. All of these "contracts" regarding every part of your life, are all that is "real" in the room where the black robed wonder "decicdes" your fate. FRN's, goldfringed rags, people wearing costumes, high on doughnuts and steriods with an endless supply of bullets, will make sure you adhere to "the Contract" whatever that may be.
Period. Starts with your first "adhesion contract", oh I mean your "(live) Birth Certificate" and ends with your "Death Certicate". Torpedo the "trusts" that all this garbage and verbial diareha is based on. Then there might be some traction to defend against these vampires. (Or just go surfin' and forget about it all!)

[theghost]

Dashboy, once again, these discussions bring me back to George Mercier's Invisible Contracts. If you haven't read it, read it now! Although you won't read this one in one day. There are many kinds of contracts, many of which appear downright fraudulent in their makeup, but guess what, contracting is your right, and is outside the constitution. It is up to you to know what you're signing, and what you're getting yourself into. Look up unilateral contract in Black's law! It says it is used to decieve, usually by lawyers, but there it is in black and white! It exists. Your free to use them, or not. You're presumed to know the law, especially when you contract. In fact, all law is presumption. Another thing, when we use FRN's, we are "presumed" (there's that nasty word again!) to be experts in using those instruments, by the mere operation of our acts/deeds. This is how law works. You do something, you're presumed to have done it knowingly, unless you state otherwise. If that act lands you in trouble, now it's up to you to come up with a good faith defense. You should object to the use of FRN's with a public filing of some sort, probably at the state and federal level. I gaurantee if you read Mercier's works you'll understand this subject much better.

[theghost]

http://www.budgetcorporaterenewals.c...mercier_8.html

[dashboy]

Thanks guys! I have read Mercier's adhesion contracts. But what about intent and full diclosure? Are not those two ingredients for a meeting of the minds and a true contract? From my study, a unilateral agreement is a farce! What a unilateral agreement really ends up being is a "PAYMENT ORDER/debt security created by the issuer YOU! It is not a true contract in the sense of the definition. I asked the debt collector attorney about this at the last mediation conference and he Jumped out of his chair, screamed "YOU AINT GETTIN NO DAM DISCOVERY", then walked out of the meeting! I laughed so hard at him that he refused for twenty minutes to come back into the mediation! The mediator was begging him!

Fellas, I ask these kinds of question, because this info comes straight out of their laws and their books! I just think it is us who are confused about the true meanings. I am of the opinion from my study that concerning unilateral contract that "INTENT" or what the contract does, NOT what it says, is the thing that matters!

Does anyone have any feed back on what does it mean to Question the jurisdiction or the assumption and how do you do that? I have my view on it but I wanted to compare it with other great minds on this forum.

dashboy~

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by dashboy

Do Americans surrender any constitional rights by accepting and using Federal Reserve Notes?

:grin:

That's a bigun - no doubt. I am just now getting into this since I have been studying under LB Bork's The Red Amendment at
http://www.pacinlaw.org

My humble estimation is that a reasonable starting point should be with Section 4 of the 14th Amendment: Broken up into 2 parts(customized for educational purposes)

• Section. 4.
  
  The validity of the public debt of the United States (defacto-post 14th Amndmt), authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
  
  But neither the United States (defacto-post 14th Amndmt) nor any State (defacto colony-post 14th Amndmt)shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States(dejure Union States), or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

The U.S. lets the debt escalate and won't pay it because the rebels (Federal U.S. Citizens) have tacitly consented to have the unending accruing debt the Fed creates and they can't question it.

Before I go any further, you must understand why you are presumed to be an enemy insurgent belligerent U.S. Citizen until you correct your status

http://forum.suijuris.net/showpost.p...9&postcount=25
http://forum.suijuris.net/showpost.p...5&postcount=27

[weishaupt1776]

All I need is one peep from someone to say that they now
nderstand why they are presumed to be an enemy insurgent belligerent U.S. Citizen until the presumption is rebutted

I will post further regarding sec 4 of the 14th Amdmt upon some form of acknowlegement

Keep going Weis, I am with you, all things fold back unto the reconstruction and centers on the Red 14th!!!!

P.S. Everyone, a personal friend has just received a $12k credit for 04 equally everything withheld (FICA, etc) against past years taxes 'owed' ala ctc!