Need analysis of information

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by jerrypitts

This is directed to the group as a whole, but specifically to David Merrill, Ice, Weish, Iamfreeru2, Idknow, and any others that may have valuable input. This is not being submitted for the purpose of cynical debate, but potentially as useful to the entire group.

Please pay attention to the last sentence.

"TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 11 > § 1433 Prev | Next

§ 1433. Exemption from taxation; obligations acceptable as credit on debt of home owner


Release date: 2005-07-21

Any and all notes, debentures, bonds, and other such obligations issued by any bank, and consolidated Federal Home Loan Bank bonds and debentures, shall be exempt both as to principal and interest from all taxation (except surtaxes, estate, inheritance, and gift taxes) now or hereafter imposed by the United States, by any Territory, dependency, or possession thereof, or by any State, county, municipality, or local taxing authority. The bank, including its franchise, its capital, reserves, and surplus, its advances, and its income, shall be exempt from all taxation now or hereafter imposed by the United States, by any Territory, dependency, or possession thereof, or by any State, county, municipality, or local taxing authority; except that in [1] any real property of the bank shall be subject to State, Territorial, county, municipal, or local taxation to the same extent according to its value as other real property is taxed. The notes, debentures, and bonds issued by any bank, with unearned coupons attached, shall be accepted at par by such bank in payment of or as a credit against the obligation of any home-owner debtor of such bank. "

Jerry.

My first glimpse impression is this is appertaining to banks taxing people. Well there you have it. The bankrupt United States corporation is held in receivership by a bank. The Bank and Fund.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[rottweiler]

Who here knows when a specific statute is passed into law? If so when was this one put into effect?

Originally Posted by rottweiler

JerryPitts,
Please give me some proof that the release date of this statute was 2005-07-21 and then tell me how I can find the date a particular statute became law.

Originally Posted by rottweiler

Who here knows when a specific statute is passed into law? If so when was this one put into effect?

Good point... I thought it had a history note at the bottom of the section... it does not... let me research it. It may be one of those thinggies that was never enacted.. Hmmmmmm. In fact, right now, it appears that the entire Title 12 on Banking and Finances was never enacted... at least that is the way it appears in the code.


Jerry.

[David Merrill]

I copied it while in the repository today:

Title 12 Banking and Banks was never enacted into 'Positive Law'.

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/Title_1.txt

UNITED STATES CODE TITLES AS POSITIVE LAW
The following titles of the United States Code were enacted into
positive law by the acts enumerated below:
Title 1, General Provisions - Act July 30, 1947, ch. 388, Sec. 1,
61 Stat. 633.
Title 3, The President - Act June 25, 1948, ch. 644, Sec. 1, 62
Stat. 672.
Title 4, Flag and Seal, Seat of Government, and the States - Act
July 30, 1947, ch. 389, Sec. 1, 61 Stat. 641.
Title 5, Government Organization and Employees - Pub. L. 89-554,
Sec. 1, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 378.
Title 9, Arbitration - Act July 30, 1947, ch. 392, Sec. 1, 61
Stat. 669.
Title 10, Armed Forces - Act Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, Sec. 1, 70A
Stat. 1.
Title 11, Bankruptcy - Pub. L. 95-598, title I, Sec. 101, Nov. 6,
1978, 92 Stat. 2549.
Title 13, Census - Act Aug. 31, 1954, ch. 1158, 68 Stat. 1012.
Title 14, Coast Guard - Act Aug. 4, 1949, ch. 393, Sec. 1, 63
Stat. 495.
Title 17, Copyrights - Act July 30, 1947, ch. 391, Sec. 1, 61
Stat. 652, as amended Oct. 19, 1976, Pub. L. 94-553, title I, Sec.
101, 90 Stat. 2541.
SNIP SNIP

positive law
n. statutory man-made law, as compared to "natural law," which is purportedly based on universally accepted moral principles, "God's law," and/or derived from nature and reason. The term "positive law" was first used by Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan (1651).
See also: natural law statute

[David Merrill]

Here is the fuller list found in the beginning of the USC code books:

[rottweiler]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

I copied it while in the repository today:

Ok, then it was amended in 1935. On Monday, I may be able to get a informed opinion on what these bonds,notes, etc. are from someone in the industry. I am intrigued by this statute because it is my opinion these instruments may be derived from what we are signing to buy a home on credit.

If a statute is not positive law does that mean it is useless to us if it is to our benefit?

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

Ok, then it was amended in 1935. On Monday, I may be able to get a informed opinion on what these bonds,notes, etc. are from someone in the industry. I am intrigued by this statute because it is my opinion these instruments may be derived from what we are signing to buy a home on credit.

If a statute is not positive law does that mean it is useless to us if it is to our benefit?

No doubt in my mind these are the same notes. I believe my comment is that the code is stipulated specific to notes created by banks. The note is not generated or cashed by people, only banks as persons. Therefore a note in the hands of a man or woman would be allodium.

See the attached transcript:

Understand that the bank will never produce the original note. It stands evidence of fraud; that the debtor is actually the creditor. Therefore the code, positive law or not is simply stating the obvious, the bank, being Brethren is exempt from taxation for being an insider.

Mat 17:24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?
Mat 17:25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?
Mat 17:26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.

Deu 23:20 Unto a stranger* thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it.

The scope of non-postive law is what you make of it. Should you appear in court about it however you will be before a black-robed fiduciary for the Bank and Fund. So you can pretty much predict the bias and outcome of any opinions and rulings you petition for. The petition itself will validate non-positive law in the eyes of the (lower) court.

http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/sui...te-check_1.jpg
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/sui...te-check_2.jpg

www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P1.jpg
Credit River Money Decision Page 1
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P2.jpg
Credit River Money Decision Page 2
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P3.jpg
Credit River Money Decision Page 3
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P4.jpg
Credit River Money Decision Page 4




Regards,

David Merrill.


* There are consistent linguistic chains in Hebrew. Nakar is related to Noachide (sons of Noah). That is to say all mankind outside the scope of Israel are bound by natural law and natural law is the basic precept of the Laws of Moses (Exodus 20-24:7, the contract). Therefore pagans who emulate Israel, positive law, by following the Seven Noachide Laws are considered to be righteous enough to share in the inheritance called the kingdom of heaven on earth.

Attached is The Gospel of Thomas and this gospel is likely the only gospel written by a literate court reporter, that is who actually followed Jesus around writing down what he said. It is obvious that all the components of the Gospel of Thomas have been subsequently integrated into the conventional four Gospels of the New Covenant.

[rottweiler]

David Merrill,
What was the result of the Smith's appeal?