Acceptance for Value:

[iamfreeru2]

Originally Posted by KaosTheory

Iamfree,

I am wondering where the "substance to pay a debt" that you speak of is coming from. Isn't the money in that trust just make believe also?

The exemption is based on the labor (true capital) of the flesh and blood man/woman creditors, which is in fact substance and not make believe. Since the real flesh and blood man/woman is substance (all substance and wealth comes from the ground) he/she is being used as the credit of the United States, is he/she not?

Originally Posted by wirlwind

I agree with y'all. There is no comparison between what Jesus did for us and what banks and debt collectors are trying to do to us. Is this writer trying to put banks and debt collectors on the same level as Jesus? His whole way of thinking is absurd. Even if he was trying to do that his thinking process still doesn't match up, because we can't pay Jesus back for what He did for us on the cross- we can only accept it. He is entitled to his own opinion about the redemptive process (meaning redeeming our sovereignty), but to compare that to the redemption that Christ performed is ludicrous.

Yeah, thier whole basis is FRAUD as well as dead. So why buy in to the lie, hey I wonder what happens when we accept something for value, do they get thier kick-back for it, where somehow it would go back into the public areana, and get collateralized and the tax-payers would somehow get charged. hmm I wonder

-Chris

[freemyggle]

So what you are saying is that United States notes are the fiction, and the gold and silver backing is the fact. And FRN's are the fiction and the people backing them are the fact, or substance?

Originally Posted by iamfreeru2

The exemption is based on the labor (true capital) of the flesh and blood man/woman creditors, which is in fact substance and not make believe. Since the real flesh and blood man/woman is substance (all substance and wealth comes from the ground) he/she is being used as the credit of the United States, is he/she not?

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by iamfreeru2

...Anyone that says FRNs are substance is off their rocker.

Not so quick: Somebody shed some insight right after you.

Originally Posted by Freemyggle

So what you are saying is that United States notes are the fiction, and the gold and silver backing is the fact. And FRN's are the fiction and the people backing them are the fact, or substance?

That is what the endorsement is about - FDR's Government bonds.

“Recognized Government bonds are as safe as Government currency. They have the same credit back of them. And, therefore, if we can persuade people all through the country, when their salary checks come in, to deposit them in new accounts, which will be held in trust and kept in one of the new forms I have mentioned, we shall have made progress.” The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt; 1933 The Year of Crisis; Random House 1938; page 19. Excerpt from the Address before the Governors’ Conference at the White House. March 6, 1933.

The people publish their chattel mortgage through the Birth Certificate registration in commerce. However the appearance for the benefit is recorded on the backside of the paycheck - endorsement of private credit from the fed. The "...new accounts, which will be held in trust and kept in one of the new forms I have mentioned..."

So if you think FRNs are created out of thin air, you are off your rocker. They are bonded by the national debt, with the People being the bond through a published chattel mortgage process. I have a paper that may work as a stepping stone to understanding how the chattel mortgage applied to land has been juxtapositioned to apply to people. While looking it over, pay attention to the word "recordation".



Regards,

David Merrill.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

David Merrill:
However the appearance for the benefit is recorded on the backside of the paycheck - endorsement of private credit from the fed. The "...new accounts, which will be held in trust and kept in one of the new forms I have mentioned..."

Exactly! It matters not whether the mortgage has been recorded, if there is no income anyway. It's there, but inert.

It's not even so much the "endorsement vs redemption" issue, though that comes first- but having endorsed the check it still needs to be gross income.

The problem here is "paycheck" instead of:

"loan check"

"pay-back check"

"credit check"

"debt check"

"even-exchange check"

"collateral-deposit check"

"private-refund check

"exempt-gift check"

"damage-cover check"

"pre-paid check"

"pass-through-agency check"

"no-character check"

"unable-to-make-a-legal-determination check"

...???

There are many many multiples more money/value transfers out there every day all over the world than the much smaller sub-section, "gross receipts", and no one ever dreams of imputing any 'beneficial income' character to these movements.