Obtaining a birth certificate for a Cuban Refugee.

[David Merrill]

This is one of the arguments I have been around and around with Shoonra about. Mostly about bills of exchange - where I can get Shoonra to say things like FRNs are not bills of exchange and basically make a Suijuris.net admission that he believes government stole the 1933 gold fair and square.

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ollections.jpg

Shoonra may be quoted saying that so few people had gold in 1933 it was okay to steal it, because those thrifty enough to have any to give up were hoarding it anyway. Imagine that! Good gold owners hoarding from that more deserving cartel of international central bankers, the Federal Reserve.

Trooper has framed an authority here; albeit post-mortem of his grandfather, the treasurer for Suisse Bank? And he has described his method for relaying such a fluent recitation of history here:

http://www.credit-suisse.com/ib/en

wherein Trooper compiles from his grandfather's notes and Trooper's wife transcribes his grandfather's perspective on banking history.

Indeed Trooper;


Please attach a page or two scanned from your grandfather's notes.


Regards,

David Merrill.

I was simply attempting to discern Trooper's grandfather's perspective and how closely adherent Trooper's interpretation is - to his grandfather's.

Two posts here on this thread express how fluent Trooper is on the Strawman Redemption through UCC process. Of several suitors, now courts of competent jurisdiction in common law, they came to me quite entheusiastic about this same theory. And when it came down to it; I simply asked for a piece of evidence or proof that any of this actually ever transpired the way it should according to the UCC adoption in any state - usually Texas. Everybody had heard about the mortgage being ordered back to the homeowner in Texas somewhere. An interesting artifact of this psychotomimetic delirium was that someone usually knew the guy who knew the guy who was witness in the courtroom at the time...

There was, maybe still is, a fellow speaking so fluently about UCC Redemption as Trooper holding meetings in the Community for Spiritual Living on Wednesday afternoons. He was keeping everybody abreast and we have several suitors here in town who were interested enough to attend his hearing/trial. It flopped. The judge could not detect any law behind the perfection of his UCC-1 stuff and ordered the defendant to prepare a comprehensive bill for all his damages and ordered Mr. UCC-1 Knowitall that he would be paying that bill in full.

When the creaters of the UCC Redemption got out of prison about ten years back, somebody passed me their treatise as they were compiling what they had learned from the law library in the prison. I read it through and it was just as pursuasive as Trooper's posts here. I remember spotting the problem around a false redemption and threw it into the garbage pail next to the doors at a KFC. My friend had gotten a look and wanted to fish it out - just for the many great citations and I pursuaded him to leave it be; because it is so very tempting to go into that comprehensive set of banking history - the UCC. Airtight-sounding theories can form and be conveyed, that make it easy to drop your rules of evidence and actually accept that somebody, somewhere has made that work.

Sheisaceo tempted us all with the idea of a free trial week on CUSIP to look for any evidence or artifacts of this birth certificate hypothecating any beyond the simple "new forms" of FDR's new 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.

In all the research Shoonra has led me through with his spin and insults - the insults actually tip me off there is something I said... This is the summation in a nutshell about the gold seizure. Congress has indeed acknowledged that the gold is held in trust and if law has been broken it is by allowing some of the gold to be held in IMF Fund in trust - which is the same David Rockefeller politics/macroeconomics of UN dominion on the Patroonship of Manhattan Island - donating 18 acres to be International Soil? What? David Rockefeller is Khazarian Elite! Not even a Politician!??

The IMF is an organ of the United Nations.

But there you have it - right there in Footnote 1:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releas...1207assets.htm

1. Gold held "under earmark" at Federal Reserve Banks for foreign and international accounts is not included in the gold stock of the United States; see table 3.13, line 3. Gold stock is valued at $42.22 per fine troy ounce.

Argue all you want about one or two lines in the "$" and it is useless. But there is your proof there are two different "dollars" out there. One is valued at $42.22 at Title 31 U.S.C. §5117 which was re-enacted into positive law around 1984 - big surprise! Thanks again for that one Shoonra. Once they established "paper gold" to float the exchange rate in the late Seventies, that would be the progression.

Your endorsement is the bond behind that other "dollar" which is not US dollars - US notes in the form of FRNs.

So like I will post on the private currency exchange thread, any one of us is entitled to redeem lawful money for our paycheck. Without touching your cash though - demand the bank notary give you a True and Correct Accounting of the serial numbers and denominations of your newly acquired lawful money (US notes = US dollars = $42.22/fine troy ounce of gold), demand to buy one fine troy ounce of gold for $42.22 of that cash on the counter.

I cannot say in physical reality what will happen even if you get that far at your boss's bank counter. But wandering off into the idealistic realm of theory already being set by Trooper, the bank will call the OCC who will call the Secretary who will now know the Run is starting. People know. Here is the first guy in a local state bank somewhere in America proposing to buy an ounce of gold back out of trust for $42.22 who can take it to the coin shop for $950 and then do that same thing for $88.44 of his paycheck next week payday.

Ergo the reason Congress conceded the Emergency had ended when they began allowing gold clause contracts, effectively reversing HJR-192 in the late Seventies - while still keeping certain stipulations of the Trading With the Enemy Act in place. Read the end stipulations carefully:

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...l_PL94-412.jpg
http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...tipulation.jpg

Now get a load of the Code. And not only that - that the Secretary is in the authority to declare that Bankers' Holiday anew, upon the threat of this Run, without even having to pick up the phone and speaking with the President!

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...5----000-.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...5---b000-.html



Regards,

David Merrill.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by mrg
1. "Anyone who goes the UCC-1 route..."

What, precisely, and, impartially, and, with specific particularity is "the UCC-1 route?"

I see no proof of what you are saying--conjecture--and an admission that you are talking about things you do not understand.

2. "...the name is not yours to secure."

Howso?

I see no actual proof of any of that.

Again, I see no proof of that.

You did not create the trust nor do you own it.

What is the integral totality of the precise mechanics of the specifically particular alleged fraud?

I see conjecture with no proof of what you are speculating about.

You are a good and respected source, so please try not to think I am coming at you vindictively, if possible.

[Lawdog]

Citing articles of the UCC that have to do with "goods" as "proof" that a birth certificate is a pledge against the future labor of the child is just more proof that you're either nuts, or simply ignorant of that which you speak. Take your pick.

"Goods" are tangible, physical things. Automobiles, furniture, crops, clothing...all these are examples of "goods" as that term is used in the UCC. Labor is an intangible thing. It has never come under the definition of "goods" in the UCC.

The fixation some of you have on the UCC is amusing, in a pathetic sort of way. There are lots of things it does not apply to. Sales or leases of land, to name one huge example.

The UCC is not the be-all and end-all of the law, and never was. You boys need to wise up.

[gldskr]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

The UCC is not the be-all and end-all of the law, and never was. You boys need to wise up.

Exactly, that has been my point.

The UCC is the realm of entities and unless your claim relates to such, you have no business being there.

mrg

Per your previous statements. I have no proof of claim because my conjecture is based upon the specualtions of the UCC redemptonist's dogma. I cannot prove that which I have no evidence of, or have made any positive assertions to and my rebuttal can only serve as an opinion as you have correctly observed, but the proof is not my burden. Whereas, such proof would consist of;

1. The existence of the mythical STRAWMAN, how can it be proved?

2. The existence of the mythical Treasury account that the STRAWMAN supposedly has access to?

Now, I do not deny that 1 and 2 do not exist, only that they cannot be proved and that is the crux of the matter. To put forth a theory upon unprovable constructs is the fools game which I related to. Those who choose to take this route will inevitably be asked to prove the above. Do you know anyone who has done such?

If one engages the STRAWMAN on the STRAWMAN'S terms then the UCC will serve you well. If sovereign contracts are your goal, a different jurisdiction is necessary.

To propose that an entity within a specified jurisdiction is a debtor, to a creditor within a different jurisdiction, is ludicrous. An obvious jurisdictional conflict exists.

This jurisdictional conflict is the basis of a R4C; using the misnomer in the UCC presentment to establish the proper venue, jurisdiction is then established. This is what the "saving to suitors" clause is all about, which David Merrill has repeatedly educated us upon.

gldskr