Public Money Video

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by idknow

wow, in those terms, it's clear that what Congress and FDR did with HJR-192 clearly had no relevence nor jurisdiction to what The People were doing.

no act of legislature can interfere with our right to contract.

therefore, HJR-192 could only apply to govt property and employee/slaves!!!

fascinating.

Becoming those slaves, in the video is simply stated from Bouvier's Law Dictionary as irrecusable obligation. That is the Masonic fluff in the video; to drive home the jurisdiction originating the (very first) US Notes (Governor Gilpin's drafts) was the Masonic capital and it is completely voluntary.

I think if PanicPass continues to argue otherwise he has joined Shoonra and REDCLOUD in saying that people can no longer redeem FRNs. That may be true but not according to the Supreme Court and the other law cited in the video Article.

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ney_case_1.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ney_case_2.jpg



Regards,

David Merrill.

[PANICPASS]

wow, in those terms, it's clear that what Congress and FDR did with HJR-192
clearly had no relevence nor jurisdiction to what The People were doing.

no act of legislature can interfere with our right to contract.

therefore, HJR-192 could only apply to govt property and employee/slaves!!!

fascinating.

It has relevance if you are going to use the(ir) courts to sue someone for breach of the contract.
I'm pretty sure they are talking about contracts under the UCC, not private contracts.

[PANICPASS]

Ms. Merrill wrote:

I think if PanicPass continues to argue otherwise he has joined Shoonra and REDCLOUD in saying that people can no longer redeem FRNs. That may be true but not according to the Supreme Court and the other law cited in the video Article.

You can redeem for private exchange, but not with federal reserve banks, or any other governmental entity.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by PANICPASS

Ms. Merrill wrote:


You can redeem for private exchange, but not with federal reserve banks, or any other governmental entity.

That is not how the law reads. In other words Mr. Kuykendall's petition (images attached) was not only heard before Congress, it was granted and is still in full force and effect today.

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ney_case_1.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ney_case_2.jpg


You are playing with me and the Readers PanicPass. You have insulted me by attacking my gender and you insult the Readers by saying the Federal Reserve is governmental when you already know it is a cartel of international bankers - the central bank of the United Stastes. Bye! (ignore list).


Regards,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

Furthermore the fractionalized lending in the form of compound interest national loans was terminated until 1913 when it resumed under private law. Images attached.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by PANICPASS

Ms. Merrill wrote:

LOLOL ROFLMAO

David, roll with it dood ~

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by idknow

LOLOL ROFLMAO

David, roll with it dood ~

With Shoonra the banter is productive. At least it seems so for me because she is a librarian at a major law institution. But it seems to me that PanicPass simply juxtapositions terms and definitions in a confusing manner in order to argue.

I will get over the "Ms. Merrill" in a few days after I send him the bill for my therapy!

[David Merrill]

A suitor cashed or deposited a rubber paycheck and the bank was compelled to Return the check to him. - But only after tearing off the non-endorsement!

This led to some interesting posts on other threads:

I am more on focusing on the right to public money. A suitor who is a notable author in macroeconomics says:

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:

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:

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.

[David Merrill]

Thank you Aksis!

Originally Posted by aksis

David Merrill,

I was looking at the topic of the 'bankruptcy', and I was contemplating it from this prespective:

If the People gave all the gold to the US to prevent the bankruptcy, then is the US bankrupt, or just in debt to the People?

Something about the US being able to go into an unlimited debt to the People, and the People have an unlimited credit with the US comes to mind, and something about the difference of getting a loan and being extended credit also seems to come to mind (... where did I read/hear that?).

Then I started looking at the 14th amendment (keeping in mind this is binding on government), specificaly this part:

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, 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 nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United 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.

I don't think it is the People that owe the debt, nay, I know its not, it is the U.S. et al. that is the debtor, and so it would be proper for people acting in the person of U.S. employee/person to say "We owe the debt.", but not proper for the People to say they do, they are the creditors to the debt, this position of creditor is an indefeasable right of any heir apparent (someone born on the part of earth called by the name of one of the 50 states).

I would have to say the U.S. isn't bankrupt, just unable to pay its debt, but the creditors arn't calling the Note due, yet... are they? They seem to be enjoying the bliss of ignorance!!! (did the sarchasm translate well at the end?)

In this light, would the People be considered 'international bankers' in relation to the US et al.?

ThomPaine, There is the reality of the legal fiction, and then there is simply reality.

When I get lost in the reality of the fiction, I seek refuge in reality.

In reality, is the exchange of "paper and ink" for a "burger", at a place setup and willing to make such exchanges, anything other then "barter" between People willing to make such an exchange?

You nailed the reason we are entitled to redeem Federal Reserve Bank notes clearly.

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ney_case_1.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ney_case_2.jpg


Regards,

David Merrill.