Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

17148RE: [tips_and_tricks] Federal Reserve Notes shall be redeemed

Expand Messages
  • Frog Farmer
    Sep 2 4:45 PM
      > If I can get all my ducks in a row I may give the 1913 Federal Reserve
      > Act remedy a try but I don't have the process perfected. Ideas are
      > welcome.

      From what I get of it all, with the "new" old information always out
      there for avid readers, The "perfect" way to deal with the "new reality"
      is to NOT wake up one morning holding FRNS only to discover your error
      already committed. YOU endorsed the check. You offered to cover the
      debt if the instrument failed. Your endorsement was the result of a
      conclusion that it was in order, otherwise, to what degree are your
      other conclusions now suspect? In an environment of scientific
      deception and mind control, where is the line now between legal
      competence and incompetence? Who do YOU think killed JFK?

      > Five years ago the state seized a sold a paid for home for
      > non-payment of taxes. After disbursing all proceeds we were given a
      > CHECK by the state for $29,000.00 which we rejected under Art. 1, Sec.
      > 10 and Hagar. We filed a petition for money due and the Judge simply
      > said to accept the check and save yourself a lot of trouble.

      Now you can see why, their weasel words that admit you are right, just
      help them contain the knowledge from the sheeple. "Play along to get
      along alive, now. Just take the check and then, you know, do the
      non-signature non-endorsement thingy... (that I must've missed the day I
      was sick and out of class..." But if you fail to address the issue, or
      fail to take the remedy into consideration, you are deemed by any third
      party observer to have waived the remedy.

      When the First goes, how does that go about the Second? In the eyes of
      the world, Constitutionalists are almost seen as religious zealots. I
      mean, the contract was abrogated ages ago, and one party is still
      whining, "well, what about this part?! You haven't violated that one
      yet!" Then the response is, "we're responding with enforcement
      actions." You point out one lawful right to help educate them and it is
      violated just to amuse themselves and have a job to do, while testing to
      see how serious you are. Will you jump through the hoops? I personally
      believe that we all must get what we deserve and the range of
      experiences is so vast no one could completely understand the position
      of one diametrically opposite in the orbit of space and time and
      understanding. So I believe that those "goons" also are individual to
      some extent. With so many of us now, thanks to science, it is hard to
      assign any other person a level of authority and be accurate. We need a
      third point of view. One outside the orbit of the two contenders, one
      to whose decision each will defer, to settle the issue.

      "Officer, may I please ride in the back seat of your car on the way to
      see the magistrate? I am low on gas, and my back has been hurting, and
      I know whoever is on duty will authorize you to return me here. I've
      been through this before. I know the agenda. Or I could be free to go
      if not detained much longer, as I have a very valuable meeting to attend
      very shortly. I just want to minimize damages all around." I know, it
      sounds "kiss-ass" but it's for the audience. Same with the writing on
      the check, you stand there, you don't sign, your hand is seen to be
      writing by observing third parties, you receive the same papers, but the
      agreement is different. The ramifications are different. The legal
      status of the parties are different. Yet to a child, everyone enjoying
      the same observable outcome is assumed to have arrived by the same chain
      of causation. It's the "everyone knows THAT!" syndrome at work.

      It's all a marvelous con job on the Rubes. Let me quote a friend:
      But those days are all over now, and the only people who are buying
      gold, along with silver and oil, are the people who know what happens to
      an unsound, fiat currency (like the dollar) in the hands of a government
      composed of a bunch of socialist, commie-think yahoos (like the US
      Congress) that willingly deficit-spends insane amounts of money thanks
      to a central bank (like the Federal Reserve) creating it and a
      population sitting around saying, "Duh! Okay with us!" Hahaha!
      We're freaking doomed!
      Until next time,
      The Mogambo Guru
      for The Daily Reckoning

      Editor's Note: Richard Daughty is general partner and COO for Smith
      Consultant Group, serving the financial and medical communities, and the
      editor of The Mogambo Guru economic newsletter - an avocational exercise
      to heap disrespect on those who desperately deserve it.
      The Mogambo Guru is quoted frequently in Barron's, The Daily Reckoning
      and other fine publications. Click here to visit the Mogambo archive

      > There is
      > no law mandating one to accept a check from anyone much less a state
      > that is bound to Art. 1, Sec. 10.

      That's Right! So if you object all the way for the record, you are
      absolved of the attaching diseases! You're FREE! Yes, you did "appear
      to " waive your rights, but appearances are not THAT important AS are
      RESULTS! Don't misunderstand me, I myself may choose to continue to
      avoid both checks AND FRNs as I have grown used to over the years. But
      what I like about my new understanding, via that redemption video, is
      that now I have a choice of how the scene can play out. I am not FORCED
      to ruin everyone's day, as I have been for years. The bottom line is,
      if you are going to do this, it has to be with the next check you are
      offered, not with the FRNs you've already taken, YET, there were mention
      of people saying "if I had known this all along, I would have done it"
      and for them the report was good. I like to be able to explain my own
      actions, not find out later that they were irrational but by some quirk
      of chance happened to fit in with no damages.

      > If Congress cannot override the
      > state governments incorporated powers under Article I Section 10 of
      > the Constitution, our current public policy, Congress cannot
      > override an American's right to redemption of FRNs into lawful money
      > under 12 USC 411 if the FRNs are properly accepted and presented for
      > redemption.

      The point is, if they were properly accepted then the redemption has
      already occurred. But I can see the humor AND utility in redeeming the
      same ones over and over again. Here's the rub to that: the serial
      numbers. They REALLY have a function!

      > We are on appeal now but I suspect the appellate court
      > will rule that the state must tender legal tender and not a check. To
      > the state that will mean FRNS. Rather than reject them we can present
      > them for redemption under the 1913 Federal Reserve Act remedy now
      > codified as 12 USC 411. If rejected at the bank then the tender by
      > the state was not good.

      Are FRNs ever ejected at a bank? The appeals court will probably go
      back and look at the objections you made and how they were overruled,
      and conclude that you should have not endorsed the original check with
      your name, but with the redemption language. They will not come out and
      say as much.

      But the next time a check comes your way, you'll know how to magically
      transform it and avoid all the nasties that attach to FRNs. Yes, you'll
      still have them in your pocket, but you will have taken all the
      elasticity out of them. Will you be kind enough to distinguish them
      from the other FRNs in circulation for the people you'll be passing them
      to? After all, the serial numbers on yours mean something that change
      those particular pieces of paper, don't they? Those are the redeemed
      ones. How many times can you redeem a stamp?


    • Show all 5 messages in this topic