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

RE: [tips_and_tricks] Federal Reserve Notes shall be redeemed

Expand Messages
  • Frog Farmer
    ... This was VERY enlightening! Here I had thought that the redemption was not occurring, while it was just the people who didn t know HOW and were never told
    Message 1 of 5 , Aug 31, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      > It is still the law that federal reserve notes shall be redeemed in
      > lawful money on demand and Congress cannot change the remedy.
      >
      > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9010856874304912516&hl=en


      This was VERY enlightening! Here I had thought that the redemption was
      not occurring, while it was just the people who didn't know HOW and were
      never told (it IS pretty simple and straightforward, so maybe the
      obvious is never explained). This really opens up a lot of opportunity
      for me! I hope it opens up a lot of opportunity for everyone!

      It may take me a while to get back into that old economy where ...ugh!
      just the thought revolts me! I'll think on it a while before I accept
      any checks for non-endorsement. And of course FRNs are still and always
      were the no-no. So you have to reject them by redeeming them before you
      touch them, and you never touch them until the bank gives you frns
      symbolizing some inelastic money. It's all a mind game.

      I think I'll pass anyway now that I'm used to it!

      Regards,

      FF
    • The Handyman
      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. Five
      Message 2 of 5 , Sep 1, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        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.  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.  There is no law mandating one to accept a check from anyone much less a state that is bound to Art. 1, Sec. 10.  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¬ís right to redemption of FRNs into lawful money under 12 USC 411 if the FRNs are properly accepted and presented for redemption.  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.
        .----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 6:32 PM
        Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Federal Reserve Notes shall be redeemed

         
      • Virgil Cooper
        Hello, Handyman and others on this list, You are confronting heavy guns . I suggest you contact Ed Vieira and seek his recommendation on how you should
        Message 3 of 5 , Sep 2, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Hello, Handyman and others on this list,

          You are confronting "heavy guns".  I suggest you contact Ed Vieira and seek his recommendation
          on how you should proceed with your case.  You should be very cautious about NOT setting
          bad precedent by using the wrong arguments or couching your approach in a manner that can
          be twisted by the "enemy" to aid the other side.  Cleon Skousen used to say in his constitutional
          lectures on money and banking that "the bankers will not relinquish their monopoly without blood
          running knee deep in the streets".  That should give you some idea just how deeply entrenched are the bankers'
          irredeemable fiat paper currency (FRNs).  The "system" won't take kindly to your efforts to "enforce" honest money.
          Just my opinion, for what it's worth.  Dr. Skousen also said, "One cannot discuss the Federal Reserve without also
          discussing the IRS.  They are integrally connected.  They are two sides of the same coin.  They are partners in crime.
          The IRS is the collection arm of the Federal Reserve." 

          Best regards from Virgil


          The Handyman wrote:
           

          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.  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.  There is no law mandating one to accept a check from anyone much less a state that is bound to Art. 1, Sec. 10.
        • Frog Farmer
          ... 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
          Message 4 of 5 , Sep 2, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            > 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
            page.
            http://clicks.dailyreckoning.com//t/AQ/Y7M/aKc/Cvg/AQ/Aa5mFA/6A25

            > 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?

            Regards,

            FF
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.