Federal Reserve Notes shall be redeemed
- 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.
> If I can get all my ducks in a row I may give the 1913 Federal ReserveFrom what I get of it all, with the "new" old information always out
> Act remedy a try but I don't have the process perfected. Ideas are
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 forNow you can see why, their weasel words that admit you are right, just
> 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.
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 isThat's Right! So if you object all the way for the record, you are
> no law mandating one to accept a check from anyone much less a state
> that is bound to Art. 1, Sec. 10.
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 theThe point is, if they were properly accepted then the redemption has
> 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
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 courtAre FRNs ever ejected at a bank? The appeals court will probably go
> 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.
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?