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

Federal Reserve Notes shall be redeemed

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.