A Lawyer Disbarred For Digging Too Deeply

[jimswift]

from the US Treasury website:

What are Federal Reserve notes and how are they different from United States notes?

Federal Reserve notes are legal tender currency notes. The twelve Federal Reserve Banks issue them into circulation pursuant to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. A commercial bank belonging to the Federal Reserve System can obtain Federal Reserve notes from the Federal Reserve Bank in its district whenever it wishes. It must pay for them in full, dollar for dollar, by drawing down its account with its district Federal Reserve Bank.

Federal Reserve Banks obtain the notes from our Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP). It pays the BEP for the cost of producing the notes, which then become liabilities of the Federal Reserve Banks, and obligations of the United States Government.

Congress has specified that a Federal Reserve Bank must hold collateral equal in value to the Federal Reserve notes that the Bank receives. This collateral is chiefly gold certificates and United States securities. This provides backing for the note issue. The idea was that if the Congress dissolved the Federal Reserve System, the United States would take over the notes (liabilities). This would meet the requirements of Section 411, but the government would also take over the assets, which would be of equal value. Federal Reserve notes represent a first lien on all the assets of the Federal Reserve Banks, and on the collateral specifically held against them.

Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy. In another sense, because they are legal tender, Federal Reserve notes are "backed" by all the goods and services in the economy.

What are United States Notes and how are they different from Federal Reserve notes?

United States Notes (characterized by a red seal and serial number) were the first national currency, authorized by the Legal Tender Act of 1862 and began circulating during the Civil War. The Treasury Department issued these notes directly into circulation, and they are obligations of the United States Government. The issuance of United States Notes is subject to limitations established by Congress. It established a statutory limitation of $300 million on the amount of United States Notes authorized to be outstanding and in circulation. While this was a significant figure in Civil War days, it is now a very small fraction of the total currency in circulation in the United States.

Both United States Notes and Federal Reserve Notes are parts of our national currency and both are legal tender. They circulate as money in the same way. However, the issuing authority for them comes from different statutes. United States Notes were redeemable in gold until 1933, when the United States abandoned the gold standard. Since then, both currencies have served essentially the same purpose, and have had the same value. Because United States Notes serve no function that is not already adequately served by Federal Reserve Notes, their issuance was discontinued, and none have been placed in to circulation since January 21, 1971.

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 authorized the production and circulation of Federal Reserve notes. Although the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) prints these notes, they move into circulation through the Federal Reserve System. They are obligations of both the Federal Reserve System and the United States Government. On Federal Reserve notes, the seals and serial numbers appear in green.

Attachment 2495

[palani]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender

Legal tender is a medium of payment allowed by law or recognized by a legal system to be valid for meeting a financial obligation.[1] Paper currency is a common form of legal tender in many countries.

For instance, if you owe someone $100 USD in the United States, you can try to pay it back in Mexican Pesos or valuable jewelry or gold metal, or even a cheque or a charge card, but they don't have to accept any of those as payment. They must accept US $20 dollar bills, however, because that is legal tender in the United States.

Read that last line over and over again until you realize that a $20 bill is legal tender IN THE UNITED STATES. Now what is the UNITED STATES? It is a municipality aka THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Now what is a MUNICIPALITY? According to Bouvier:

MUNICIPALITY. The body of officers, taken collectively, belonging to a city, who are appointed to manage its affairs and defend its interests.

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (AKA THE UNITED STATES) IS NOT FOUND ON A MAP ... IT IS A BUNCH OF PEOPLE ACTING AS OFFICERS. Chief among these people is one de facto president known as Barack Obama.

Are YOU in this body of officers? That depends upon whether you claim to be a citizen or not. If you do then you MUST accept that $20 bill as legal tender. If you are not a citizen you accept it under your own discretion (and frankly you would be better off asking if there is any better security).

[dys]

So then, based on that post, every person who uses fiat currency is a Corporation?

So then how can a living man use fiat dollars, and still not be a corporation?

I suppose you would have to be both, as the situation calls for it? Flipping back and forth between a self governing living man and a fiat swapping corporation? Fuck I wish I could get some straight, simple answers.

1. Rights can not be taken or even given away.
2. The purpose of government is to secure rights.

ANY violation of either of these tenets is indicative of criminal behaviour.

Remember, the bad guys always try to complicate the simple.
Kind of similar to the gospel of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour.

dys

[Glass]

Just to clarify the legal tender aspects. Legal tender can be many things. There are statues and codes that express this.

What people need to realise is they have options for which type of legal tender they will tender.

While redeeming FRN's for lawful money is an explicit option for USofA residents it is not the only option.

I said earlier. Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceasers'. Lets change that to Tender unto Ceaser that which is Ceasers'

FRN's are Federal Reserve Notes. A Note is a special kind of tender. Its a promissiory note. It's a promise to pay. If there is no money how do you settle things? With promises. FRN's are a promise to pay but there are other forms of promise out there. You may choose to tender something other than FRN's, It is up to you and the level of knowledge you have.

All that matters is that you tender something and stay in honour. If the Govt stipulates that they deal in promises then give them one when they ask for it and everyone will be happy.

[Glass]

So then, based on that post, every person who uses fiat currency is a Corporation?

So then how can a living man use fiat dollars, and still not be a corporation?

I suppose you would have to be both, as the situation calls for it? Flipping back and forth between a self governing living man and a fiat swapping corporation? Fuck I wish I could get some straight, simple answers.

Yes. A living man can have a person. A person is alegal fiction (created for the purposes of conducting commerce. It is a vehicle or vassal/vessel). A corportation is a legal fiction also. They are both part of the same set/type of entities. In Australia you can have a sole trader. This is another label for person.

Who is the person. Some or most men and women think they are the person. That they are one and the same. We know they are not. You need to inform the Govt that you know you are not. You might have to repeat yourself from time to time or at least demonstrate to them that you have already alerted them to this fact and they have accepted, by aquiesence. As I said earlier you learn when to use on and when not to.

[palani]

Yes. A living man can have a person.

If you assert a right you create a person. If you are charged with a duty (servitude/traffic ticket/criminal charge/misdemeanor/felony) then it is the person who is charged with this duty rather than you.

[Glass]

I've always found this fascinating and a worthy goal. I seem though to hit major roadblocks trying to fully understand it all, wishing there was a book for dummies on the topic. I've read all the threads here and other places and am still as much in the dark as I ever was. Maybe I'm just too damn dumb to be truly free of their system? But I still dig what you guys have accomplished even though when the day comes I don't think they'll be worried what our status is and it's just a matter if we bow down or fight, leaving us all in the same boat.

These are the same things I have experienced. I got turned on to this stuff in 2008 and I'm still working on it. I have the basics down. I have enough examples of Govt backdowns and sly ways they have tried to present the circumstances to know this stuff is correct. I've seen examples where bills just zero out after accept for value. I've seen the Tax office fail to show. This discussion is not quite there yet and there is so much information that some of it comes before we fully grasp what we have already uncovered so it's hard to see how some of it plugs in.

Also I find a lot of initial euphoria over soveriegn freeman redemption concepts being discovered. This can kind of cloud the mechanics of what people are doing. People are using the same processes the Govt has laid out to get things done they way they want to do them. This system is a double edged sword. The main thing is it is a process. Step 1, step 2 step 3 etc.

If you don't respond to one of the steps then you are in dishonour. This is all that they need to give to a court (if it gets that far). They only need to demonstrate dishonour. If the court is summary judgement then you lose. Doesn't matter what you say in court. It's irrelevant.

Now if you know the process and can see the flaws in it, then you can work the system until THEY DEFAULT. Then that's all you need. If it's a clear default and you know how to inform the court. Standing up and yabbering is not how to inform the court, then most times they, the Govt will withdraw. They will pull their claim or most often they will fail to show They have left the battle field through forfeit. Order to Dismiss with Predjudice please your Honour.

They make try to plea deal with you. Why plea deal when you have won?

As to the last point. Yes at some point all the facade of civility will be removed and then it becomes the true battle. You pit your life against someone else.

[Glass]

Awoke

Driving is a commercial term. It is synonymous with operating. Driving a vehicle and operating a vehicle are commercial activities. You would do both for a fee.

In Western Australia the Road Traffic Licencing Act defines Traffic as: The carrying of passengers or freight for a fee.

You might get an infringement from the policee officer that refers to an Act empowering the officer to issue the infringement. If the infringment claims the Traffic Licencing Act, or the Act referred is different but it also referes to the TLA then the question becomes:

Were you carrying passengers for a fee or were you carrying freight for a fee?

So if you are not operating a vehicle for a fee, are you driving? I'd say no. I'd say you were travelling. I would also say anyone who is with you is your travelling companion.

If the officer pulls you over and says can I see your drivers licence please and you give it I think you have just confessed that you are driving for a fee. Even though you may not be, your confession is what they need. Most convictions are due to self incrimination.

How about the officer gets a conditional acceptance on his claim, conditional on proof of claim, affidavit made under oath that a) the officer did in fact determine that you were subject to the TLA because you had either a fee paying passenger or that you were transporting freight for a fee and b) some other stuff you might like to include.

Remember I said you write write your letters in such a way as to make rebuttal difficult if not impossible.

Most officers will not make an oath as to the verasity of their claim. This gives them liability and this is not what they want. We live in limited liability world.

If someone comes to you with an insturment (a claim) they must also provide the remedy. If they do not then they become liable for the instrument.

[Glass]

ok, I'm hogging the thread today. Last one for a bit.

Awoke,

Check out world freeman society forum. These are Canadians. You will find some good info there. You will also find some trolls and some people who are still a bit in the clouds. You will find good references to Statutes and so on that can help.

This is Robert Menards stuff. He's an interesting guy. He pretty much got the whole Claim of Right movement going. He has some good videos on the net.

[Glass]

ok, this is really my last one.

For everyone else who is interested in the commercial side of things, honour, dishonour, how to get superior standing over other claims such as Govt, cops, Tax depts, etc have a look at Winston Shrout. People promote his stuff as sovereign freeman redemption but it is not quite that. It's commerce. He is also interesting. A lot of people who do this stuff often don't grasp how powerful it can be. Winston does his stuff so that anyone who claims against him ends up paying him. The courts often pay him as well or instead of the other party. Remember he who brings the claim must also bring the remedy. Winston knows this and uses it.

You can find Winstons videos on google vid and I think YT. The Kelowna?? seminar is the best one. You need 5 or 6 hours. You need a note pad also.