[lambskin]

Hey Bing,

In continuance of Franklin's case, there are other matters of law which need to be considered since we don't know his status as it relates to the “taxpayer”.

Franklin said:

Quote:

There was no response to my demand for their written delegated enforcement authority and for documentation that led to their “reason to believe.” I sent them a Notice of Default.

This means he's chosen to abate their process on the absence of their authority. If Franklin hasn't removed himself from the Social Security contract, then he is still acting as “surety” for the account that the S.S.A. has established under his signature. Their records show that he is still responsible for every transaction that is funneled through that “en legis” or “legal entity”. If he's still on record as such, then he has to direct them as to what to do with the “funds” generated in the account. If he's no longer acting as surety, then they hafta get off his back. Since they have not, then we have to assume that Franklin has not disconnected himself from the S.S.A. agreement or else they'd have never sent the second letter.

Quote:

Their response was a summons for the books and records (Form2039) with copies of IRC Code Sections 7602,03,04,05,10 attached to the summons

That second letter is essentially saying “We got your first letter and don't understand what you're talking about because we have our “evidence” to the contrary right here in front of us.” What evidence? His signature on the form.

Now this is where the “history lesson” kicks in and we all need to understand it. This is part of what the guy was trying to explain in the “Constitution” recordings that Admin. presented to us at http://www.themillionairenu.com/comeout.php under the “Video series on citizenship and nationality” topic in the “Citizenship, domicile, and nationality” forum. Another part of the history has to do with “commerce” and of course – money.

This nation was set up because people didn't like the way the Royalty of England was handling things. What was the problem? The king was a jerk in the eyes of the people. So, they came here and set up a different system of societal order. That system made every man a “king” in his own right. They formed the government from the “bottom up” instead of the “top down”, so to speak. That's all well and good, but you still have to pay the guys to run the government or else you have to donate your time to do it yourself or donate the money to get it done. What form of money were they using? Silver and gold coins. Everything was running smooth until the men in government decided to borrow money to pay for the wars. When the “lenders” came to collect the government paid 'em, but now the treasury was empty or didn't have enough to cover the governments expenses. The government eventually decided to raise taxes to cover the ever increasing needs and “wants” (therein lies another problem of its own) of the preople because the lenders were charging interest (yes “usury” really does stink, but people still don't seem to be able to grasp that concept) on their loans. Since the gold and silver were continually being taken out of circulation through the hoarding of the lenders, the government had to resort to another method of “fiscal operation” because there wasn't enough gold and silver left to circulate amongst the people. The people were blaming the government and the government was afraid to admit to the people that they had squandered the treasury's stockpile. Paper “money” was the medium of choice and the people agreed to accept it. We can all gripe and moan all we want, but the “law” says if you don't bring your complaint, then you agree by aquiesence. But, the question remains – “Did the people complain?” Yes they did, and in such profusion that the men in government decided to team up with the lenders (who were threatening them) and declare the “People” their enemy. Hence the “District of Columbia Act”, “HJR 192” and its accompanying “Executive Orders”, and the “Revised Statutes”.

This also raises another question – “Can a group of men who form a “Corporation” do such a thing?” Yes, if they have a lawful basis for doing so, and/or we let them. This of course leads to a myriad of other considerations, but those can only be weighed and resolved through cooperation or war becomes inevitable. We don't have to participate in the bloodshed itself, but if we wish to realize the outcome we seek, we definately hafta do something.

What is it that Franklin should do to resolve his confrontation in a lawful manner? Well, if he doesn't want to be seen as bad as the kings of yore are perceived to have been, then he needs to act responsibly in relation to the liability he has undertaken. How does he do that? He can either pay the tax with Federal Reserve notes or use the method of relief which has been provided through the Revenue statutes. But, that'll hafta wait 'cause I gotta go to work.

G&P,

Lambskin

[lambskin]

Hey Bing,

O.k., you're right. My answer was broken and indirect. Franklin asked:

Quote:

My questions = Is it necessary to have a summons defective on its face quashed in district court? Can you seek the protection of the federal court from a defective summons and then on some other occasion turn around and tell federal courts they have no jurisdiction? This sounds like a contradiction to me that some judge could take judicial notice of in the future and use it to your prejudice.

The answer to the first of his questions is: No. If Franklin sends them an answer by mail that states they have not used his correct name, that's known as an abatement. An abatement is simply a form of “process” that asks them to correct their process, or rather the first step of their process. It is essentially a “one question” affidavit. It tells them that they have identified the wrong party and that he's offering them an oppotunity to “cure” their process by correcting the name. To “cure” means to correct any defects in their process and the defect would be in the use of the incorrrect name. They've got to have the right party or their paperwork is no good. It's not necessary for this to be quashed in an actual courtroom because there is no reason for him to appear in such a court because it is not Franklin (the man) the other party has a claim against, but FRANKLIN (the taxpayer).

That basically answers the second question.

Quote:

Can you seek the protection of the federal court from a defective summons and then on some other occasion turn around and tell federal courts they have no jurisdiction?

Why? First, because an abatement is issued from Franklin's “court” and never grants jurisdiction to, nor seeks protection from, their court, and second, there would be no in personam jurisdiction. Their court can't claim jurisdiction of the man if the plaintiff can't produce a defendant. No defendant – no argument – no argument – no case – no case – no relief is necessary because there's nothing to be resolved and the plaintiff has failed to state a claim for which relief would be granted. So, Franklin doesn't need to appear in person and risk accidently or inadvertently granting their court jurisdiction over him (the man). The judges in these courts have no de jure authority as lawfully elected or appointed justices so they need to trick the man who appears into granting the court jurisdiction by means of getting the man to agree to their jurisdiction. They normally do this by asking the guy to come back at a later date, and if the guy says “Okay.”, he'll have granted in personam jurisdiction because he's basically saying “I agree to you having authority to hear this matter and pronounce judgment on me.” when in fact the judge would not, nor ever could, have such authority in his “corporate” capacity without permission from the sovereign. Why? Because we allow them (corporations) to exist in the first place. If they start pulling fast ones on us we can get their license revoked and foreclose on their bonds.

Also:

Quote:

My strategy = respond that no service was effected because it was served by mail. But that sounds like a taxpayer argument which implies that if they had done it correctly I would be subject to their jurisdiction.

It doesn't matter how their process was served. If it's not directed to a man to whom the controversy actually involves, the method of service never becomes an issue, or rather a “point of law” to consider. Proper “service” also needs to be adhered to, but that argument can't be raised until the issue of “proper parties” is settled first. He has to keep sending them an abatement regarding the incorrect name until they get it right and they can't procedurally move ahead until they do. Each “point of law” has to be properly determined before the next one can be raised.

Franklin is “holding court”, or rather adjudicating the matter, on paper. He is acting as the sovereign man he is supposed to be and is telling them that he doesn't need a tribunal to be formed in a courtroom somewhere to settle his affairs for him. He is perfectly capable of doing it himself and if they have a problem with that, or if the matter should require it, then they're gonna hafta “extradite” him 'cause he's functioning out of a territorial jurisdiction that's foreign to them. This way of settling matters was established long before this nation was formed and is one of the foundations of international law or the “Law of Nations” and nobody has to abide by the demands of another if it is not strictly adhered to. If they were to deviate from it they would be comitting a trespass and if they were to detain anybody without following the proper process that'd be tantamount to kidnapping and a host of other charges could also lie in the aftermath.

G&P,

Lambskin

[lambskin]

Hey Franklin,

Just wanted you to know that your presence in these forums is also an encouragement to others here, it lets everybody know that you are another American that seeks to do away with the corrupt activities of the U.S. and the trickle-down effect that corruption has within the several states and local communities.

What I?m about to disclose to you is not ?legal advice?, but what anybody is capable of discovering for themselves – the proper ?process? one is to use in which to proceed in a legal contest. That?s called ?educating? someone or informing somebody about the available information. However, if I were to tell you how to apply it, or how to ?conduct? yourself in your affairs as they pertained to the ?subject matter? of said suit, that could be construed as giving you ?legal advice?. Nevertheless, it is not unlawful for a man to give such advice, or any other form of advice, to another man. On the other hand, it is illegal for ?corporations? or ?licensed? entities to do so. Those are the only ?persons? subject to the statute of any given legislature because they are ?State? regulated entities.

As to your statements about the process you?ve undertaken so far, the Defaults stand as evidence in any court; a default is silent acquiescence to the truth of your assertions, it?s a confessed judgment because they already agreed to your stipulations. This is the same process the current ?Corporate? courts use and is exactly what an absent party in such a court procedure does when they don?t respond or appear.

What ?court? is it that you?ve gotten them to default in? Yours. The ?courts? or the ?courtrooms? are as much yours as they are theirs. You see, you?re doing (or have done) the same thing they do. First they send a letter from an attorney or some Dept. or Agency – that?s the first contact or ?Notice?. Then comes the summons – that?s the second contact and the last opportunity to ?cure? any defects in their ?process?. Then comes the default, at which point they can then pronounce judgment in absence of a jury and issue an order to enforce the judgment in favor of the prevailing party. However, if one does respond or appear (in writing or in the flesh) and they can?t prove their allegations, then the plaintiff must pay the costs or liabilities to the court and damages to the defendant because they brought a claim for which the court could not grant the ?relief? they sought the court to enforce against the defendant. That?s the meaning of the familiar phrase ?Failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.?

All of this is commonly referred to as Administrative Process. It is how anybody – corporation, attorney, or man on the street – is expected to conduct their grievances in front of any tribunal in this nation, and it is widely used in other nations as well. This is what the judge does in the courtroom for the parties to the suit; he ?administers? the case, or rather, the way in which the parties proceed or adhere to ?court procedure?. So, what difference does it make if you do it live or through the mail? None, except the fact that you forego the jury process.

Every piece of mail you get from any Dept. or Agency of a government, or in your case, the alleged ?corporate partner? of the U.S. known as the I.R.S., is the beginning, middle, or end stage of this process and it must be responded to – every time. The reason they turned your matter over to another entity was because they couldn?t answer your stipulations the first time and they?re hoping you will fail to respond properly to them this time. The second entity is now bringing a new suit altogether. The first entity failed so now they want their ?partners? to give it a try and if you don?t respond to the new guys as well, they?ll win. This is perfectly ?legal? in their statutes and just one of the reasons why much of what they do needs to be fixed. If you do choose to appear ?specially?, then make sure you request a jury to decide on the ?law? of the case as well as the evidence. That?s one of the best way to start fixing things.

Grace & Peace,

Lambskin

[lambskin]

Hey Admin,

Good item. Thank you.

The worms are coming up out of their holes after the downpour and the flocks of robins will be feasting in no time.

G&P

Lambskin

[lambskin]

Hey All,

Well said Admin. Thank you.

We should be asking ourselves this, ?Who is this guy? What background does he have in the topics of which he speaks? Is he just repeating a line of ideas taught to him by somebody else, or has he really investigated and uncovered these things to be true?? His words sound very convincing, but are we to be ?tossed about by every wind of doctrine?

No. Gentlemen, we live on the land amongst the people of a nation with the most freedoms of any on Earth because the God fearing men of 200 years past opened that door for us and instilled in the laws on which they founded it a system of government that aligns more with our Saviors? laws than any other on Earth and to say that we must form a new government or nation because of the errors of a few men (there aren?t that many pulling the strings against 300 million) is ludicrous. We do need to ?come out? or separate ourselves from them and their corruption, but we do not need to confine ourselves to one geographical location within this nation to do it.

Don?t get bogged down in the minutia of the words that come out of the mouths of men. Any little chunk o? dirt you may want to lay claim to ain?t worth nothin? compared to what lies ahead. Besides, we have very little to be concerned about (at least in the foreseeable immediate future) because the freedom of religion is still respected in this country and must be respected by other nations due to the agreements that they bound themselves to via treaties with the U.S.

We don?t need to form a new government, we already had it formed for us before the world began. Remember? it?s called Heaven? Isn?t the planet Earth kinda floating around within that sphere of Sovereignty created by our eternal Supreme Sovereign? Sure it is, and he has given us this planet to enjoy during the entirety of our miniscule existence and has assured us of our safety whilst we spend it on this rock.

We already have the body of self-governing, sovereign men and women of which this man speaks and it is known in common parlance as the ?Church? and if I?m not mistaken it happens to be comprised of about half the people in this nation and untold numbers in others. All we need to do to maintain our peaceful existence is stay out of their belligerent one. Yes, we should know how to defend ourselves, but we are only to do that when the time comes to do so and that time hasn?t arrived yet; it?s getting nearer, but in the meantime we are to let the secular world worry about that part of mans? existence for now while we continue to teach peace. Not the ?flattering? kind the antichrist will bring in with him, but the true ?peace of mind? that we know sustains us.

I know from my own research that some of the things that this guy says are true and there are many other ?truths? to be found in a lot of places, but the one thing that none of us can deny is the fact that those who have chosen to live their lives peacefully among their fellow men and neighbors have faired better than those who have not and that hasn?t changed in a long time. The key to maintaining this ?freedom?, this ?equilibrium?, this ?liberty?, is to teach others what it means to have them in the first place.

Let?s keep it up gentlemen, we?re doing a wonderful job of it so far and as for myself, I?ve only got about 40 more trips around the Sun before my teaching days are over and I intend to spend them wisely.

G&P

Lambskin

[lambskin]

Hey rhea,

Wow dude! You really know how (or want) to roil the waters, don't ya? I?m referring to overall content of both of your posts under this forum heading.

The fact that you even need to ask about the nature of a commercial lien alone tells me you shouldn?t attempt to use one, but a perspective on them would be in order only to show that it is not the ?remedy? that fits your situation. What you're really looking for (or thinking of) is a judgment for a bond attachment? of each of the officials who damaged you. As far as an attorney is concerned, you?re probably gonna be searchin? a long time; you?d be asking the guy to sue his own boss – highly unlikely.

Now, about that lien. Just breaking down the phrase “commercial lien” should tell you where the error in filing one on a man would occur. What does the word “commercial” mean? It?s derived from the word “commerce”. What does “commerce” mean? The sale, trade or exchange of a thing between two parties by agreement or contract. What is a ?lien?? A lien is a claim to the right of possession of a thing. Do you have a right to possess these ?officials? you seek to lien? Did you contract with them in some way? Did they agree to become your possessions? I think that's about as much of a “perspective” as is needed.

Quote:

My question is, under the above circumstances, how is a court authorized to commence a criminal action, and prosecute an individual? Does anyone have answers?

First – they asked us for the authority through the election process and we unwittingly gave (and continue to give) it to them.

Second – whoever goes into their “corporate courts” gives them the authority via means of one or more of the “jurisdictional” doctrines.

Third – all crimes, offenses and/or violations in their systems of codes are “commercial” in nature.

So, I can only suggest that you either get busy studying the law or send a PM (private message) to whomever you choose to help you educate yourself. Family Guardian in conjunction with SEDM and the bodies of the memberships are a wealth of info and resources. I offer this suggestion because you state that:

Quote:

This is a real case, and I have all the papers to prove that this, and much more, actually occurred.

This tells me you may have already entered their jurisdiction and either you or your property could be at risk of more deprivation if you don't do something soon.

Grace and peace,

Lambskin

[lambskin]

Hey Guys,

Just a word of encouragement. This is excellent work. Thank you from all of us who don't have the time to take their research to this extent or beyond.

G&P,

Lambskin

[lambskin]

Hey A. #2,

Thank you.

G&P

Lambskin

[lambskin]

Hey Layed,

First: I truly understand your predicament because I?ve been there myself and, not unlike yourself, did my best to ?honor? the ?obligation?, as I thought it was to be honored, at the time. My obligation was not a mortgage, but the premise is the same – The difficulty that men and women of the United States of America are having in meeting their obligations, particularly when they are subjected to confronting the opposite party to those obligations in a courtroom setting and then having to deal with the enforcement issue thereafter.

Second: Since you posted in the ?Litigation Assistance? topic section of the ?Members Helping Members? forum; you were in fact either asking for help, or you were giving another member assistance. Since your post was not in response to another members? request and didn?t include a reference as to whether you were assisting or requesting help, Author #2 and Admin. assumed you were asking for help because your post ?leaned? more in that direction.

Third: You may in fact be a victim. You may be a victim of either deception or confusion depending on how you choose to apply those terms to your situation. You?ve been deceived into believing that you have been lent ?money? by a mortgage company, when in fact it was your signature on the note that THEY have used (or are using) to create ?funds? under ?Public Policy?. You are confused as to what that ?money? actually IS.

Fourth: Admin. said he thought you were alluding to a ?redemptionist scam? and referred you to the SEDM literature on the topic. He obviously concluded this partly from the words exchanged between you and Author #2, and partly from the extent to which the ?redemption process? materials and information has permeated the various methods of publication in certain ?freedom movement? venues, but nevertheless, this is where this topic left off, and I?ll try to address it from that point forward.

At the beginning of the SEDM document it states that the basic premise of the document is to present the disparities between the ?redemptionist activity? and the laws as each relates to the IRS and taxes. Then the body of the document covers everything related to ?redemption? that was available to the SEDM author at the time the material was compiled, which body of info is in fact very educational; and at the end of the document the author states that SEDM avouches some aspects of the ?redemption theory? as plausible and says if anyone can clarify the ?theory? they should submit the clarifying info to SEDM.

That?s the gist of the matter and here?s what I?m willing to disseminate about ?redemption? as it relates to mortgages at this time. I?ll try to keep it brief and on point.

A mortgage is a contract. It serves as a ?security instrument?. The ?security? aspect of the mortgage contract is based on ?collateral?. The land (farm, acreage, lot, etc.) and the ?appurtenances? (house, deck, patio, garage, fences, sidewalk, trees, shrubs, etc.) to the land are the ?collateral? that ?secures? the ?loan? of ?money? to purchase the ?real estate?. Okay? That?s what a mortgage is – a ?security agreement?. That agreement stands as a ?lien? on the collateral. Liens are a form of ?paper money? and ?collection? on the lien can be enforced through a court of law when the ?holder? of the lien can prove that he has a right to collect. The courts are obliged to enforce the ?right of redemption? for the ?holder? if he prevails in his suit. The courts must do this to uphold our system of ?civilized justice? or else the guy will just go out and get his money back in any way he sees fit, which, in light of history, could be by means of ?force? in barbaric form.

Your agreement was for an ARM, meaning the ?interest? you pay fluctuates with the ?market rate? of interest that is posted by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York on a timely basis. This FED rate, in turn, is based on the LIBOR rate, which in turn, is determined by the current rate of ?exchange value? of ?currencies? being passed back and forth in ?commerce?. The ?exchange? rate is based on the GDP and GNP of the countries involved in the commercial markets.

Now? what about the money that the mortgage company claims they lent you? Was it not ?money? because it wasn?t ?metallic? money (gold or silver coins)? Or was it not a ?loan? because it wasn?t their money to lend? These are questions that have been a problem for a long time due to the reluctance of the corporate government to answer them directly and the problem is obviously not going to be resolved soon.

So, yes; based on the foundational law of this nation, the ?money? the mortgage company lent you was not money because it wasn?t gold or silver coin, and yes; based on the current financial status of the corporate government, it wasn?t a loan because it wasn?t theirs to lend. How so? Well, without going into the plethora of documentation required to explain this in minute detail, I?ll try to state this as tactfully, yet poignantly, as possible – they ?misappropriated? it.

Back in the days when banks were spreading like weeds in this country, just as many bank failures ensued within as many years. These failures were caused because the banks weren?t operating on fully secured paper; every ?note? they issued was to be backed by an equal amount of bullion in the vault. But the government wasn?t doing its job – ahemmm – ?correctly? and when most of the banks were found seriously ?underfunded? ruin ensued. When the failures occurred larger banks were permitted (by the boys in D.C.) to ?assume? the ?paper? of the failed institutions (never mind the fact that they shouldn?t have been connected to the government at all, but connected they were), but because the ?money? was never ?there? in the first place, all that the larger banks were doing was putting the paper in their vaults with nothing to tie the paper to because the government had taken back all the land that covered the paper in the ?Civil War?. Now that?s a hyper-condensed version of what happened between 1776 and 1870, but happen it did, and the whole problem stemmed from scarcity of the metals that represented the labor and goods that stemmed from the land and the hands of the people who worked it and it?s all documented in thousands of letters, books and reports generated throughout that course of history.

It is ?fact?; and those facts cannot be denied by anyone involved with the situation today any more than those who were involved with it then could have denied it based on the facts that were left by those who superseded them. The facts that we have to contend with today are the facts that were quickly being realized by the people involved in commerce immediately following those years of learning and discovery – there just isn?t enough of the metal to go around. In fact, today, it can be proven that not only is there not enough gold and silver, but there isn?t enough gems, oil, and all other ?precious metals? combined for people of the nations of this world to use to represent their labor in a sustainable way. There are too many people and, due to technological advances, commerce moves too quickly to be hindered by the process of moving the ?physical? or rather ?hard? money around; at least, that?s what those who are deeply involved with it will have us believe.

So, what Roosevelt?s administration accomplished in ?33, whether they realized what they were doing or not, was the contrivance of a system of paper money that operated within a system of laws that enabled commerce to continue to function despite the fact that they had ?misappropriated? the wealth of this nation by means of removing the gold from our shores to those abroad. That administration was charged with the task of alleviating the burden that faced the nation at the time and they had to do it in a fashion that met the complexities of the supercharged commercial markets and suited the needs of the American population of the day, all without exposing the crimes committed by former administrations and the incumbents alike. Why did they have to be so concerned? Because, in their eyes, they viewed the new system as such:

“Under the new law the money is issued to the banks in return for Government obligations, bills of exchange, drafts, notes, trade acceptances, and banker?s acceptances. The money will be worth 100 cents on the dollar, because it is backed by the credit of the nation. It will represent a mortgage on all the homes and other property of all the people in the Nation.”

[Senate Document No. 43, 73rd Congress, 1st Session] (emphasis added)

Of course, as historical facts show, it was really the other way around. It was the new ?money? that made this purported new ?law? necessary, the law that was being referred to was nothing more than a ?practice? or ?method of operation? as old as mankind; all they really accomplished was the development of a system of rules that allowed the old practice to function within the system of laws that were already established to keep the old practice out.

As can be shown, congress had no ?true? authority to do this; to mortgage the homes and property of the People, but again, as can be proved, this wasn?t the ?organic? Congress doing it. Today? we are left to work within that system. What system is that? As emphasized above, it?s a system of ?debt? and ?credit? – a simple system of accounting – numbers entered into a ledger. The credit is, just as the statement claims, the credit of all the People of the nation known as the United States of America and the debt is the ?mortgage? the boys in D.C. think they have the authority to lay against our homes and all our other property. Until somebody comes up with a better idea, there is no way to operate, maintain a sustainable existence, without the current system unless one were to resort to a life of living off the land and bartering for everything else one chose to own that he could not produce for himself.

Fortunately, there have been men who have realized that a method of a less, how shall I say, ?taxing? existence can be had within the system as it stands – redemption. To grasp this ?concept? (for lack of a better term) you should be aware of another concept or ?rule? called the ?standard of review?. This is a process of looking at the evidence, or facts, of any given matter or situation and weighing it or them against the design of the current system or practices of law and ethics that operate in truth or reality – common sense evaluation. Simply taking matters at hand and analyzing them in relation to the established standard. In matters related to law, the standard of review is used in analysis of decisions in court cases to decide the correct statute or previous decision to apply to the decision submitted for review.

Since the ?redemption theory? involves commercial instruments such as promissory notes and bills of exchange, the standard for review would be the statutes promulgated in relation to these types of instruments. It probably wouldn?t hurt to keep a couple of things in mind as this review is read; one is a particular part of the aforementioned statement:

?the new law the money is issued to the banks in return for Government obligations, bills of exchange, drafts, notes, trade acceptances, and banker?s acceptances.?

If one were to ?read between the lines? of this part you?d come up with an abridged statement of:

?the new money IS, bills of exchange, drafts, notes, and acceptances.?

and the other thing to remember is the fact that the ?money? we use, a ?one? dollar bill or rather a ?one dollar? FRN, is still worth a ?dollar? or 42.2 dollars per fine troy ounce of gold. The problem is people are not being taught that a ?one dollar? FRN is in fact a ?note? (as in ?promissory note?) equal to a ?constitutional dollar? that is comprised of one troy ounce of fine (.999 % pure) silver. Did everybody get that?

1 FRN = 1 oz. silver (one dollar)

42.2 oz. silver = 1 oz. of gold.

Now here?s the review.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW – Points and Authorities in Support of International Bill of Exchange

“Those who constitute an association nationwide of private, unincorporated persons engaged in the business of banking to issue notes against these obligations of the United States due them; whose private property is at risk to collateralize the government?s debt and currency, by legal definitions, a “national banking association”; such notes, issued against these obligations of the United States to that part of the public debt due its Principals and Sureties are required by law to be accepted as “legal tender” of payment for all debts public and private, and are defined in law as “obligations of the United States”, on the same par and category with Federal reserve notes and other currency and legal tender obligations.” (See page 8)

RE: Item tendered for Discharge of Debt.

The instrument tendered to the bank and negotiated to the United States Treasury for settlement is an ?Obligation of THE UNITED STATES?, under Title 18USC Sec. 8, representing as the definition provides a ?certificate of indebtedness ?.drawn upon an authorized officer of the United States,? (in this case the Secretary of the Treasury) ?issued under an Act of Congress? (in this case public law 73-10, HJR-192 of 1933 and Title 31 USC 3123, and 31 USC 5103) and by treaty ( in this case the UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND INTERNATIONAL PROMISSORY NOTES (UNCITRAL) and the Universal Postal Union headquartered in Bern, Switzerland).

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > Sec. 1. > Sec. 8.

Sec. 8. – Obligation or other security of the United States defined

The term ''obligation or other security of the United States'' includes all bonds, certificates of indebtedness, national bank currency, Federal Reserve notes, Federal Reserve bank notes, coupons, United States notes, Treasury notes, gold certificates, silver certificates, fractional notes, certificates of deposit, bills, checks, or drafts for money, drawn by or upon authorized officers of the United States, stamps and other representatives of value, of whatever denomination, issued under any Act of Congress, and canceled United States stamps.

The International Bill of Exchange is legal tender as a national bank note, or note of a National Banking Association, by legal and/or statutory definition (UCC 4-105, 12 CFR Sec. 229.2, 210.2, 12 USC 1813 ), issued under Authority of the United States Code 31 USC 392, 5103, which officially defines this as a statutory legal tender obligation of THE UNITED STATES, and is issued in accordance with 31 USC 3123 and HJR- 192(1933) which establish and provide for its issuance as ?Public Policy? in remedy for discharge of equity interest recovery on that portion of the public debt to its Principals, and Sureties bearing the Obligations of THE UNITED STATES.

This is a statutory remedy for equity interest recovery due the principles and sureties of the United States for discharge of lawful debts in commerce in conjunction with US obligations to that portion of the public debt it is intended to reduce.

During the financial crisis of the depression, in 1933 substance of gold, silver and real money was removed as a foundation for our financial system. In it s place the substance of the American citizenry: their real property, wealth, assets and productivity that belongs to them was, in effect, ?pledged? by the government and placed at risk as the collateral for US debt, credit and currency for commerce to function.

This is well documented in the actions of Congress and the President at that time and in the Congressional debates that preceded the adoption of the reorganizational measures. Senate Document No. 43, 73rd Congress, 1st Session, stated:

“Under the new law the money is issued to the banks in return for Government obligations, bills of exchange, drafts, notes, trade acceptances, and banker?s acceptances. The money will be worth 100 cents on the dollar, because it is backed by the credit of the nation. It will represent a mortgage on all the homes and other property of all the people in the Nation.”

(Which lawfully belongs to these private citizens.)

The National Debt is defined as ?mortgages on the wealth and income of the people of a country.? (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1959.) Their wealth? their labor.

The reorganization is evidenced by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933; House Joint Resolution 192, June 5, 1933 (public law 73-10); and the Series of Executive Orders that surrounded them:

6073- Reopening of Banks. Embargo on Gold Payments and Exports, and Limitations on Foreign Exchange Transactions. March 10, 1933

6111- Transactions in foreign exchange are permitted under Governmental Supervision. April 20, 1933

6102 – Forbidding the hoarding of gold coin, gold bullion and gold certificates. April 5, 1933

On December 23, 1913, Congress had passed “An Act to provide for the establishment of Federal reserve banks, to furnish an elastic currency, to afford a means of rediscounting commercial paper, to establish a more effective supervision of banking in the United States, and for other purposes”. The Act is commonly known as the “Federal Reserve Act”. One of the purposes for enacting the Federal Reserve Act was :

(3) to authorize “hypothecation” of obligations including “United States bonds or other securities which Federal reserve Banks are authorized to hold” under Section 14(a);

12 USC; ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251 Sect 14(a)

The term “hypothecation” as stated in Section 14(a) of the Act is defined:

“1. Banking. Offer of stocks, bonds, or other assets owned by a party other than the borrower as collateral for a loan, without transferring title. If the borrower turns the property over to the lender who holds it for safekeeping, the action is referred to as a pledge. If the borrower retains possession, but gives the lender the right to sell the property in event of default, it is a true hypothecation.

2. Securities. The pledging of negotiable securities to collateralize a broker's margin loan. The broker pledges the same securities to a bank as collateral for a broker's loan, the process is referred to as rehypothecation.”

[Dictionary Of Banking Terms, Fitch, pg. 228 (1997 )]

As seen from the definitions, in hypothecation there is equitable risk to the actual owner.

Section 16 of the current Federal Reserve Act, which is codified at 12 USC 411, declares that:

“Federal Reserve Notes” are “obligations of the United States”.

So we see the “full faith and credit” of the United States, which is the substance of the American citizenry, their real property, wealth, assets and productivity that belongs to them, is thereby hypothecated and rehypothecated by the United States to its obligations as well as to the Federal Reserve for the issuance and backing of Federal Reserve Notes as legal tender “for all taxes, customs, and other public dues”.

TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 3 > SUBCHAPTER XII > Sec. 411.

Sec. 411. – Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption

Federal Reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues.

The commerce and credit of the nation continues on today under financial reorganization (Bankruptcy) as it has since 1933, still backed by the assets and wealth of the American citizenry: at risk for the government?s obligations and currency.

Under the 14th amendment and numerous Supreme Court precedents, as well as in equity, Private property can not be taken or pledged for public use without just compensation, or due process of law. The United States cannot pledge or risk the property and wealth of its private citizens, for any government purpose without legally providing them remedy to recover what is due them on their risk.

This principle is so well established in English common law and in the history of American jurisprudence. The 14th amendment provides:

?no person shall be deprived of?property without due process of law?.

And Courts have long ruled to have one?s property legally held as collateral or surety for a debt even when he still owns it and still has it is to deprive him of it since it is at risk and could be lost for the debt at any time. The United States Supreme Court said, in United States v. Russell [13 Wall, 623, 627] :

“Private property, the Constitution provides, shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.”

“The right of subrogation is not founded on contract. It is a creature of equity; is enforced solely for the purpose of accomplishing the ends of substantial justice; and is independent of any contractual relations between the parties.”

Memphis & L. R. R. Co. v. Dow, 120 U.S. 287, 301-302 (1887).

The rights of a surety to recovery on his risk or loss when standing for the debts of another was reaffirmed again as late as 1962 in Pearlman v. Reliance Ins.Co., 371 U.S. 132 when the Court said :

?? sureties compelled to pay debts for their principal have been deemed entitled to reimbursement, even without a contractual promise ?And probably there are few doctrines better established??

Black?s Law Dictionary, 5th edition, defines ?surety?:

? One who undertakes to pay or to do any other act in event that his principal fails therein. Everyone who incurs a liability in person or estate for the benefit of another, without sharing in the consideration, stands in the position of a surety.?

Constitutionally and in the laws of equity, the United States could not borrow or pledge the property and wealth of its private citizens, put at risk as collateral for its currency and credit without legally providing them equitable remedy for recovery of what is due them. The United States government, of course, did not violate the law or the Constitution in this way, in order to collateralize its financial reorganization, but did, in fact, provide such a legal remedy so that it has been able to continue on since 1933 to hypothecate the private wealth and assets of those classes of persons by whom it is owned, at risk backing the government?s obligations and currency, by their implied consent, through the government having provided such remedy, as defined and codified above, for recovery of what is due them on their assets and wealth at risk.

The provisions for this are found in the same act of ?Public Policy? HJR-192, public law 73-10 that suspended the gold standard for our currency, abrogated the right to demand payment in gold, and made Federal Reserve notes for the first time legal tender, ?backed by the substance or ?credit of the nation?.

All US currency since that time is only credit against the real property, wealth and assets belonging to the private sovereign American people, taken and/or ?pledged? by THE UNITED STATES to its secondary creditors as security for its obligations. Consequently, those backing the nation?s credit and currency could not recover what was due them by anything drawn on Federal Reserve notes without expanding their risk and obligation to themselves. Any recovery payments backed by this currency would only increase the public debt its citizens were collateral for, which an equitable remedy was intended to reduce, and in equity would not satisfy anything. And there was no longer actual money of substance to pay anybody.

There are other serious limitations on our present system. Since the institution of these events, for practical purposes of commercial exchange, there has been no actual money in circulation by which debt owed from one party to another can actually be repaid.

Federal Reserve Notes, although made legal tender for all debts public and private in the reorganization, can only discharge a debt. Debt must be ?payed? with value or substance (i.e. gold, silver, barter, labor, or a commodity). For this reason HJR-192 (1933), which established the ?public policy? of our current monetary system, repeatedly uses the technical term of ?discharge? in conjunction with ?payment? in laying out public policy for the new system. A debt currency system cannot pay debt. So from that time to the present, commerce in the corporate UNITED STATES and among sub-corporate subject entities has had only debt note instruments by which debt can be discharged and transferred in different forms. The unpaid debt, created and/or expanded by the plan now carries a public liability for collection in that when debt is discharged with debt instruments, (i.e. Federal Reserve Notes included), by our commerce, debt is inadvertently being expanded instead of being cancelled, thus increasing the public debt. A situation potentially fatal to any economy.

Congress and government officials who orchestrated the public laws and regulations that made the financial reorganization anticipated the long term effect of a debt based financial system which many in government feared, and which we face today in servicing the interest on trillions upon trillions of dollars in US Corporate public debt and in this same act made provision not only for the recovery remedy to satisfy equity to its Sureties, but to simultaneously resolve this problem as well.

Since it is, in fact, the real property, wealth and assets of that class of persons that is the substance backing all the other obligations, currency and credit of THE UNITED STATES and such currencies could not be used to reduce its obligations for equity interest recovery to its Principals and Sureties. HJR-192 further made the ?notes of national banks? and ?national banking associations? on a par with its other currency and legal tender obligations.

Now TITLE 31, SUBTITLE IV, CHAPTER 51, SUBCHAPTER I, Sec. 5103. Says:

Legal tender – United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks ) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.

(emphasis added)

But this official definition for ?legal tender? was first established in HJR-192 (1933) in the same act that made federal reserve notes and notes of national banking associations legal tender.

Public Policy HJR-192

JOINT RESOLUTION TO SUSPEND THE GOLD

STANDARD AND ABROGATE THE GOLD CLAUSE,

JUNE 5, 1933

H.J. Res. 192, 73rd Cong., 1st Session

Joint resolution to assure uniform value to the coins and currencies of the United States.

(:cool: As used in this resolution, the term ?obligation? means an obligation (including every obligation of and to the United States, excepting currency) payable in money of the United States; and the term ?coin or currency? means coin or currency of the United States, including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations.

?All coins and currencies of the United States (including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations) heretofore or hereafter coined or issued, shall be legal tender for all debts, for public and private, public charges, taxes, duties, and dues,??

[USC Title 12.221 Definitions ? The terms ?national bank? and ?national banking association??.shall be held to be synonymous and interchangeable.?]

Yet ?notes of national banks? or ?national banking associations? have continuously been maintained in the official definition of legal tender since June 5, 1933 to the present day, when the term had never been used to define ?currency? or ?legal tender? before that.

Prior to 1933 the forms of currency in use that were legal tender were many and varied: United States Gold Certificates ? United States Notes ? Treasury Notes ? Interest bearing notes ? Gold Coins of United States ? Standard silver dollars ? Subsidiary silver coins ? minor coins -Commemorative coins ? but the list did not include federal reserve notes or notes of national banks or national banking associations despite the fact national bank notes were a common medium of exchange or ?currency? and had been, almost since the founding of our banking system, and were backed by United States bonds or other securities on deposit for the bank with the US Treasury.

Further, from the time of their inclusion in the definition they have been phased out until presently all provisions in the United States Code pertaining to incorporated federally chartered National Banking institutions issuing, redeeming, replacing and circulating notes have all been repealed:

USC TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 2 – NATIONAL BANKS

SUBCHAPTER V – OBTAINING AND ISSUING CIRCULATING NOTES

Sec. 101 to 110. Repealed. Pub. L. 103-325, title VI, Sec. 602e5-11, f2-4A, g9, Sept. 23, 1994, 108 Stat. 2292, 2294

SUBCHAPTER VI – REDEMPTION AND REPLACEMENT OF CIRCULATING NOTES

? Sec. 121. Repealed. Pub. L. 103-325, title VI, Sec. 602f4B, Sept. 23, 1994, 108 Stat. 2292

? Sec. 121a. Redemption of notes unidentifiable as to bank of issue

? Sec. 122. Repealed. Pub. L. 97-258, Sec. 5b, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1068

? Sec. 122a. Redeemed notes of unidentifiable issue; funds charged against

? Sec. 123 to 126. Repealed. Pub. L. 103-325, title VI, Sec. 602e12, 13, f4C, 6, Sept. 23, 1994, 108 Stat. 2292, 2293

? Sec. 127. Repealed. Pub. L. 89-554, Sec. 8a, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 633

As stated in ?Money and Banking?, 4th edition, by David H. Friedman, publ. by the American Bankers Association, page 78:

?Today commercial banks no longer issue currency, ??

It is clear, federally incorporated banking institutions subject to the restrictions and repealed provisions of Title 12 are not those primarily referred to or maintained as ?banks? in the current definition of ?legal tender?.

The legal statutory and professional definitions of ?bank?, ?banking?, and ?banker? used in the United States Code and Code of Federal Regulations are not those as are commonly understood for these terms and the codes have made the statutory definition of ?Bank? accordingly:

“Bank” means a person engaged in the business of banking,?

UCC 4-105 PART 1

12CFR Sec. 229.2 Definitions

(e) Bank means ? the term bank also includes any person engaged in the business of banking,?

12CFR Sec. 210.2 Definitions.

(d) Bank means any person engaged in the business of banking.

USC Title 12 Sec. 1813 Definitions of Bank and Related Terms

(1) Bank. – The term ''bank'' ?

(A) means any national bank, State bank, and District bank, and any Federal branch and insured branch;?

Black?s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 133, defines a ?Banker? as:

?In general sense, person that engages in business of banking. In narrower meaning, a private person?; who is engaged in the business of banking without being incorporated. Under some statutes, an individual banker, as distinguished from a ?private banker?, is a person who, having complied with the statutory requirements, has received authority from the state to engage in the business of banking, while a private banker is a person engaged in banking without having any special privileges or authority from the state.?

?Banking? – Is partly and optionally defined as ?The business of issuing notes for circulation?, negotiating bills.?

Black?s Law Dictionary, 5 Edition, page 133, defines ?Banking?:

?The business of banking, as defined by law and custom, consists in the issue of notes? intended to circulate as money??

And defines a ?Banker?s Note? as:

?A commercial instrument resembling a bank note in every particular except that it is given by a private banker or unincorporated banking institution.?

Federal Statute does not specifically define ?national bank? and ?national banking association? in those sections where these uses are legislated on to exclude a private banker or unincorporated banking institution. It does define these terms to the exclusion of such persons in the chapters and sections where the issue and circulation of notes by national banks has been repealed or forbidden.

“In the absence of a statutory definition, courts give terms their ordinary meaning.”

Bass, Terri L. v. Stolper, Koritzinsky, 111 F.3d 1325, 7th Cir. Apps. (1996).

As the U.S. Supreme Court noted:

“We have stated time and again that courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.”

See, e.g., United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 241 -242 (1989); United States v. Goldenberg, 168 U.S. 95, 102 -103 (1897);

“The legislative purpose is expressed by the ordinary meaning of the words used.”

Richards v. United States, 369 U.S.1 (1962).

Therefore, as noted above, the legal definitions relating to ?legal tender? have been written by Congress and maintained as such to be both exclusive, where necessary, and inclusive, where appropriate, to provide in its statutory definitions of legal tender for the inclusion of all those, who by definition of private, unincorporated persons engaged in the business of banking to issue notes against the obligation of the United States for recovery on their risk, whose private assets and property are being used to collateralize the obligations of the United States since 1933, as collectively and nationally constituting a legal class of persons being a ?national bank? or ?national banking association? with the right to issue such notes against The Obligation of THE UNITED STATES for equity interest recovery due and accrued to these Principals and Sureties of the United States backing the obligations of US currency and credit; as a means for the legal tender discharge of lawful debts in commerce as remedy due them in conjunction with US obligations to the discharge of that portion of the public debt, which is provided for in the present financial reorganization still in effect and ongoing since 1933. [12 USC 411; 18 USC 8; 12 USC ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251 Sect 14(a); 31 USC 5118, 3123; with rights protected under the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution; by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Russell (13 Wall, 623, 627); Pearlman v. Reliance Ins. Co., 371 U.S. 132,136,137 (1962); The United States v. Hooe, 3 Cranch (U.S.) 73(1805); and in conformity with the U.S. Supreme Court 79 U.S. 287 (1870), 172 U.S. 48 (1898); and as confirmed at 307 U.S. 247(1939).]

HJR- 192 further declared:

?? every provision? which purports to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency? is declared to be against Public Policy; and no such provision shall be? made with respect to any obligation hereafter incurred.?

Making way for discharge and recovery on US Corporate public debt due the Principals and Sureties of THE UNITED STATES providing as ?public policy? for the discharge of ?every obligation?, ?including every obligation OF and TO THE UNITED STATES?, ?dollar for dollar?, allowing those backing the US financial reorganization to recover on it by discharging an obligation they owed TO THE UNITED STATES or its sub-corporate entities, against that same amount of obligation OF THE UNITED STATES owed to them; thus providing the remedy for the discharge and orderly recovery of equity interest on US Corporate public debt due the Sureties, Principals, and Holders of THE UNITED STATES, discharging that portion of the public debt without expansion of credit, debt or obligation on THE UNITED STATES or these its prime-creditors it was intended to satisfy equitable remedy to, but gaining for each bearer of such note, discharge of obligation equivalent in value ?dollar for dollar? to any and all ?lawful money of the United States?.

Those who constitute an association nationwide of private, unincorporated persons engaged in the business of banking to issue notes against these obligations of the United States due them; whose private property is at risk to collateralize the government?s debt and currency, by legal definitions, a “national banking association”; such notes, issued against these obligations of the United States to that part of the public debt due its Principals and Sureties are required by law to be accepted as “legal tender” of payment for all debts public and private, and, as we have seen, are defined in law as “obligations of the United States”, on the same par and category with Federal reserve notes and other currency and legal tender obligations.

This is what is asserted in the tender presented to the bank for deposit and the government has said nothing to the contrary.

Would we question that this is exactly what Congress has provided for in these statutes and codes on the public debt and obligations of the United States and that this is the remedy codified in statutory law and definition we have cited here? Even though it is never discussed.

Under this remedy for discharge of the public debt and recovery to its Principals and Sureties, TWO debts that would have been discharged in Federal Reserve debt note instruments or checks drawn on the same, equally expanding the public debt by those transactions, are discharged against a SINGLE public debt of the Corporate UNITED STATES and its sub-corporate entities to its prime-creditor without the expansion and use of Federal Reserve debt note instruments as currency and credit, and so, without the expansion of debt and debt instruments in the monetary system and the expansion of the public debt as burden upon the entire financial system and its Principals, and Sureties the recovery remedy was intended to relieve.

Apparently, their use is for the discharge and non-cash accrual reduction of US Corporate public debt to the Principals, Prime Creditors and Holders of it as provided in law and the instruments will ultimately be settled by adjustment and set-off in discharge of a bearer?s obligation TO THE UNITED STATES against the obligation OF THE UNITED STATES for the amount of the instrument to the original creditor it was tendered to or whomever or whatever institution may be the final bearer and holder in due course of it, again, thus discharging that portion of the public debt without expansion of credit, debt or note on the prime-creditors of THE UNITED STATES it was intended to satisfy equitable remedy to, but gaining for each endorsed bearer of it discharge of obligation equivalent in value ?dollar for dollar? of currency, measurable in ?lawful money of the United States?.

Although this has been public policy as a remedy for the discharge of debt in conjunction with removal of gold, silver and real money as legal tender currency by the same act of public policy in 1933, it has been a difficult concept to communicate for others to accept and to know what to do with it, so its never gained common use and for obvious reasons the government has discouraged public understanding of the remedy and recovery under it and therefore it is little known and not generally accessed by the public. But it is still an obligation the United States has bound itself to and has provided for in statutory law and the United States still accepts these non-cash accrual exchanges today as a matter of law and equity. So is the experience of many who have attempted to access the remedy.

That the ?public policies? of House Joint Resolution 192 of 1933 are still in effect is evidenced by the other provisions of ?public policy? it established that we can see along with these discussed. No one would attempt to demand payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency in use or think to write such an obligation into a contract, because the gold standard for currency is still suspended and the right to a ?gold clause? to require payment in gold is still abrogated. Both are also part of ?public policy? established in HJR-192.

The practical evidence and fact of the United State?s financial reorganization (bankruptcy) is still ongoing today, visible all around us to see and understand. When Treasury notes come due, they?re not paid. They are refinanced by new T-Bills and notes to back the currency and cover the debts? something that cannot be done with debt? unless? the debtor is protected from creditors in a bankruptcy reorganization that is regularly being restructured to keep it going.

Every time the Federal debt ceiling is raised by Congress they are restructuring the bankruptcy reorganization of the government?s debt so commerce can continue on.

For obvious reasons the United States government does not like having to recognize all this. It is a very sensitive and delicate matter. And few can speak or will speak authoritatively about it, as the bank has found out. The recovery remedy is maintained in law because it has to be to satisfy equity to its prime creditors. At this late time, the United States is neither expecting nor intending it to be generally accessed by the public. Regarding such instruments tendered to the Secretary, when public officials are put in a position to legally acknowledge or deny the authority or validity of the instruments, those in responsibility will not deny or dishonor it, or an instrument of discharge properly submitted for that purpose.

That all sums up the past. So, what has the government had to say about it now? What is its policy in practice?

And how does it finally respond to such claims of which it receives thousands every day?

It is a fact: Title 31 USC 3123 makes a statutory pledge of the United States government to payment of obligations and interest on the public debt.

TITLE 31, SUBTITLE III, CHAPTER 31, SUBCHAPTER II

Sec. 3123. Payment of obligations and interest on the public debt

(a) The faith of the United States Government is pledged to pay, in legal tender, principal and interest on the obligations of the Government issued under this chapter.

(:cool: The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay interest due or accrued on the public debt.

It is a fact: Title 31 Section 3130 further delineates in its definitions a portion of the total public debt which is held by the public as the ?Net public debt?.

TITLE 31 > SUBTITLE III > CHAPTER 31 > SUBCHAPTER II > Sec. 3130.

Sec. 3130. Annual public debt report

(e) Definitions.

(2) Total public debt.

The term ''total public debt'' means the total amount of the obligations subject to the public debt limit established in section 3101 of this title.

(3) Net public debt.

The term ''net public debt'' means the portion of the total public debt which is held by the public.

It is a fact: Section 3101 references guaranteed obligations held by the Secretary of the Treasury which are excepted and exempted from ?the face amount of obligations whose principal and interest are guaranteed by the United States Government?

Sec. 3101. Public debt limit

(:cool: The face amount of obligations issued under this chapter and the face amount of obligations whose principal and interest are guaranteed by the United States Government (except guaranteed obligations held by the Secretary of the Treasury) may not be more than $5,950,000,000,000, outstanding at one time, subject to changes periodically made in that amount as provided by law.

It is a fact: Every day the United States Treasury department receives dozens or hundreds of such instruments making claims of this type. Obviously some are valid and some are not.

It is a fact: There are only 3 official government directives or alerts that address spurious, fraudulent, fictitious, or otherwise invalid, instruments sent to the US Treasury for payment, and only one that officially states what is to be official US government policy and treatment of them if they are received, this is ALERT 99-10: which is also published on the government website for the United States Treasury: http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov under Frauds and Phonies, The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Enforcement & Compliance Division in ALERT 99-10 states:

?Type: Suspicious Transactions

TO: Chief Executive Officers of all National Banks; all State Banking Authorities; Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; Conference of State Bank Supervisors; Deputy Comptrollers (Districts); Assistant Deputy Comptrollers; District Counsel and Examining Personnel.

RE: Fictitious Sight Drafts payable through the U.S. Treasury

It has been brought to our attention that certain individuals have been making and executing worthless paper documents which are titled “Sight Draft”. These items state that they are payable through the U.S. Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20220. These instruments are being presented for payment at banks and other businesses throughout the United States. Any of these instruments that are presented to the U.S. Treasury for payment will be returned to the sender and copies will be provided to the appropriate law enforcement agencies.?

Dishonored. This is in conformity with the Uniform Commercial Code that parties may rely on their presentment of obligations as settled unless given a Notice of Dishonor, whether directly applicable to Treasury Dept. officers or not.

UCC3-503. NOTICE OF DISHONOR

(:cool: Notice of dishonor may be given by any person; may be given by any commercially reasonable means, including an oral, written, or electronic communication; and is sufficient if it reasonably identifies the instrument and indicates that the instrument has been dishonored or has not been paid or accepted . Return of an instrument given to a bank for collection is sufficient notice of dishonor.

? Subject to Section 3-504?, with respect to an instrument taken for collection notice of dishonor must be given? within 30 days following the day on which the person receives notice of dishonor. With respect to any other instrument, notice of dishonor must be given within 30 days following the day on which dishonor occurs.

These instruments are never returned from the Treasury dishonored.

It is a fact: There is no basis or reason or plausible explanation for such unexplained silence with regard to these particular instruments.

Every other branch of the Federal government including the Dept. of the Treasury has developed elaborate libraries of computer generated form letters of statements and replies dealing with almost every possible question or claim that could be made of any agency or department of the Federal government. The United States Treasury has an Office of Public Correspondence whose sole job it is to respond to communications from the general public. THERE IS NO COMMUNICATION SENT TO THE UNITED STATES TREASURY THAT CANNOT BE RESPONDED TO AS IT MAY REQUIRE. Many such categories of requests calling for response are far greater in number than claims in equity for recovery to a Prime-creditor over the United States and some categories are far fewer in number, and yet be the requests greater or smaller in number or in complexity of response required, all these of a commercial nature are regularly and timely responded to.

There is virtually NO WRITTEN RESPONSE by the Federal government to this issue of recovery to the prime-creditors and holders in equity over the United States. The factually observable position of the Secretary of the Treasury and his department in response to THIS type of claim has been ABSOLUTE SILENCE, be they from bank, business or private person: Not denial, disavowal, dishonor, or repudiation of such claims OR their basis in law and fact if they are not true, which in every other case of correspondence to the Federal government or the Department of Treasury dealing with any question, request or claim: ANY SUCH FALSE CLAIM, MISCONCEPTION OR MISTAKEN UNDERSTANDING ON THE PART OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC IS ALWAYS, EVERY TIME, TIMELY DEALT WITH, IN EVERY CASE, BY SUCH FORM LETTERS.

It is the duty of the United States Treasury to the commerce of the nation and in the interests of the general public whom it serves to quickly and conclusively quash and repudiate any such false understandings or claims of remedy in equity on recovery of the public debt in the commercial realm and it is easily within their power to do so.

This despite the fact the only official US government directive from the Department of the Treasury dealing with policy of the government toward fictitious or otherwise invalid instruments sent to the Treasury for collection clearly states ?they will be returned to the sender.? There is, therefore, no basis or reason or plausible explanation for such unexplained silence with regard to this particular class of instrument except that a remedy in equity for recovery to the prime-creditors over the United States IS true and factual and CANNOT BE DENIED or DISHONORED in equity, and that such Bills of Acceptance in discharge of mutually offsetting obligations between the United States and its holders in equity as secured parties ARE, in fact, being kept, held, and without return or dishonor, accepted as obligations of the United States in the discharge and recovery of the public debt as they make claim on their face to the Secretary of the Treasury to be.

How recovery is accomplished is up to the parties involved with the issuing and holding of such obligations. The law, regulations and administrative procedure provides for such things.

In Conclusion:

When a Commercial Bank sends the instrument to the Secretary for discharge of its own obligations and a problem arises concerning the instrument, a commercial response of some kind is required. There is a legal liability of the government to a negotiable legal tender obligation upon the United States government sent to them for acceptance by a member Federal Reserve Bank after they received it and became responsible for it.

The Treasury has an obligation as a department of government serving the public interest to the bank which as a member of the Federal Reserve System that has a commercial obligation to an account holder and a 3rd party who tendered the item in payment to tell them that it?s no good or it?s not going to be honored, even if they wanted to keep it for prosecution or investigation. This is in effect what the directive says the government will do if the instrument is no good. What does statutory law, regulation, administrative or case law tell us about what that obligation is?

They do not dishonor it in any way by return; or by sending any notice to that effect; nor do they make request for additional information; or ask for time to examine the instrument or give a statement of explanation indicating the time frame for its review and settlement if it would be an inordinately lengthy time (as longer than 60 days) to finish with it. The instruments are being kept, held, and without return or dishonor, are accepted as an obligation of the United States in the discharge and recovery of the public debt as it makes claim on its face to be.

Put another way: If the bank had to pay the item to honor its customer agreement as if it had been a check, what would or could the bank be trying to do with it to finally settle the account? The bank needs to treat the instrument tendered as an obligation of the United States to the bank. The tender of these instruments discharge the obligation of the debt for which they are delivered and the payee becomes the new holder in due course and collection agent on the instruments.

END of MEMORANDUM

Congress, the Judiciary, the Executive nor any other institution, here or abroad, can deny a man the right to participate in the lawful exchange of the fruits of his labor for those of another, regardless of the means by which he chooses to make the exchange. The practice of using paper instruments to accomplish an exchange has been used for centuries and there were as many other types of exchange mediums used before paper as there were ways to move the goods or places to which the goods were being shipped. The corporate government, or at least those of less savory character within government, will do whatever it takes to discourage the common man from utilizing this age old practice because it has been the bread and butter of the banks and they intend to keep it that way. However, there are others within government who do understand the way our system of government is supposed to work and those of them that work in the Treasury are doing their job correctly. When Henry Paulson gets a B.O.E. or any other paper instrument that is in proper form and properly channeled to the proper parties, i.e. lawful ?money?, he pays it. He walks up to Bernake, hands it to him and says ?Deposit this and adjust your accounting ledgers to reflect a decline in the deficit column.?

Of course the D.O.J. is going to issue warnings about the bogus ones, that?s their job. They?re not going to do a three page dissertation on the good ones. That?d be as bad as the medias? bombastic headline stories when a dead whale washes ashore or a tiger cub?s born in the zoo; so what! Water buffalo calve, ants eat carcasses, and termites devour houses, every day! No; if you use these instruments to accomplish the means for which they?re intended there?s nothing the government, local, state, or federal can, or will, do about it because it?s an international commercial practice and if they try to deny a man the use, then they?d have to prevent all other corporations in every type of industry from doing the same.

O.K., chew on that for awhile. I got work I gotta do and I?ll type up the rest, in regard to your mortgage, a.s.a.p.

G&P

Lambskin

[lambskin]

Hey Author #2,

Nope.

G&P

Lambskin

[lambskin]

Hey Layed,

I have some experience in litigating these types of issues. If you'd care to give me a little more info, it's possible you'll be able to save your home. Please PM me so I can determine if the topic can be openly discussed in this thread without exposing anyone to any perils that could ensue.

G&P

Lambskin

[lambskin]

Hey All,

Quote:

So the $64,000 questions are ?What is the privilege and where is the Internal Revenue Code section that makes the American people liable for this privilege tax??

One answer is: Trading with the enemy Act.

G&P

Lambskin

[lambskin]

Hey All,

Riverway asked:

Quote:

what prevents the USG from setting up ports of entry at all state boarders and requiring Real ID at those points of entry.

and the answer is: You.

Write to the congress and some congressperson might eventually get a clue, and when you need to fly anywhere, just give them your passport. If they don't let you fly, then either sue 'em (if you think you can prove to a court that a flight on a commercial airliner is not commercial) or don't fly. The airlines are allowed to permit or decline air travel to whomever they want, so long as it's not against the law. Driving into Canada or Mexico is only slightly different, in that you'd be suing the “corp.” Govt. and not a Govt. official that's got anything to do with you, me or any other man who knows the difference between “Our” dejure and/or organic Govt. and the corporate actors. Just be sure you can prove the title, the license plates, and all the other stickers on the plates or windshield (if you have any of these on your “automobile”) belong to the trust and not you.

G&P

Lambskin

[lambskin]

Hey Admin,

What can I say, save “Praise the Lord” and “Thank you for your understanding”.

I apologize for not being descript enough and I'll try to remember to post where appropriate in the future.

G&P

Lambskin

[lambskin]

Hey Admin,

Thanks for the info. I don?t know why you thought I was lookin? for the help,

Quote:

You aren't finding remedies because you are looking on the wrong website.

I was just responding to your request

Quote:

If there is a way to organize, simplify, or present the fundamental truths found on this website better than we have so people like you will reach the same conclusions SOONER during their exposure with less effort, please share with us the technique.

and I thought you meant the improvement was needed on the FG site and was just relating what immediately struck me as obvious. Men of greater minds than you or I have overlooked simpler things.

Quote:

Why do you call yourself lambskin?

I use Lambskin because I tried one scripturally based moniker after another and finally hit on lambskin. I liked it because, in a sense, it put me under the Lords? ?cover?. Honestly though, its detrimental attributes hadn?t even struck me until I got the lashing from the Professor back when I first became a member. At first, I was like ?Whooooa dude, take a chill pill.? but then, as I became more familiar with the site, its members, and the general ?drift? of the tenor at FG, it became obvious that the relevance of the name really matters between me and my Savior alone and that?s good enough for me and I?m sure it pleases Him as well. But hey? if it keeps everyone else on their toes, why not? After all, at one time, they did use lambs-hide to write scripture on ya know.

Quote:

Are you a wolf in sheep's clothing who works for the government?

Govt. agent? 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 I think they?d shoot me on the spot after the first few minutes on the job. I couldn?t sneak my way into my own funeral for Gods? sake. No; sir, I ain?t one of THEM, nor do I hold any animosity toward them because in my mind, and in the eyes of the Lord, it doesn?t do any good; and besides, most of them are fairly decent people who have nothing to lay against them except for the fact that they grew up learning the same things from the same people as most everybody else did and actually believe that the job they perform is in the best interest of their neighbors. If we just keep doin? what we do, in time, their eyes will open and the converts will come.

No it ain?t good to spoon feed people, but when one sees a guy in a 20 yr. old minivan with a flat in a snowstorm, loaded to the max with luggage, a pregnant wife, and a coupla shiverin?, bawlin? kids on board, one doesn?t back up in ones? spankin? new Benz, throw him a cold one and yell ?Have fun!? either. Why? Because, more than likely, one would have no idea as to why he?s in such a predicament in the first place, and secondly, if one were to say to oneself ?This guy wouldn?t be needing my help right now if he?d work a little harder and earn enough to buy a better car or put more effort into maintaining this one.?, one could be dead wrong because the guy could possibly be working an additional 20 hours a week and using the money to support an organization that backs the same thing one stands for, or perhaps an organization that helps support ones? own paraplegic child.

I?m sure you?ve received tons of PM?s from folks who?d rather starve than pick up a shovel and I understand that it?s difficult to discern between which ones we should help, which ones are beyond that help, and how difficult it can be for a man to struggle with all of the other things he must try to contemplate when such situations arise. And I?m well aware of your exposure to the adversary?s crosshairs; considering what?s happened to other ?high profile? publicists in the past, and particularly what?s happened of late with the people behind freedomcommittee.com, Liberty Dollar and so on. No, no? Admin, far be it for me to tell you how to handle whatever comes across your doorstep. In fact I consider it an honor you?ve taken to answer personally because this site speaks volumes to who you are and what you stand for. Hopefully you?ll understand when I mention the premise of ?practicing law without a license? as being an absurdity that I?m speaking to others out here in the trenches who need not worry as much about getting nailed by the BAR for doing so. When I say ?in the trenches? I mean we?re not exposed to as much direct fire, as visible.

All I was trying to relate was the fact that there are people out there that are deserving of our help and that help should be given to those deserving souls with all the speed, diligence and perseverance we can muster to their aid, especially when the help that they seek is due to circumstance that has befallen them to which they had no influence over and of the utmost moments? alarm. Even houses teeming with security get burgled on occasion. This is, after all, a war we?re fighting is it not? Yes; (by the very words of Jesus Christ) it is, and yes, there will be casualties, yet our job is not only that of ranking footmen who lead our fellow soldiers into armed battle, but also that of watchmen who, when not manning the tower, teach them how to use the weaponry and the tactics they?ll need to survive the day, yet to say that a General needs not to weep and pray with his men on the blood-stained field is to say you?ve set a madman over you and are with him willing to sear the hearts of the ones who will inevitably fill his boots, for lunatics never see the end of the war.

Quote:

You don't seem to understand the concept of sovereignty, which is complete, total, exclusive, and perpetual SELF GOVERNMENT, which means not allowing anyone to make decisions for you.

Allow me to contradict my friend; I?m quite prepared, ready, willing and able: and I will crest the ridge of the enemy?s northern flanks with the necessary impressive array of barrels, bravado and my pocket protection (the Lambs? ?skin?) over my heart, but when it?s time to look for another to breach the southern, heaven help me if he ain?t backed by men who?ve seen him give the last of his own rations to the shaken, runny-nosed grunt the night before. As Paul wrote – ya gotta nourish ?em with milk before they can eat meat, and David always asked the squeamish to stay behind, but he never prevented anybody from bringing his troops vittles when they were lacking; and that, in turn, shows that even the greatest leaders may be a little ill prepared at times.

Anyway, since you asked,

Quote:

If you have a better idea, please suggest it,

and if you?ll accept this, even though it remains simple; change the wording of my former suggestion to read – ?and have it take them to SEDM – Situational References – Item 6.1?etc., etc.? That ought to at least help them, as you say,

Quote:

reach the same conclusions SOONER during their exposure with less effort

G&P

lambskin