Congress told you, me, and the world that there was no money in 1933.
Everything since then has been an act of fiction, corporation, legal entities,
and DEBT instruments, not credit instruments. That's right; a Federal Reserve
Note is a debt instrument, as are all moneys of exchange.
All debts, since 1933, have only been discharged, not paid. Discharge means the
debt still exists; it is pushed into some date in the future. Several Congressional
documents have declared there is no money.
To argue that something actually exists, which clearly does not, is the act of
an insane person, one who believes that there IS money when Congress told
everyone there wasn't in 1933. To argue with an insane person, or a lunatic who
believes that there is money, and that they can charge you to try to collect
money which does not exist, is to become a lunatic yourself.
If you argue about a debt payable in money, such as a civil or criminal charge
against you, then you are a lunatic since you appear to believe that money
exists, which is not true.
The test in this scenario is that the controllers for the government at the high
level know there is no money, yet many in the "lower" levels of government are
caught up in the charade of "make-believe" and attempt to extract "money" from
people.
To bring clarity to this issue, quoted below is from the Congressional Record:
United States Congressional Record, March 1, 1993, VOL. 33, page H-1303
The Speaker – Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House
“Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11…Members of Congress are
official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of
any Bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government. We are setting forth
hopefully, a blueprint for our future. There are some who say it is a coroner’s
report that will lead to our demise.
It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been
dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law
89-719; Declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent. H.J.R.
192, 73rd. Congress in session June 5, 1933 – Joint Resolution To Suspend The
Gold Standard and Abrogate The Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign
Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States
Government Offices, Officers and Departments and is further evidence that
the United States Federal Government exists today in name only.”
Perhaps you’re asking yourself why this issue came about at the particular time
of 1933. The answer is not as clouded as some may assume once the deception
is unveiled:
Few Americans know that the Federal Reserve Act (1913) authorized the
existence of the Federal reserve banks for twenty years (Section 4, 38 Stat. 254)
and that twenty years later happens to coincide with the beginnings of the
depression of the nineteen thirties. That time also happens to be when Federal
Reserve notes were made a legal tender for the first time.
Next, the Constitution for the United States AND THE CONSTITUTION
for THIS State declares that "lawful money" is only gold and silver (coin).
Therefore, if this "court" is demanding filing fees, fines, penalties, licenses,
permits, or any other means of commerce in "money", it is insane, and the act
thereof, that of a lunatic!!
So, who needs a psychiatric evaluation? Anyone, everyone that believes there is
"money" to "pay" for anything, including the "courts", and ESPECIALLY THE
COURTS.
"The principle that denies the State the right to dilute a citizen's vote on account
of his economic status or other such factors by analogy bars a system which
excludes those unable to pay a fee to vote or who fail to pay," and,
"We have long been mindful that where fundamental rights and liberties are
asserted under the Equal Protection Clause, classifications which might invade
or restrain them must be closely scrutinized and carefully confined." HARPER v.
VIRGINIA BD. OF ELECTIONS, 383 U.S. 663 (1966)
In the case of Stanek v. White, 172 Minn. 390, 215 H.W. 784, the court explained
the legal distinction between the words "payment" and "discharge": "There is a
distinction between a `debt discharged' and a `debt paid.' When discharged the
debt still exists though divested of its character as a legal obligation during the
operation of the discharge. Something of the original vitality of the debt
continues to exist, which may be transferred, even though the transferee takes
it subject to its disability incident to the discharge. The fact that it carries
something which may be a consideration for a new promise to pay, so as to
make an otherwise worthless promise a legal obligation, makes it the subject of
transfer by assignment."
Thus, it is clear that, as a result of HJR 192 and from that day forward (June 5,
1933), no one has been able to pay a debt. The only thing they can do is tender in
transfer of debts, and the debt is perpetual.
All "moneys" collected by any corporate governmental body are TAXES. This
notation needs clarity, so;
Automobile Club of Oregon v. State, 840 P.2d 674, 679, 314 Or. 479, ""Tax" is any
contribution imposed by government upon individuals for the use and service of
the state, whether under the name of toll, tribute, tallage, gabel, impost, duty,
custom, excise, subsidy, aid, supply, or other name; "assessment" is government
fee imposed upon owners of property to finance improvements or services
directly benefiting that property". [SEE “The Fee is the statutory creature…”,
infra]
The structure and guidelines for payment of Court filing fees and fees for service
of process is set by the State, however, Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution
of the United States says "No state shall make anything but gold and silver coin
a tender in payment of debts." And, according to the United States Supreme
Court in Hagar v. Rec. Dist. #108, 111 U.S. 701, “The Acts of Congress making
Notes a legal tender do not apply to involuntary contributions in the nature of
taxes or assessments exacted under State laws...”
Therefore, non-redeemable Federal Reserve Notes or negotiable instruments
drawn on accounts kept in Federal Reserve Notes are not legal tender for States to
demand or receive in the nature of taxes or involuntary payment of assessments
exacted under State laws such as the involuntary assessed payment of a service
or filing fee of the Court mandated under State law.
Federal statutes indicate that taxes assessed or levied in anything other than
legal tender are unlawful, to wit:
Title 31, United States Code, Section 3124 states in part:
Exemption form taxation
(a) Stocks and obligations of the United States Government are exempt from
taxation by a State or political subdivision of a State. The exemption applies to
each form of taxation that would require the obligation, the interest on the
obligation, or both, to be considered in computing a tax....
Title 18, United States Code, Section 8 states:
Section 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.
It is clear that the State of Missouri computes excise taxes, business occupation
or privilege taxes, registration fees, motor vehicle excise taxes, property taxes,
fines, fees, penalties, assessments, child support, etc., in terms of Federal
Reserve notes, since there is no other medium for calculation of such tax
available for the State. It is clear that Federal Reserve Notes are "obligations" of
the United States and are "debt instruments." It is also clear that the U.S., i.e.,
United States is defined as merely a federal municipal corporation on the
authority of 28 USC 3002(15). It is clear that 31 USC 3124 applies to a political
subdivision of a State (i.e., Your County), and that Federal Reserve Notes are
exempt from taxation and that this exemption applies to each form of taxation
which uses Federal Reserve Notes to compute the tax. Thus, it appears that
excise or property taxes computed and levied in terms of Federal Reserve Notes are in
violation of federal law.
In 1983, in the case of American Bank and Trust Co., et al v. Dallas County et
al., 483 U.S. 855 (Supreme Court Reports, Lawyers edition, page 3369), Justice
Blackmun, writing the opinion, clearly lays out the logic and argument to support
the above facts. Justice Blackmun begins by showing that prior to 1959 there
was some ambiguity in the law, but in that year Congress amended Rev. Stat.
Sec. 3701, 31 U.S. 742 by adding the sentence, "This exemption extends to every
form of taxation that would require that either the obligation or the interest
thereon, or both, be considered, directly or indirectly, in the computation of the
tax."
The issue in this particular case was whether this amendment extended to state
taxes on bank shares. The court ruled that it did. In his supreme court opinion
Blackmun writes:
"Under the plain language of the 1959 amendment, however, that tax is barred,
regardless of its form if federal obligation must be considered, either directly or
indirectly, in computing the tax. Giving the words of amended section 3701 their
ordinary meaning, there can be no question that federal obligation were
considered in computing the bank shares tax at issue here."
He further argues that, since Congress expressly excluded franchise, estate and
inheritance taxes from the exemption,
"...congress must have believed that such taxes required federal obligation to be
considered, directly or indirectly, in the computation of the tax; otherwise the
specific exemption of these taxes would have been superfluous, ..."
It seems clear that the same argument applies to other property valued in terms
of "obligations of the United States". And, since Federal Reserve Notes are
defined by law, Title 18 USC 8 to be "obligations of the United States," and since
Motor Vehicle Excise Taxes, Business Occupation or Privilege Taxes, and/or
Retail Sales Taxes were not expressly excluded from this statute, 31 USC 3124,
it follows that this State must follow and apply this federal law to Motor Vehicle
Excise Taxes, Business Occupation or Privilege Taxes, and/or Retail Sales Taxes
as well.
Can any "levying of fines, fees, court costs, penalties, child support, Motor
Vehicle Excise Taxes, Business Occupation or Privilege Taxes, and/or Retail
Sales Taxes comply with Title 31 USC 3124?
We have heard of "confusion of faces" from ancient texts, but I call your
attention to "confusion of languages" in everyday use within the corporate
fictional legislative tribunals commonly referred to as "judicial courts", observe
the following:
"The answer is the law, wherein the litigant shall substantiate the Debt Collector
is attempting to dispute the nothing as if it were the factual default of a statutory
obligation, wherein fees, may be defined as interest.
“The Fee is the statutory creature moving within the fictional falsity as if it
is presumed to be standing as the amortized obligation“. Ryan v Motor Credit
Company, 130 J.J. Eq. 531, 23 A.2d 607, 621
This is the fiction of law, wherein the fictional falsities are perfected by devious
means. Read Ballentine’s Law Dictionary.
Fiction. Something is presumed to be true, which is false.
The alleged determination of "commitment cost" of $ ___(fee)_____ for alleged
traffic tickets or court costs, fees, penalties requires execution as a "cloak to
disguise a collateral undertaking" in U.S. Funds. This is just more "malicious
vexation by legal process" under the disguise/pretense of a "lawful" government
to enforce the unwritten Master - Slave relationship.
“Although probable cause may not be inferred from malice, malice may be
inferred from lack of probable cause.” Pauley v. Hall 335 N. W. 2d 197, 124 Mich
App 255.
“Malice is a state of mind and an essential element of action for malicious
prosecution and is to be found by jury from case, and want of probable cause is
the other element of action for malicious prosecution which must be proved by
plaintiff.” Lopez v. Modisitt 488 F. Supp 119 D. C. 1980.
Please allow me to explain, if a government is “invisible”, it answers to no-one
and is totally “out of reach” of the common man, especially one in need. When
the unconstitutional Federal Reserve Act was about to be passed in
1913, Congressman Charles Lindbergh said, "This Act establishes the most
gigantic trust on Earth. When the President signs this bill, the invisible
government by the monetary power will be legalized. The people may not know it
immediately, but the day of reckoning is only a few years removed...The worst
legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking bill."
Furthermore, can any court with its alleged [judicial] officers (sic) who are in
fact and law merely Administrative Clerks in Chemarin's "black robes of
treason", pretending to be judicial officers, who are in fact and law
"legislative officers - magistrates", lawfully attempt to coerce me into becoming
a tort-feasor as against the Constitution of 1791?
Federal Reserve Notes are contraband, a primary element of a gambling policy,
whereby, in the use of them one hopes to obtain a gain. They are debt
instruments and cannot “pay” for anything, but only “discharge” debt into a
future time. These "discharges" are nothing more than insurance premiums to the
Federal Reserve, which is a Tontine policy, which is re-insured by a credit policy.
At this point I shall add a few points concerning the use of FRNs:
27 CFR 72.11 purports to define some crimes as "commercial crimes": Meaning
of terms. Commercial crimes. Any of the following types of crimes (Federal or
State): Offenses against the revenue laws; burglary; counterfeiting; forgery;
kidnapping; larceny; robbery; illegal sale or possession of deadly weapons;
prostitution (including soliciting, procuring, pandering, white slaving, keeping
house of ill fame, and like offenses); extortion; swindling and confidence games;
and attempting to commit, conspiring to commit, or compounding any of the
foregoing crimes. Addiction to narcotic drugs and use of marihuana will be
treated as if such were commercial crime. And,
U.S. Attorney's Manual
The United States Attorney's Manual, Title 6 Tax Division, Chapter 4, page 16,
October 1, 1988, 6-4.270, Criminal Division Responsibility states, "The Criminal
Division has limited responsibility for the prosecution of offenses investigated by
the IRS. Those offenses are: excise violations involving liquor tax, narcotics,
stamp tax, firearms, wagering, and coin-operated gambling and amusement
machines; malfeasance offenses committed by IRS personnel; forcible rescue of
seized property; corrupt or forcible interference with an officer or employee
acting under the internal revenue laws; and unauthorized mutilation, removal or
misuse of stamps. See 28 CFR S O.70.
And, remember, IRS “taxes” are fees (SEE “service agreement” below) charged
to users of Federal Reserve Notes for the use of these Private Corporate
I.O.U.s.
The Internal Revenue Service entered into a "service agreement" with the
U.S. Treasury Department (See: Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, pg.
5967, Reorganization Plan No. 26) and the Agency for International Development,
pursuant to Treasury Delegation Order No. 91. The Agency For International
Development is an International paramilitary operation (See: Department Of The
Army Field Manual, (1969) FM 41-10, pgs. 1-4, Sec. 1-7(b) & 1-6, Section 1-10(7) (c)
(1), 22 U.S.C.A. 284), and includes such activities as "Assumption of full or partial
executive, legislative, and judicial authority over a country or area." (See: FM 41-
10, pg. 1-7, Section 110(7)(c)(4))
All insurance is a tontine scheme/policy, which is a gambling policy, or what is
called in the law, a wagering policy. The cunning plot to re-institute the tontine
scheme at the Federal level in the name of the Federal Reserve is by all means
cunning and despicable. This is the basic groundwork used to enslave the
American people. And, remember, all insurance falls under Maritime Law:
Under Maritime Law, we are responsible for any loss which occurs while
involved in maritime commerce. Under the common law which prevailed prior to
this case (1948) we were responsible for our debts. If you and I own a ship and
we want to transport goods to Japan, we solicit people to ship goods with us.
Three days out of port we are hit by a severe storm which damaged goods on
board our ship.
Under the common law, we would have been responsible for the loss of goods on
board. The shippers saw this as a threat to maritime shipping so they induced
Congress to pass a law which is called "The Public Liability Statute", which was
passed on March 3, 1851. So as a result, the ship owners are now exempt and
the shippers are responsible for their goods, under maritime law.
The second a person touches the credit system of the Public National Credit
(Federal Reserve) they have involved themselves in a Joint Maritime venture for
profit in a Tontine policy of limited liability for the payment of debt. The joint
venture being the use of the communal credit, Maritime Law is a credit system,
and finally, you have created an insurable interest because you used the credit
system of the commune. The insurable interest is what the federal income tax,
right to work taxes, property taxes, and all the other obscenities that you can
think of are about. These are not taxes, but insurance premiums on the use of the
credit for profit.
Anything that involves Federal Reserve Notes is under Maritime Law
because FRNs are an insurance premium.
All “insurance” is within Maritime Law, which is a division of Admiralty Law. This
is where insurance got its’ “legal” roots, and is a perfect example of “perfidy.”
Definition follows: per·fi·dy (pûr“f¹-d¶) n.1. Deliberate breach of faith;
calculated violation of trust; treachery. 2.The act or an instance of treachery.
All debt begins in Admiralty and is a contract bargained for outside the
Constitution. Why? Because the Original Jurisdiction Constitution of 1776-
1787, adopted in 1878 as the Municipal Charter of the District of
Columbia requires gold or silver coin of a specific weight and fineness
[numismatic value] in order to pass res and title in any/all transactions and
establishes in law as opposed to “at law,” or "under color of" any law, in the
settlement of accounts. See: Article 3, Constitution, Annotated Cases.
In De Livio v. Boit, 2 Galliston, Mass., Federal Case No. 3776 (1812), it was held
that insurance is a maritime contract, therefore, of Admiralty
Jurisdiction. Maritime or Admiralty Law now prevails over the entire country through
re-insurance of a credit policy. All the Law and equity has been dismantled and
replaced by a wagering policy of insurance under Admiralty Law. I could display
well over a dozen case cites that explain the use of FRNs is “wagering”, but for
space, not provided.
Remembering that FRNs are Negotiable Instruments, one viable defense against
such a Beast as herein discussed is to challenge it at every stage of its offense
against you. The UCC 3-305(a)(1)(iii) affirms... ...one of the other defenses is
that the instrument is illegal, when that instrument has been deemed to mean
for collecting usury or gambling debts. [Usury equals INTEREST, it is also a
gamble]
The U.S., United States, as defined in 28 USC 3002(15) is bankrupt on the
authority of Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330-381; 79L. Ed. 9121, and is an
"obligor/grantor" to the Federal Reserve Bank created by the authority of the
Federal Reserve Act of 1913, 38 Stat. 265, Chapter 6.
The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, mentioned above, was an act of Private Law,
not Public Law, nor Public Policy, as in reference to a Mr. Lewis which was
injured by a Federal Reserve vehicle and sued the U.S. government for damages.
The court ruled, "...that since the Federal Reserve System and its twelve branch
banks are private corporations, the federal government could not be held
responsible."- Lewis v. U.S., 608F 2d 1239 (1982).
Congress agreed in the Federal Reserve Act to give that bank system a
paramount and "permanent" (ex-warranto 1913 to 1933) lien on the United States
assets and the USER of said bank notes by the authority of 38 Stat. 265, Ch. 6,
pp. 266-267. The USER agrees, as a "parole promise," to accept the status as
an obligor/grantor and to hypothecate all "his" assets to the United States and
thereby to the Federal Reserve which is merely a private corporation, and not
"federal." The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has a collection agreement as
a "USER" fee for the USE of said bank notes.
"Federal reserve notes are legal tender in absence of
objection thereto." MacLeod v. Hoover (1925) 159 La 244, 105 So. 305
I "SPECIFICALLY OBJECT TO" the use of Federal Reserve Notes as I cannot
consent and do not assent to be an obligor/grantor to said Federal Reserve Bank.
I "SPECIFICALLY OBJECT TO" the use of said bank notes on the authority
of MacLeod v. Hoover, (June 22, 1925) No. 26395, S. Ct. Louisiana; 105 So.Rptr.
305. That court citing U.S. Bank v. Bank of Georgia, 10 Wheaton 338; 6 L.Ed. 343.
Therefore, I refuse for good cause shown, this courts attempt to induce me to be
a tort feasor to the Constitution for the United States of America where at
Article 1, Section 10, it states, "No State shall emit bills of credit; make anything but
Gold and Silver Coin a tender in payment of debts."
The Congress of the United States of America, by the authority of the Gold
Bullion Act of 1985, Public Law 99-185, December 17, 1985, 99 Statutes 1177,
has given its intent that all Americans can no longer be forced into an
obligor/grantor status to said Federal Reserve Bank Notes.
There is no debate of how Federal Reserve Notes of Debt can allegedly be made
legal tender for parties with a relationship with the Federal Government; i.e.,
those persons who have a nexus/benefit such as; federal government employees,
recipient of federal largese, elected federal office holders, or those who choose
to use Federal Reserve Notes, either knowingly or unknowingly, but state and
individuals cannot be compelled to use Federal Reserve Notes.
THIS COURT MUST TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF TEXAS CODE (that’s right,
imported under “Equal Footing Doctrine”) Art. 4302 Code of Criminal Procedures,
to wit:
"All recognizance’s, bail bonds, and undertakings of any kind, whereby a party
becomes bound to pay money to the State, and all fines and forfeitures for a
pecuniary character, shall be collected in the lawful money of the Unites States
only," and,
Nevada. NRS 99.010 Dollar, cent and mill to be money of account. The money of
account of this state shall be the dollar, cent and mill. All the accounts in the
public offices, other public accounts, and all proceedings in courts, shall be kept
and had in conformity with this section," and,
Nevada. NRS 99.030 Obligation, judgments or executions payable in legal money.
After February 15, 1893, all official bonds and undertakings, and all obligations of
debt, judgments or executions stated in terms of dollars and to be paid in money
shall be payable in legal money authorized by the Congress of the United
States," and,
Title 31 USC Section 371:
"The money of account of the United States shall be expressed in dollars or
units, dimes or tenths, cents or hundredth part of a dollar; and all proceedings in
the courts shall be kept and had in conformity to this regulation," and,
Title 31 USC Section 311:
"It is declared to be the policy of the United States to continue the use of both
gold and silver as standard money...."
THE COINAGE ACT OF 1792 IS STILL CURRENT AND EXPLICIT AS TO WHAT A
DOLLAR IS.
A judicial determination is absolutely necessary to movant's inability to pay at
law, as opposed to discharge in equity, any fine, court cost, penalties,
assessments, bails or appellate bonds of this court.
Title 31 USC Section 408 prohibits the redemption of any currency into gold and
Title 31 USC Section 405(a)-3 prohibits the redemption of any United States
currency dollar for dollar into gold and silver. So, the law itself prohibits movant
from using any money of account. And, for a check to be a negotiable
instrument, it must contain an unconditional promise to pay a sum certain in
money and be payable on demand or at a definite time (UCC 3-103 (b) (c)). Thus,
neither the bank nor the movant is able to comply with the law of money
and cannot be held a contemnor. “Money”, as you know it, or think it to be,
is "contraband" at statute!!!
The Organic Act
Section 6. "... That nothing in this act shall be construed to give power to
incorporate a bank or any institution with banking powers, or to borrow money in
the name of the Territory, or to pledge the faith of the people of the same for any
loan whatever, directly or indirectly. No charter granting any privileges of
making, issuing, or putting into circulation any notes or bills in the likeness of
bank-notes, or any bonds, scrip, drafts, bills of exchange, or obligations, or
granting any other banking powers or privileges, shall be passed by the
Legislative Assembly; nor shall the establishment of any branch or agency of any
such corporation, derived from other authority, be allowed in said Territory; nor
shall said Legislative Assembly authorize the issue of any obligation, scrip, or
evidence of debt, by said Territory, in any mode or manner whatever, except
certificates for service to said Territory. And all such laws, or any law or laws
inconsistent with the provisions of this act, shall be utterly null and void...."
As the state cannot issue bills of debt or paper to circulate as money, neither
can any private corporation, association or individual issue or use anything but
gold and silver coin.
"The terms 'lawful money' and 'lawful money' of the United States shall be
construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States." 12 USC 152.
Also, Boric v. Trott, Pa. 5 Phila. 366. 404; Klauber v. Biggerstaff, 47 Wis. 551
(1879); Lawry v. McGhee, 16 Tenn. 242 (1835), and, [Please make a mental note
that “law” and “money” are interlocked and directly connected. You cannot have
one without the other.]
""Money" does not include treasury notes". Foquet v. Headley, 3 Conn. 534, 536,
and,
"In legal acceptation, "money" means current metallic coins; therefore an
indictment for embezzling "money" is not sustainable by proof of embezzling
greenbacks or national currency notes." Block v. State, 41 Tex. 620, 622. And,
"The term "money" does not include bank notes. They pass as cash, and
constitute a part of the circulating medium, and for many purposes are to be
considered as money; but, in the strict sense of the term, they are not included
therein." Dowdle v. Corpening, 32 N.C. 58,60. And,
""Money," as used in Crimes Act, section 13, providing that any person stealing
any money, the property of another, shall be guilty of larceny, cannot be
construed to include bank bills, for strictly bank bills are not money, though for
many purposes they are treated as such." Johnson v. State, 11 Ohio St. 324,325.
And,
"The term "money" does not include bank notes. Hence an indictment under a
statute making it an offense to play at games, etc., for money--the indictment
charging that the defendant played at a game of faro for money--cannot be
sustained by proof that bank notes were bet, nor would such an indictment be
sustained by proof that property was bet." Hale v. State, 8 Tex. 171,172. And,
"The term "money," in the statute defining robbery as taking from the person of
another any money or personal property of any value whatsoever, with force and
violence, and with intent to steal or rob, does not include bank notes." Turner v.
State, 1 Ohio St. 422,426. And,
"Federal Reserve Notes are not dollars." U.S. Treasury, General Counsel, Munk.
And,
"Both notes and checks are acknowledgments of indebtedness and promise of
payment." Hegeman v. Moon, 131 N.Y. 462, 30 N.E. 487. Smith v. Treuhart et al,
223 N.Y.S. 481. And,
A fact noted above must be reiterated here, first, that “law” and “money” (gold
and silver) are “interlocked and directly connected”, and, after finding that Federal
Reserve Notes are “worthless securities” (words from the IRS), can be “stolen”,
as in “robbery”, and being worthless, are a “Fiction Of Law”. For that reason, I
must bring into focus one Biblical Declaration, quoted below:
KJV – II Thes. 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who
now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
WORLD ENGLISH VERSION – II Thes. 2:7 For the mystery of lawlessness does
already work. Only there is one who restrains now, until he is taken out of the
way.
The “MYSTERY” spoken of is that we have no money, therefore we have no
law. “Lawlessness” means “moneyless”. We have been without money and law
since 1933; these 70 (+) years have ye been in Babylon!
"The answer is the law, wherein the litigant shall substantiate the Debt Collector
is attempting to dispute the nothing as if it were the factual default of a statutory
obligation, wherein fees, may be defined as interest.
The Fee is the statutory creature moving within the fictional falsity as if it is
presumed to be standing as the amortized obligation“. Ryan v Motor Credit
Company, 130 J.J. Eq. 531, 23 A.2d 607, 621
This is the fiction of law, wherein the fictional falsities are perfected by devious
means. Read Ballentine’s Law Dictionary.
Fiction. Something is presumed to be true, which is false.
"Any false representation of material facts made with knowledge of falsity
and with intent that it shall be acted on by another in entering into contract,
and which is so acted upon, constitutes "fraud," and entitles party deceived
to avoid contracts or recover damages.” Barnsdall Refining Corp. v. Birnamwood
Oil Co., 92 F.2d 817.
As the United States Treasury was abolished in 1921 by the Act of 1920, 66th
Congress Session II Ch. 214 amending section 3595, this Movant cannot only
turn to the newly created Department of Treasury, a private corporation, dealing
only in commercial paper, which is not redeemable for lawful money, minted coin
of gold and silver.
Notes NOT Redeemable
"Subject to an obligation of redemption; embodying, or conditioned upon, a
promise or obligation of redemption; controvertible to coin, as, a redeemable
currency." U.S. v. North Carolina, 136 U.S. 211, 34 L.Ed. 336. And, [Note: the word
“controvertible means: To raise arguments against; voice opposition to.]
I am aware that it is a violation of law to demand and/or collect any tender
except lawful money which is defined by supreme law.
"...to comply is impossible, made so by the failure of the state in its
constitutional duty, U.S. Const. 1:10: 1, the remedy resting in the hands of the
state." Rio Grande v. Darke, 167 P. 241. Or,
Will this "court" do as has been done before, as in: Maggio v. Zeitz, 333 U.S. 56
(1948), in affirming the Court said: "Although we know that Maggio cannot
comply with the order, we must keep a straight face and pretend that he can, and
must thus affirm orders which first direct Maggio to do an impossibility, and then
punish him for refusal to perform it."
This kind of "justice" is a total disgrace. So, we have no "justice", no "money",
no "judges", no "juries", and no "hope" without a "Thomas Jefferson" 20 year
revolution.
However;
"The principles of estoppel apply against the state as well as individuals. "Cal. v.
Sims, 32 C3d 468.
*****************************************************************
National Banking Association [UCC 4-105, 12CFRSec. 229.2, 2102, 12 USC 1813,
HJR-192] of the Principals, Sureties, Prime-Creditors, and Holders in Equity
over THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
_______________ MILLION DOLLARS, payable on demand and even exchange, via
my Equity EIN Secured Party.
Issued under the Authority of, and in Accordance with the official definition
of the United States Code, [legal tender], 31USC 392. 31USC 5103. Issued in
Accordance with 31USC 3123, HJR-192 (1933) and successor enactments. As
“Public Policy”, without expansion of credit, debt or obligation upon THE
UNITED STATES, for the claim of “every obligation”, “for all debts, public
interest recovery upon “the full faith and credit of THE UNITED STATES” for
Obligation OF THE UNITED STATES and sub-corporate chartered entities to the
claim and recovery of the public debt, “dollar for dollar”, to the Principals, Prime-
Creditors, and Holders in Equity over THE UNITED STATES as Sureties for its
obligations, currency and credit. [12 USC 411. 18 USC 8. 12USC; ch. 6, 38 Stat.
251 Sec 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).}
