|
FRNs a ‘Benefit’?
Is there a benefit that accrues to us—are we “enriched”—by the use of Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs)? Does the mere use of FRNs constitute, somehow, commercial profit or gain?
In a world where debt-based currencies have replaced currencies backed by value, political bodies are free to borrow and borrow some more—all backed by the COLLATERAL of the “promise to pay” (someday, somehow) of the “citizens”, who are all now enslaved by debt. Virtually unlimited funds are made available for purposes of making war, while great sections of the global population are left to starve to death. And this is a “benefit”? As Mercier explains in this “chapter” of his “letter” to Mr. May, the King does indeed view use of FRNs as a commercial benefit sufficient to attach Admiralty Jurisdiction.
Remember, please, that it is Admiralty Jurisdiction that permits victimless crimes (crimes without mens rea, without any intent to harm) and it is Admiralty Jurisdiction that occasions all manners of “legal” acts without consideration of moral turpitude. It is “legal”, for instance, for the United States to attack a sovereign nation that provably posed no imminent threat. Yes, it is totally “legal” to unleash all kinds of “weapons of mass destruction” (not to mention mass distraction) against whatsoever nation and its people.
As we know, however, that which is put out returns to the sender in kind. As God provides an alternative to debt-based currencies globally, those who actually benefited from the debt-based scheme will be exposed as the enslavers and controllers that they are.
Speaking of “return in kind”, readers might recall the example of “A Tank In the Parking Lot” referenced in a prior installment in this series. “But that was decades ago!” comes the retort. Let’s update that scenario to present day with the following news item.
[QUOTING:]
Italy Seizes 8,000 Kalashnikovs Headed To U.S.
4/21/04
ROME (Reuters)—Italian customs officers seized more than 8,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles and other weapons on a ship headed to the United States, officials said Tuesday.
The arms, worth about $7.15 million, were discovered aboard a ship arriving from Romania that pulled into the southern Italian port of Gioia Tauro on its way to the United States, Italy’s customs said in a statement.
According to the travel documents, the arms belong to a large U.S. company with headquarters in the state of Georgia.
“We know that the destination was North America, but we don’t effectively know if that’s where the arms were going,” a customs official told RAI state television.
The arms were found inside three containers during a routine customs check earlier this week. They were confiscated due to discrepancies in the customs forms, but the news was only made public Tuesday.
The customs office said the weapons had been described as “common guns” instead of assault rifles and longer-range combat arms in the travel documentation.
[END QUOTING]
Yes, the tank in the parking lot was decades ago—but it certainly appears that the plans remain very much in effect. Do you suppose those “UFOs” caught on video over Mexico could have been Russian cosmospheres (anti-gravitic platforms)? Let’s keep in mind that only a Russian may ever head the United Nations’ military forces as we endure, day after nauseating day, television presentations of the heinous actions of the largest “rogue nation” in the world. It certainly appears that someone is being set up for a mighty fall.
Returning to the subject at hand: The King and his judicial minions very much want to view our mere use of FRNs as a commercial benefit, sufficient to hold us to Admiralty Jurisdiction.
I, for one, hereby put it “on the record” that I do not use debt-based currency by choice and that there is “no deal” wherein a compelled and presumed “benefit” is shown to be harmful. In backing the movement toward value-backed currency worldwide with my life energy (which I have done for more than a decade now), I am establishing my own, personal state of mind with regard to the entire subject. I reject the notion (legal presumption) that debt-based currency is a benefit; it is an absolute detriment to the spirit of all whom it has been and is being used to enslave. Enough said—for now.
Let’s take up with Mercier’s exposition.
[QUOTING:]
Federal Reserve Notes
Next, we turn now and address some Commercial debt instruments that just about everyone uses constantly. And when this Commercial paper is used and then re-circulated by you, Federal Benefits are being quietly accepted by you and so now subtle contracts are in effect. As commercial holders in due course, you and the King are experiencing mutual enrichment from each other. The King believes that the mere use of Federal Reserve Notes, those “circulating evidences of debt” that his Legal Tender Statutes have enhanced the value of as a co-endorser; and that the mere acceptance and beneficial use of those circulating Commercial equity instruments of debt, constitutes an attachment of Equity [Admiralty] Jurisdiction sufficiently related to experiencing Commercial profit or gain in Interstate Commerce as to warrant the attachment of civil liability to his so-called Title 26. Remember, once you get rid of your political contracts to pay taxes (like National Citizenship), Federal Judges will then start examining the record to see if there are any Commercial benefits out there that you have been experiencing. Once you are a Citizen, Federal Judges will generally stop looking for other contracts; but once Citizenship is gone, then other normally quiescent Commercial nexuses that attach King’s Equity Jurisdiction suddenly take upon themselves vibrant new importance.
I have thought out this perspective that the King has on this subject matter over and over again, and based on an analysis of principles, rights, liabilities and Cases that surface in Commercial Contract Law relating to Negotiable Instruments (as Federal Reserve Notes are Negotiable Instruments), and of the rights, liabilities and duties of Holders in Due Course, and I have come to the conclusion that the King is basically correct. For example, bills, notes and checks are also Negotiable Instruments, as well as Inland Bills of Exchange. Collectively, Negotiable Instruments differ somewhat from orthodox Commercial contracts for the reason that the American Jurisprudential law concerning them springs from several different and independent sources. Whereas the simple Law of Contracts had its origin in the Common Law of England, in contrast this Law of Negotiable Instruments arose largely out of the summary and chronologically abbreviated practices and international customs of merchants in Commerce. Those merchants formulated a body of rules and common practices relating to their trade, which were gradually adapted into the Law of the Law by the English Courts. Bills of exchange and promissory notes, of which Federal Reserve Notes are a composite blend, acquired early on the peculiar quality and nature among merchants in Commerce as being negotiable, i.e., passable as Tender to different people. Negotiability was then defined to mean that if an instrument is negotiable in form and is in the hands of a Holder in Due Course, then possible personal defenses someone may later assert against the Holder are cut off of in the Holder’s favor. This idea of negotiability is an intriguing one. It differs quite a bit from the conception of assignability underlying the transfer of choses in action, which are not negotiable.
[INTERRUPT QUOTING]
Who is the true “holder in due course” of the assets upon which Federal Reserve Notes (debt obligations of the UNITED STATES corporation) are based? Could it end up being—GLOBAL ALLIANCE INVESTMENT ASSOCIATION (GAIA) and NOT THE KING OF THIS WORLD? For now, however, and until such time as the gold assets come into the possession of GAIA, those assets could be considered “choses in action”.
What are “choses in action”? “Chose” is French for “thing” and at law such a “thing” refers to a possession, so this phrase means only “property in action” (as opposed to property in the hands of the “holder in due course”). GAIA’s UCC-perfected (and as you will read shortly, UST/FED-RATIFIED) “claim” against the UST/Fed puts all gold assets, wherever situate globally, into the category of choses in action.
It is noteworthy that choses in action are not assignable at Common Law—BUT, in Equity (Admiralty Jurisdiction) all choses in action are assignable and the assignee has an equitable right to enforce the fulfillment of the obligation in the name of the assignor. And there you have the reason WHY the GAIA Program has proceeded with Deeds of Assignment, which are 100% “kosher” in the current legal environment.
“If there are Holders in Due Course, are there also Holders not in Due Course? Of course there are,” Mercier answers in a footnote. Indeed, the holders of the gold in the Negev Desert are holders not in due course because of the illegitimacy of their possession. Another example would be that of a “bailment” contract: If the King as bailor hands over some gold to a bailee to transport it to another location, the bailee is a holder not in due course. In a larger sense, anything that we as individuals might come to possess in our lifetimes could be viewed as a bailment contract with GOD as the bailor and each of us as bailees. GOD is the TRUE “holder in due course” of ALL property (choses), a fact well recognized by indigenous people, who correctly view themselves as caretakers of the land.
It is a Natural Law that we have a responsibility to object to the assertion of falsehood, which can be expressed as: “Toleration of evil is no virtue.” Programmed from birth onward to acquiesce to authority, however, this is something that we often fail to do. When our children are raised in Truth and taught full responsibility for their thoughts and actions, the world will change for the better. Eventually, the true laws of God and Nature shall prevail. For now, however, let’s continue to enhance our understanding of how the laws of Equity (Admiralty) function.
Acceptance
[RESUME QUOTING:]
Furthermore, all factors considered, it is my opinion that the King is not only just basically correct, but that the King is also in a very strong position here, and that Federal Magistrates are not Star Chamber Chancellors when throwing out your civil tax defenses that ignore this invisible and adhesive attachment of King’s Equity Jurisdiction, and the strong presumption of your entrance into King’s Commerce that the acceptance and beneficial recirculation of Federal Reserve Notes necessarily infers. However, the seminal reason why the King is in such a strong position is only partially related to his sub silentio aggression against you; the largest reason is because you, by your own default, have accepted the benefits of this Commercial nexus Equity relationship with the King….
Under the Common Mercantile Law of Commercial Contract Law applicable to Negotiable Instruments, it has always been prima facie evidence that the mere issuance of the Negotiable Instrument itself constitutes the evidence of the receipt and enjoyment of Consideration. This Acceptance of Consideration Doctrine is of maximum importance to understand and appreciate in its placement into the contemporary Income Tax setting, as this Doctrine has been around for a very long time, and the King is only now using it for his own enrichment. Law books repeat over and over again that acceptable Consideration may be anything that will support a simple contract, and may even specifically include previously existing debt. This Consideration Doctrine survives the codification of the Law Merchant into the Negotiable Instruments Law, and also survives the later restatement of the N.I.L. into the Uniform Commercial Code.
The Law of Commercial Contract applicable to the use and recirculation of Negotiable Instruments is quite old, just like King’s Commerce itself. Commercial Paper was also used extensively by merchants in the Middle Ages, and the origin of our contemporary Law of Negotiable Instruments was an unwritten Common Law applicable to merchants, called the Law Merchant. This Law Merchant was gradually assimilated as an appendage onto English Common Law, and subsequently became a part of our American Jurisprudence when the New England Colonies turned into states and adapted English Common Law. The Law Merchant is spoken of by English Judges with reference to Bills of Exchange and negotiable securities. It is neither more nor less than the common usages of merchants and traders in the different departments of trade, ratified by decisions of Courts of Law, which Courts later upon such usages being proved before them, readapted those merchant practices into the Common Law of England as settled law with a view to the interest of trade and the public convenience. Therefore, what was at one time mere custom in between merchants then became grafted upon, or incorporated onto, the Common Law, and may now be correctly said to form an overlapping part of the Common Law. When such general Commercial practices have been judicially ascertained and established, those Commercial practices become a part of the Law Merchant, which contemporary American courts of justice are bound to honor….
And if the King has got you accepting the Consideration inherent in Negotiable Instruments [of which] he is a Holder in Due Course, and [of which] his Legal Tender Statutes have enhanced the value, and additionally retains a distant Equity interest, then the King has got an invisible contract on you and the King has you plump little turkeys exactly where he wants you: ripe for a Federal plucking. So to correctly handle this beneficial “use of Federal Reserve Notes” creating a taxing liability story, we need to start out with the basic premise that the King is correct in his assertions, and so are judges in their reasoning; to believe otherwise is to be self damaging, as we have no time to waste with any error in our reasoning.
If you are like most folks, the King has got you accepting his Consideration and financial benefits with your mere use of Federal Reserve Notes, because most folks want to use and want to experience the beneficial enjoyment that widespread acceptance and Commercial use of Federal Reserve Notes brings. But read those words over again carefully, as they also contain the Grand Key for getting out of this Equity Ace our King has neatly tucked up in his Royal Sleeve: the contract that is in effect whenever benefits, conditionally offered, were accepted by you.
Examining a profile slice of the tens of thousands of Cases out there addressing questions of Commercial Contract Law applicable to the annulment of the rights and duties of Holders in Due Course of Commercial Paper (notes [such as FRNs], bonds, securities, checks, equitable specialties in general, etc.), it is the State of Mind of the parties at the time the Negotiable Instrument was accepted that determines the subsequent rights and duties of Holders in Due Course. Holders in Due Course, so called, are in a special Status as it pertains to the use and recirculation of Commercial instruments. Holders in Due Course are assumed [presumed] to have taken the Negotiable Instrument (Federal Reserve Note) free of the defense of “Absence or Failure of Consideration”, and additionally, are generally free of all other defenses as well. When the King is Holder in Due Course of Federal Reserve Notes, then the King is immune to any defense we may assert against him, as he collects on an invisible contract created when his Commercial benefits were accepted by you. Do you see why it is not very wise to snicker at Federal Judges if you have not properly handled your defense line in this area of using Federal Reserve Notes? In some cases, a person wants to be in this Holder in Due Course Status due to its protective nature, and in other circumstances, we don’t want to be a Holder in Due Course due to the liabilities involved. Generally speaking, subject to the condition that the person accepted the Negotiable Instrument in good faith and for value, a Holder in Due Course occupies a protected position free from any personal defenses someone else may assert. But in dealing with the King on those Federal Reserve Notes, our declared Status as Holders in Due Course or Holders not in Due Course is not important: because by filing Objections and Notice of Protest, etc., the King’s Status as a Holder in Due Course is then automatically terminated, and getting the King off of that sovereign Status Throne of his is what’s important.
So merely filing a Notice of Protest and Notice of Defect will automatically deny the King his coveted and protected Status as being a Holder in Due Course with Federal Reserve Notes, as that protective status applies to you….
Joint Obligation Debtors
And in addition to outright Consideration, by your Commercial use and recirculation of Federal Reserve Notes, the King has you strapped into his debt as an “Automatically Transferred and Joint Obligation Debtor”. Under a very large body of Roman Civil Law and Jewish Commercial Law going back to Moses and the Talmud, there is a kind of an obligation in law whose source is not contract or promise in the classical sense, but due to a ripple effect of debt, an obligation can be automatically transferred down a line of notes passers and debtors. This Doctrine is elucidated quite well in Jewish Law, where this doctrine is formally known as Shibuda D’Rabbi Nathan (meaning the line of Rabbi Nathan). Under this liability dispersion model, debt ripples from one person to another back up the line, without the appearance of any contract being readily apparent. Say that a person “A” owes money to “B”, and “B” owes money to “C”. Person “C” can then recover from “A” an amount of money not exceeding the sum person “B” owes to “C”.
The reason why this—debt liability being rippled back up the line a few persons—is called “Rabbi Nathan’s Lien” is because this rule is generally attributed to Rabbi Nathan, a tannaitic sage (Babylonia and Palestine, in the Second Century), who first formulated it on the basis of a certain interpretation of a Mosaic text. Here in the contemporary United States, a very similar analogy is found operating both in Contract Law and in Tort Law, but for different reasons.
1. Under Tort-Law-liability reasoning, persons whom you never had any contract or contact with, are liable for damages they work on you. For example, be underneath an airplane when it crashes. Under the Joint and Several Liability Doctrine, attorneys will sue the Federal Aviation Administration, the pilot, the local political jurisdiction that owns the airport, the contractor who built the airport, the airline, the airline’s insurance company, the airline’s airplane manufacturer, persons who supply parts to the airplane manufacturer, the pilot’s mother, etc., without limit, right up the line.
2. When a grievance is under Contract Law jurisprudence, generally, persons not a party to the contract are normally exempt from liability absent an interfering Tort they worked, somehow (Called Tortious Interference with Contract).
But properly viewed at the conclusion of the grievance, this Rabbi Nathan’s Lien is no more than just an asset seizure against debtor’s assets held by third parties, and whether the underlying factual setting behind the Judgment was under Tort Law or Contract Law is now irrelevant, once the Judgment has been docketed, and that person’s assets are now under attack. So when a judgment has been obtained against Party “B”, and Party “C” owes “B” some money, then when Party “A” throws an action at “C”, then that arrangement is no more than the equivalent of a directed wage garnishment that goes on every single day of the week here in the United States. And just as this Liability Ripple Scenario goes on at such a quiet level with wage garnishments, so too does it carry on at a national level with you and I and our assets being pledged to pay off the National Debt of the United States.
But our King is our adversary in Court, and his attorneys use partially twisted logic to quiet our exception from taxation arguments, and so their attitude is a simple “you pay”. But important for the moment is your knowledge that your Commercial use and recirculation of Federal Reserve Notes is properly deemed a sufficient nexus to the King’s Equity Jurisdiction as to effectuate an attachment of liability for the payment of the King’s outstanding debt that he owes to the Federal Reserve Board, with the amount of your payment being measured by your net taxable income….
[Let’s see how this works: At the top of the banking game there is the Bank for International Settlements and below that the World Bank, IMF, U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve and the Federal Reserve owes—GAIA, the TRUE “holder in due course”. Indeed, “God is about to become immensely popular,” as we have been told. Does it matter if the Federal Reserve goes broke? Nope, it matters not a whit, thanks to Rabbi Nathan and the ripple effect.]
Force, Duress, Coercion and Penal Statutes
Question: What if you don’t want to accept the benefits of and use of Federal Reserve Notes?
What if you are different? What if you have factual knowledge that the King only got this monopoly on American currency circulation (both gold and silver), not by free-market acceptance and competitive universal respect and appreciation for benefits offered by his Legal Tender Statutes, which is the way all Commercial transactions should be based, but rather, through force, duress, coercion, penal statutes, naked physical duress and literally out of the barrel of a gun: because guns being drawn is exactly what two remaining private coin mints saw as United States Treasury Agents raided the last diehard private coin mints in California in the late 1800s and physically destroyed them (but that intriguing Americana history following an act of Congress in 1864 banning private coins as currency is another Letter). But dealing with Private Coin Mints out of the barrel of a gun is only half the story, as our King is usually quite thorough in whatever he decides to muscle in on. The King also dealt with the private circulation of Notes (both bank notes and private company notes that circulated just as if they were currency) through a series of penal statutes going back to the Civil War.
[[FROM A FOOTNOTE:]]
Starting with the Legal Tender Laws in 1862, then the National Banking Act in 1864, then the previously mentioned acts outlawing private coin circulation, then an act in 1865 imposed a 10% tax on state bank note issues. In Veazie Bank vs. Fenno (75 U.S. 533 (1869)), the Supreme Court ruled that a tax of 10% on state bank notes in circulation was held to be Constitutional, not only because it was a means of raising money, but that such a tax was an instrument to put out of business such a competitive circulation of those private notes, against notes issued by the King. The combined effect of those Civil War era penal statutes collectively was to monopolize the entire American currency supply under Federal jurisdiction (which is exactly what the King wanted). By these penal statutes, both privately circulated coins and paper notes were outlawed, and diehard private mints were later purchased by the King, and otherwise put out of business, permanently. And in the 1900s, under an administrative regulation promulgated by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Board, the issuance, if even for brief promotional purposes, of publicly circulating private bank notes by member banks, is forbidden.
[[END FOOTNOTE]]
Ratification Doctrine
…What is important is that it is you, under the Ratification Doctrine, by your own silence and default, by your failure to object and to object timely, it is by your silence that the King wins. Under this Doctrine, your silence in the face of a proposition being made to you constitutes your approval of the proposition, if synchronous with the silence you experienced a benefit. [This is:] Reason, logic and common sense. Let us consider the application of this Ratification Doctrine as it hypothetically applies to a person acting in the subordinated position of agency for another person.
When one such person, as agent, does an act on behalf of another person, but without complete authority, the person for whom such act is done may afterwards adopt the act as if it is done in his behalf, thereby giving the act the same legal effect as if it had been originally fully authorized. This subsequent retroactive consent, the effect of which relates back to the time of the original act and places the Principle in the same position as if he had originally authorized the act, is called Ratification. Under this hypothetical agency relationship, when a person finds that an act has been done in his name or on his behalf, that person must either Ratify it, or in the alternative, disaffirm it. But silence constitutes approval of the act.
Ratification may be implied from any form of conduct inconsistent with disavowal of the contract; therefore anything else, other than explicit and blunt disavowal, is Ratification—if synchronous with the silence, benefits offered conditionally were accepted. This is quite a strong Doctrine, but it has to be this way under Natural Law, since benefits offered conditionally are being accepted, invisible contracts are in effect, and failure to require the party experiencing the benefits to act quickly and reject the benefits constitutes a Tort on the other party. This Ratification is analogous under Contract Law to the acceptance of the contract’s proposition (Mutual Assent), and hence is irrevocable.
[It thus becomes obvious that the GAIA “claim” against the UST/Fed has been FULLY RATIFIED by their SILENCE in the face of proper JUDICIAL NOTICE.]
…The application of this Ratification Doctrine is not restricted to favor the Government in the evidentiary presumptions of consent that it creates, as the Supreme Court holds this Doctrine to be binding on all persons dragged into its machinery.
The application of this Ratification Doctrine in the area of the Citizenship Contract does create an invisible contract, as the burden to prove that the contract does not exist then falls on the individual, with the King not required to prove or adduce anything. This Doctrine is held operational against everyone indiscriminately as the Principle that it is, when the factual circumstances warrant its provident application; this even includes drawing inferences against the Congress itself. [Hmmm…]
…However, rather than Patriots fighting an area of grey where there is some de minimis merit to the Government’s position, it might be best to simply accept the application of the Ratification Doctrine, accept the fact that invisible contracts are in effect by your silent passive benefit acceptance and refusal to explicitly disavow and reject benefits, as generally held by Judges—but then turn around and walk away from the contract for other reasons, like Failure of Consideration.
So the assertion by the King of his Status as a Holder in Due Course (and therefore normally protected from any defense that you may throw at him via a Federal Judge in an Income Tax grievance) then becomes meaningless: if you first Notice the King out and Object with a Rejection of Benefits, and have so Objected timely. Failure to serve a Notice of Defect on the King is fatal, as without that Objection by you, the King retains his protective Holder in Due Course Status, and with that Status you have absolutely no substantive defense to assert against him.
Question: How do you Object?
In Objecting to Federal Reserve Notes, we need to be mindful of the fact that Federal Judges normally do not take Judicial Notice of the Federal Reserve Note equity attachment question. By the end of this Letter, you will see the larger and more important invisible contracts to be dealt with, if a pure and correct severance of yourself away from the adhesive siphon of the Bolshevik Income Tax is to be perfected. Primarily, they search the record for the political contract of Citizenship, and when Citizenship is found, generally they stop right there and then. However, if dealing with a Denizen or some type of non-resident alien, Federal Judges then shift their attention over to finding some Commercial benefits that were accepted, in order to justify the extraction of Income Taxes out of the poor fellow’s pockets, acting Ministerially as enforcement agents the way they do. So although Federal Judges find it unnecessary to take Notice of your acceptance of Federal Reserve Notes at the present time, when all other political and Commercial contracts have been correctly severed, this one remaining Commercial contract is going to be an item that needs to be wrestled with, in advance of its apparent necessity.
So if three years from now the IRS throws a prosecution at you, and you argue non-attachment of liability to Title 26, so called, based on a pure severance of Equity, then how will you prove what your state of mind was in 1986, as it pertains to the Federal Reserve Note use and recirculation question? Remember that the claimed state of mind of a Party is an affirmative defense. The person asserting the defense has the burden to prove its merit, and reasonably so. The King does not have to prove that you entered into the acceptance and beneficial use of Federal Reserve Notes with profitable expectations in your mind. Such a positive, beneficial and Commercial Federal Reserve Note use assumption is automatically inferred by the Commercial nature of those Notes and the “Public Notice” Status of the King’s Title 26 statutes, and so you have to prove the opposite. How are you going to prove what your state of mind was in 1986? Are you going to subpoena your wife into the Courtroom and ask her to tell the Court what you said three years earlier in 1986?
“Oh, yes. I remember. Hank said that he didn’t like using them things.”
Well that is not much, and that is not the kind of an Objection, Notice of Protest and documented state of mind that the Supreme Court will respect. So what we need to do in order to Object timely, is to file a specific Objection with the Secretary of the Treasury, and simply tell him what your state of mind is at the present time; and synchronously record that document in a Public Place. Documents written by individuals are often very strong pieces of evidence to prove a person’s state of mind and will, under some circumstances, directly overrule another person’s first-person oral testimony on grounds relating to the Parole Evidence Rule (most often such circumstances surface in Probate proceedings in Surrogate’s Court when a Will or its Codicil is being contested.
…In your Objection and Notice of Protest, we might want to mention that you are using Federal Reserve Notes for minimum survival purposes only, and that even this use is reluctant because in a previous day and in a previous era, the King used his police powers to seal a monopoly on currency instruments, and so now you have no choice in selecting between different currency instruments to use—and the involuntary adhesive attachment of Title 26 civil liability that occurs while you are being backed into such a corner, occurs against your will and over your objection.
Your state of mind is not one of beneficial acceptance and enjoyment of Federal Reserve Notes, but one of a forced de minimis coercion. You are not using Federal Reserve Notes for Commercial profit or gain, but such use is out of practical necessity since the King has physically removed all currency competitors from the marketplace under his penal statutes and literally by physical duress; and so now your use of Federal Reserve Notes is by lack of alternatives to select from, not freedom of choice. By such monopoly tactics, the King is engaging in unfair Trade Practices, which if you or I did the identical same thing, we would be incarcerated for it under numerous Racketeering and Sherman Anti-Trust criminal statutes. Yet the forced monopoly of a currency serves no beneficial public interest, and is actually an instrumentality to work magnum damages on us all after the King replaces his initial hard currency later on with a paper currency (which has now happened). Remember that Federal Judges see important benefits in everything the King does, and there are legitimate benefits in having a uniform national currency to pursue Commercial enrichment with—when those benefits were sought after voluntarily.
Judges perceive of those benefits as being related to the Legal Tender status of the King’s Currency, among other things. What Federal Judges do not see collectively is that those FRNs possess only those benefits that any widely accepted circulating currency would also offer, and are the same benefits that privately circulating notes and coins did in fact offer here in the United States prior to the Civil War. The King is not entitled to demand taxation reciprocity by merely replacing benefits originating from private mints with benefits originating from the Congress under the cloak, cover and duress of penal statutes. So by enacting that succession of penal monopoly statutes that shut down competitors, the King has transferred the origin of currency benefits away from private mints and banks, over to himself. A forced uniform national currency serves only the private financial enrichment objectives of the King by getting everyone into Interstate Commerce, among other things, and also serves the objectives of Special Interest Groups who very much want to see the King circulate paper currency expressly for the purpose of perfecting our enscrewment—if it were not so, the King would not have had to use penal statutes and armed stormtroopers in the 1800s to enforce the acceptance of his currency monopoly lex. If a single national currency medium did in fact serve everyone’s best interest, if everyone wanted to use the King’s paper money, then why did the King have to resort to the display of physical force when initiating such a currency monopoly by police powers intervention in the 1800s, and now unilaterally use that monopoly to administratively coerce people into contractual situations they did not otherwise want or enter into?
Therefore, you do not accept any Consideration the King is handing you when Federal Reserve Notes circulate into your possession (and remember that the King’s Legal Tender Statutes have very much enhanced the market value of Federal Reserve Notes). And that such use of Federal Reserve Notes is occurring against your will and over your objection and Protest, for, inter alia, want of alternatives, and… the reason why there are no alternatives is due to Federal monopoly penal statutes forbidding such alternatives, and that such a monopoly is an unfair restraint of trade (unfair because it is unnecessary) anyone else gets incarcerated for.
Remember that in dealing with Federal Judges, you need to “hit the nail right on the head”, and by rejecting Federal benefits, and then explaining your rejection through chronologically sequential presentations of facts and of reasoned legal arguments; when that has been done, then where once there was a Courtroom hurricane of unbridled retortional ensnortment by Federal Judges, designed to rub in, in no uncertain terms, their strong philosophical disapproval of Tax Protestors—now suddenly in contrast, everything changes over to a quiescent environment.
Additional objections along the lines that Warburg and his Gremlin brothers in crime, the Rothschilds, through their ownership of the Federal Reserve System, are third-party beneficial interest holders, and that use of the police powers for the private enrichment of a Special Interest Group is unlawful, since under Supreme Court rulings, when the King enters into Commercial activity, his Status descends to the same level as other merchants, and that any other American merchant who pulled off such a gun-barrel monopoly grab would be incarcerated for doing so. Numerous Contract Law books provide a rich abundance of defenses to assert against Negotiable Instruments.
Numerous defenses to assert in your Objection and Notice of Protest against the use of Federal Reserve Notes attaching liability to Title 26—due to their Status as circulating Commercial Negotiable Instruments—involve both Real and Personal Defenses.
Some of the defenses you could claim include undue influence, absence or failure of Consideration, moral fraud, necessity, unilateral adhesion contract made in restraint of trade, economic duress, and the like.
Some of those Objections and statements are milktoast, and will later fall apart and collapse under attack by the King’s Attorneys in adversary proceedings, and properly so. Reason: The Use and recirculation of Commercial Federal Reserve Notes necessarily involves a Contract Law factual setting, and so our arguments along the lines of the King’s basic unfairness in sealing up his national currency monopoly, etc., are only peripheral arguments; only direct coercion in the use of Federal Reserve Notes is strong enough to strip the King of his Status of a Holder in Due Course. And unfairness arguments sounding in the Tort of third-party Special Interest Group penal statute sponsorship and of Congressional intrigue in 1913, even though very accurate factually, are way off base, if we are going into the Supreme Court under a factual setting calling for Contractual Law settlement reasoning.
But for us right now, which Objection reason that we stated either stands or falls when under attack later is not important. And what is important is denying the King his protective Status as a Holder in Due Course against you (if the King is a Holder in Due Course, the Principle is that we have no defenses to assert against him), by filing your Notice of Protest and related corrigendum (meaning filed in an interlocutory state in contemplation of secondary enhancement or error correction at a later time). But some of those arguments we listed will survive, as the naked facts surrounding the forceful acquisition of the King’s monopoly on national currency are quite authentic, and elements can be raised to take the factual setting out of Contract Law and into Tort Law where, at least as a point of beginning, those arguments then become relevant (however, those arguments probably won’t even be addressed for other reasons). So we are exactly on line in some areas (assuming the Case was properly plead by referring to the Supreme Court rulings on the declension in Status the King experiences when the King engages in Commercial activity).
So the final analysis is not important right now. Getting a general Notice of Protest documenting the situational infirmities to the other party; invoking Tort Law to govern the factual setting surrounding your involuntary use of Federal Reserve Notes; and stating that there has been a Failure of Consideration; as your state of mind is what is important, and the detailed judicial affirmation or rejection of your specific Protest reasons can occur later in adversary proceedings. Failure to object is fatal, and failure to object timely is equally as fatal, as you have no right to ask the Judiciary to help you weasel out of the terms of contracts you originally intended to benefit from (which is necessarily inferred when no timely Objection was filed on your part). If we have corrected our Status, we filed our Objections timely and we still lose, and the reasons why we lose on this issue have their seminal point of origin in the King’s police power tactics in the 1800s, then it would then be time to consider dealing with the King on the same terms the King’s Treasury Agents dealt with the two remaining die-hard California Coin Mints: out of the barrel of a gun. [NO—AGAIN AND AGAIN, NO! The TRUTH always suffices for our Father’s purposes: “Force is not of God.”]
With the prosecution of Individuals, whose status is near lily-white, being sandbagged at low administrative and judicial levels, then such an aggressive retortional atmosphere of confrontation is quite unlikely to occur. But until those circumstances do happen, then let’s not badmouth the Judiciary, because as for the past and present, Principles of Nature rule in the corridors of the United States Supreme Court, to the extent that they are able to apply such majestic Principles to such pathetic factual settings they are frequently presented with—with petitioners and criminal Defendants who are not entitled to prevail under any circumstances, as contracts are in effect.
Subject to these following qualifications, the filing of this Objection on the involuntary use of Federal Reserve Notes will arrest the movement of the King’s Agents in a civil prosecution against you on this particular adhesive attachment of King’s Equity Jurisdiction. But the most interesting reason why you now reluctantly use Federal Reserve Notes is yet to come; and it is the one reason the King’s Attorneys will never be able to tear apart and get judicially annulled (it will be sandbagged before it gets annulled). And it is the one reason why even an otherwise reluctant Supreme Court might just respect this Objection, regardless of how irritating it may be for some imps nestled in the Judiciary, since the effect of this one last Objection automatically vitiates the most solemn written contracts ever sealed.
Your Objection might want to contain the following:
1. An historical overview of the gun-barrel and penal-statute factual setting surrounding the acquisition of a national currency monopoly by the King, with the authorities for your statements being cited;
2. Stating in all of your Objections and Notices of Defects that your occasional use of Federal Reserve Notes is involuntary, and transpires because you are seeking to avoid being incarcerated as an accessory to the criminal circulation of illegal currency under Federal statutes.
That’s right. That is the real reason why you now reluctantly use Federal Reserve Notes: not because you want to, and not necessarily because of what some Treasury Agents did in California in the 1800s, but because if you now started using your own currency instruments here today in 1985, then the King will incarcerate you for doing so; and therefore we have no choice but to use the King’s designated currency against our Will and over our Objection.
…That documented involuntary behavior to avoid incarceration is the one magic liability-vitiating line that Judges never deviate from, and that incarceration threat is the kind of an Objection that Judges want to hear, and that is the kind of an Objection that the Supreme Court will respect. But as always, it is the waiver and rejection of Royal benefits that is the most important item to address; and the King’s Legal Tender Statutes have very much enhanced the market value and general Commercial attractiveness of those Federal Reserve Notes, so as viewed from the perspective of a Federal Judge, when you accepted and then re-circulated Federal Reserve Notes, you have accepted a Federal benefit.
…So, important for us is the filing of the Objection and Notice of Protest, and filing the objections timely. And each of these Objections should be separate and distinct from each other (Admiralty/Birth Certificate, Equity/Social Security, Commercial/Holders in Due Course, etc.). What happens if the Supreme Court rules some day of in the future that King’s Revenue Equity Jurisdiction still attaches to involuntary users of Federal Reserve Notes? We will then have to acquire our rights from our contemporary King the same way Ben Franklin and George Washington acquired their rights: out of the barrel of a gun. [Yet again, it is necessary to disavow Mercier on this repeated position of his—we who work for a better world cannot accept that force is either necessary or desirable.]
‘Retortional Ensnortments’
We always want to take a moment and examine ourselves in known impending grievances from the viewpoint of our adversary, in order to see things like a judge; and when dealing with an attack on the acceptance and recirculation of Federal Reserve Notes, an argument will likely be advanced to try and discredit your objection:
Your adversary will argue that Federal Law, not State Law of the UCC governs your attack on Federal Reserve Notes. Their arguments are based on numerous federal court rulings—one of which is when the Supreme Court once ruled that the rights, duties and liabilities of the United States on Commercial paper are issues that are to be governed exclusively by federal law, and not governed by state law. Therefore, your adversaries will argue that your reliance on the UCC, which are a collection of state statutes, as a source of authority, is ill-founded and that you are not entitled to prevail. This argument does not concern us at all, since in reading Clearfield Trust, the reason why the Supreme Court wants federal Commercial paper to be governed by Federal Law and not State Law is because they do not want the Federal Government subject to 50 different rules and restrictions proprietary to each state:
“But reasons which may make state law at times the appropriate federal rule are singularly inappropriate here. The issuance of Commercial paper by the United States is on a vast scale and transactions in that paper from issuance to payout will commonly occur in several states. The application of state law, even without the conflict of laws rules of forum, would subject the rights and duties of the United States to exceptional uncertainty. It would lead to great diversity in results by making identical transactions subject to the vagaries of the laws of the several states.”
Since the Uniform Commercial Code is just that, i.e., uniform throughout all of the states except one (Louisiana), having the issuance and Commercial use of Federal Reserve Notes subject to this uniform code, in the absence of any federal law to the contrary, is most appropriate. Subjecting the rights and duties of the United States and its pet corporation, the Federal Reserve, to the uniform rules of the UCC to fill in missing gaps in Federal Commercial Laws, offers to expose the United States to no exception uncertainty. Although there very much is a Federal Law Merchant, State Law is silent on the matter; and so now that leaves Federal Judges making the law.
Remember that the Principles of Nature the UCC codifies into sequential statutes is merely the old Law Merchant of our Fathers, and that our Fathers merely codified reason, logic and common sense; and the Uniform Commercial Code, even though it is state law, is merely cited to both fill pronouncement voids in the Federal Law Merchant, and as simply the best pronouncement of Principles of Nature denominated to apply to Commercial factual settings.
The Principle we invoke when coming to grips with these Federal Reserve Notes is merely common sense: that a person we are trying to avoid doing business with (the King) loses his expectation of our conformance to his statutes, when we place him on our Prior Notice that Defects are present in the paper he is circulating, and that we are not accepting the benefits otherwise inuring to the Holders and Recirculators of his Federal Reserve Notes, by reason of involuntary use.
Everything in this Letter is all inter-related to some extent; earlier, I discussed the Ratification Doctrine, by which Judges hold that silence on your part, in the context of an assertion being made against you, constitutes your acceptance of the proposition that you are silent on (and for good reasons: because benefits are being accepted by you). This Notice of Defect reverses that state of silence, and the King is forced to experience a declension in his coveted status of expecting a perfect non-defense case against you, based on your terminating the acceptance of the benefits of the use and recirculation of Federal Reserve Notes. The UCC largely codified all of this since merchants have it out with each other all the time on this very question with Negotiable Instruments, and as such the UCC gave every possible thing and every party nice proprietary names and labels so that attorneys and judges can all deal with these factual settings with everyone speaking the same vocabulary. So, if the UCC is technically non-applicable to Federal Reserve Notes, then we don’t really care, as the UCC is no more than codifying Nature, as Principles operate transparent to changes in factual settings. If we are Objecting to a thing, like a Note, then the Maker has lost his expectation of not having any grievances to deal with on that thing (Note); and that is only common sense. And we cite the UCC as the best codified pronouncement of that Doctrine, and we encourage our adversaries to find any federal statute inconsistent with the UCC’s pronouncements.
As you well know, Mr. May, it is a Principle of Nature that an ounce of prevention is worth ten tons of labor exerted later on in patching up. And merely preparing your multiple objections now, in writing, will spare a person from substantial expenses in depositions and the like later, as the collection of evidence, is, generally speaking, an expensive and time-consuming process. With rare exception, all of the Patriot lawsuits I have examined never involved any form of Depositions or Interrogatories being taken on the Defendant (and the Patriot wonders why he loses). All of that is neatly avoided by a few preventative steps.
[END QUOTING, end “chapter”]
|
