:h: Welcome
to Team Law’s Forum!

Please note:
Pastor Butch Paugh, of: GNC Radio Network’s: “Call to Decision” radio show, will interview: Eric W. Madsen, Team Law’s Trustee, this:
Saturday, July. 8, 2017, at: 6:00 PM (MT).
Call In Line: (855) 242-8824,
Listen Line: (605)562-4040.

Our new Free Conference Call schedule is every: Monday, Wednesday & Friday morning from:
8:00 – 9:00 AM (Mountain Time).

Call: (857) 232-0158; use the Conference Access Code: 110045.

Though our Trustee is otherwise out of the office this week (July 10, 2017 – July 14, 2017), our Trustee will continue to hold Conference calls
at their regularly scheduled times; with one exception: there will be no conference call Monday, July 17, 2017.

Join us on, and invite your friends to, our next Conference Call!

Use this Forum to contact Team Law;
use this link for more: contact information.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:

inherent remedy within the Federal Reserve Act—

This forum is for topics not listed below.

Moderators: Tnias, Jus

Whatthat
Registered
Posts: 4
Joined: Sunday April 10th, 2011 12:00 am MDT

inherent remedy within the Federal Reserve Act—

Postby Whatthat » Friday August 5th, 2011 6:06 pm MDT

Hello folks,

Can anyone comment on the suggestion that Sec.411 of Title 12 (Federal Reserve Act) is an inherent remedy? Below is my understanding of an argument I have heard, which I'm sure some of you may be familiar with. I looked up T.12 S411 and it does actually say what is claimed:

"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. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank."

Title 12 makes it legal for the Fed to create and issue FRNs to FR Banks. CorpUS creates bonds, uses them as collateral to borrow FRNs, which are deposited at FR Banks. And of course thanks to the fractional reserve system, the banks can loan out a multiplied amount based on those deposits. But the real trouble starts when the people start accepting and using these FRNs, because they are doing a general deposit and an open endorsement, rather than a special deposit endorsing "non-negotiable pursuant to T.12 S.411".

1. General deposit and open endorsement of FRNs allows the FR Banks to further fractionalize and lend out that money AGAIN, which waters down the money supply, devalues the dollar, etc. There's a calculus formula you can use to see just how much money can actually be created if this process continues to it's furthest possible extent, it's much much greater than the 9x or whatever based on the fractional reserve ratio.

2. Using FRNs in this way obligates you to Corp US. That's THEIR private credit, and if you use it you are subject to income tax, which is why the courts have upheld that Income Tax is voluntary. Additionally, since you are using that money to purchase stuff, there is an automatic lien on that stuff, which is why the IRS sends you a "Notice of Lien" rather the actual lien, and can take your stuff.

The argument goes that since there is no more lawful public money in circulation, and that FRNs are "legal tender for all debts public AND PRIVATE", that if you special deposit/limited endorsement, those FRNs then serve as lawful public money, without liability attached, without obligating you to Corp US, and without allowing the banks to further inflate the money supply and devalue the currency.

Thoughts?

User avatar
Copacetic
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 37
Joined: Wednesday July 29th, 2009 8:28 am MDT

Re: inherent remedy within the Federal Reserve Act

Postby Copacetic » Saturday August 6th, 2011 12:54 pm MDT

Dear Whatthat,
There are many presuppositions in your post. I would suggest reading the 'patriot mythology" page on TL's website (especially Myth 22pay particular attention to the seven points of “Prerequisite Knowledge” presented there).

This should help you understand what FRNs really are and who is actually obligated to pay.

Thanks,
Copacetic
The only way evil men can win is if good men do nothing.
Me

Whatthat
Registered
Posts: 4
Joined: Sunday April 10th, 2011 12:00 am MDT

Re: inherent remedy within the Federal Reserve Act—

Postby Whatthat » Monday August 8th, 2011 9:34 am MDT

Copacetic, I did as you suggested and re-read Myth 22. I don't see anything in there that conflicts with the claim that FRNs are the private credit instruments of Corp US and that is why when people use FRNs they become contractually bound to pay Income Tax (amongst other obligations). In fact I think that claim is supported by Myth 22, the claim is that FRNs are not public money but rather private credit, and Myth 22 says: "the Federal Reserve Bank System does not dabble in money ... they use only FRNs, which are not money. "

User avatar
SimplyThinkDreams
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 110
Joined: Thursday February 5th, 2009 4:45 pm MST

Re: inherent remedy within the Federal Reserve Act—

Postby SimplyThinkDreams » Monday August 8th, 2011 11:36 pm MDT

Whatthat,
In your last post you refer to Federal Reserve Notes as "private credit." Such a statement indicates that you did not fully understand Myth 22. The name "Federal Reserve Note" tells us that the instrument is a note. A note by definition is a written instrument of debt; therefore, a Federal Reserve Note cannot be credit. It would serve you well to look up the definitions of words in a law dictionary even if you think you already know the meaning. It will help you learn much faster and you can avoid many misunderstandings like the one discussed herein.

SimplyThinkDreams

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1573
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: inherent remedy within the Federal Reserve Act—

Postby Admin » Tuesday August 9th, 2011 1:01 am MDT

:h: Whatthat:
We do not understand how you can possibly have read Myth 22 and come away with that notion! Within Myth 22 are the seven points of Prerequisite Knowledge; which follow:Of those seven points the following are relevant to the nature of the FRN:
  1. The actual relationship offered by the Federal Reserve Bank initially.
  2. The changes to the Federal Reserve Bank relationship after the Corp. U.S. bankruptcy in 1933.
Again, we cannot understand how anyone can read those two points and/or review the historical records regarding the matter and not understand that the FRN:
  1. Is not money;
  2. Is not a “private credit instrument”; and,
  3. Is merely a rented transaction instrument.
Thus, the use of the instrument creates no such “contract” with Corp. U.S. binding anyone to pay income taxes. Any obligation to pay income taxes must come from the law and not from some such alleged implied but non-existent contract. In fact, it is highly unlikely that people are involved in the process of income tax paying obligations at all. The parties so involved in the process of paying income taxes are “taxpayers”—all of which have Taxpayer Identification Numbers. From the evidences we have seen and reviewed, we have never seen people that were taxpayers unless they were linked to the taxpayer through a general partnership.

The bottom line: though we are not aware of where you got that understanding from; it is not supported by what Team Law presented in our presentation of Myth 22! Again, to understand Team Law’s presentation of Myth 22, you must read and understand the seven elements of Prerequisite Knowledge. And, to understand the true nature of the FRN; you must understand Myth 22’s presentation of Prerequisite Knowledge points 3 & 4. Thus, we suggest that you may want to go back and read those points again.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.

Whatthat
Registered
Posts: 4
Joined: Sunday April 10th, 2011 12:00 am MDT

Re: inherent remedy within the Federal Reserve Act—

Postby Whatthat » Tuesday August 9th, 2011 9:20 am MDT

Folks, I didn't mean to come on here acting like I know what I'm talking about - I don't. I'm totally new (like the other 99% of the population) to actually reading, understanding, and applying the law. I mention this because I feel like I ruffled some feathers - that was not my intention, not by a long shot. I'm here to learn how to read and correctly interpret and comprehend the law.

I do understand that the FRN is not money, and I said that in my post.

I was aware (thanks to reading teamlaw.net) that FRNs are rented transaction instruments. I do appreciate you clearing up that FRNs are not private credit instruments, I didn't realize that they could not be both rented transaction instruments and private credit instruments - again, I'm very new to this and even the language itself is confusing to me at times.

So, "Any obligation to pay income taxes must come from the law and not from some such alleged implied but non-existent contract" can I take this to mean that any such contract can not be construed based on someone's taking of a benefit? I.e. the benefit of using these rented transaction instruments places on the user the obligations of a contract? The contract must be expressed?

Also, what, if any, point would there be in placing a special/restricted endorsement on the back of your paycheck prior to depositing "non-negotiable, redeemed in lawful money pursuant to T.12 S.411"? No point whatsoever?

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1573
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: inherent remedy within the Federal Reserve Act—

Postby Admin » Tuesday August 9th, 2011 4:44 pm MDT

:h: Whatthat:
Thanks for the acknowledgment.
However, that acknowledgment also brings us up to our Charter’s limitation against providing Team Law beneficiary support to those that are not Team Law beneficiaries and yet recognize that Team Law is worthy of their support; which limitation is elemental to Rule 31.

The technical nature of your inquiry also limits our response to the necessity for Team Law beneficiary support. Thus, we can only provide such a response in our Beneficiary’s Private Forum.

However, we expect that you could resolve your inquiry by reviewing the Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole lead article because it provides the elements necessary to the existence of a contract.

We will also give you the hint of asking you the leading but rhetorical question: “What benefit are you referring to in the usage of a FRN?”

You will have to be a Team Law beneficiary before we can help you learn the answer to your question about restricted endorsements.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.

Whatthat
Registered
Posts: 4
Joined: Sunday April 10th, 2011 12:00 am MDT

Re: Learning the Law

Postby Whatthat » Tuesday August 9th, 2011 5:41 pm MDT

Awesome, thanks for the reply!

As a Beneficiary, would I be able to get help (and yes ;) I know we're talking about showing me how to learn for myself, not doing the work for me) with:
  1. the situation and circumstances in Canada in general, do we have an original jurisdiction government, are the seats vacant? How is the Bank of Canada system like/unlike the Federal Reserve?
  2. the different ways and meanings of signing one's name - per, for, by, all rights reserved, etc etc.?
  3. writing of trust docs to express a trust with a name the same as mine but in all capital letters, to appoint the "Government of Canada" as trustee to balance my books, return my OIDs, return any income taxes mistakenly withheld at source and any money being held in escrow at a Chartered financial institution?
Thanks!

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1573
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: Learning the Law

Postby Admin » Tuesday August 9th, 2011 7:36 pm MDT

:h: Whatthat:
Team Law helps people learn how to learn the law regardless of where they live; thus, because people in Canada can learn the law, we can help them (you) learn how to learn the law from their (your) own personal firsthand study of the law itself and its history. Accordingly, to the extent that all of the elements you just inquired after are related to the laws where you live, Team Law can help you learn how to learn the law so you can learn how to apply the law to resolve the matters in question.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.


Return to “Miscellaneous Topics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests