“This Goes out in Response to Fleming, Gayle B., GK, et al” by Vee – 6.26.21


Entry Submitted by Vee at 11:04 PM EDT on June 26, 2021

“Mental Exhaustion” by Gayle B. – 6.21.21 | Dinar Chronicles

Nick Fleming: Keystone Cops Podcast Update 6-21-21 | Dinar Chronicles

“No Really the Fed is Dead” by GK – 6.25.21 

And a part from MarkZ.

"MZ: Many of you sent an updater from Simon about needing a bank crash...we have always known that a bank crash will force this and bring in the reset. We do not need the crash for a reset……Its like if the water pump is going out on your car… have 2 options….you can switch the water pump now before the engine blows up and the wheels come off and it all goes into the crapper….…or after…in which case its much more expensive to fix…you can do it before or after….one way will just cause you much more pain….…that’s where we are at in the economy…..if things implode like its positioned for….then it forces the reset to happen. They do not have to wait though…."

GB..I hear ya.. but in my case I’ve been so suppressed by big brother G-man and most of society in general for years since coming out from under the turnip. BUT..

How is this Vee ? It falls under many aspects. One of my mentors would say..”once you learn the truth you can’t turn your back on it” more less you can’t be dubble minded..or serve mammon. You can’t (or shouldn’t) go against principles of right and rightiousness or conscience (our court of consciences) and for those of ilk..them narcissist PTB that like to dictate and control. 

And that being said..there are 2 concepts I can place myself under in this post. One that believes that there are ones that have usurped their power to continue to be at the top of a elite chain. Or that I was I believed it and could do nothing about it and did nothing about it. Stayed complacent and a accomplice to it, and more or less stayed ignorant about it. Did nothing to prove or disprove a conspiracy theory about the Banking system. 

In this post I’ve found myself being sort of hypocritical. I make the claim that I and we have been duped by power Elites. That there has been a conspiracy to enslave all of us under their system of Financial control. But then I have to say and take the view and position to myself that ignorance of my rights and thus that of the law is my fault…there’s no excuse and the fingers are pointing back at me. So what you’ll read here are those 2 mind sets.

I was holding off in sending this to Patrick to see what news and ect. we would get today..Tuesday 22nd. and on. 

I’ve post here in the past what started me on my 25 yr. or so journey to where I am today in learning history and law…and life.
The first step was to live it. I never liked having to go to someone, paying them or do it myself in filing a “income tax return” Who the F…is this thing telling me whether I gave them enough or not enough. So 96 or 7 was the last time. The accounting said they wanted 700 more from me. Ha, Fat chance. Oh they tried to get me to comply and yrs. later (their tricks) but I sent it back to them unopened, their certified mail, “Return to sender” They got you if you except it. Besides..thats not due process. 

When I had worked for a business..(still being green about things) and they would have you fill out a W2..I would alway check “Exempt” starting in 2002 You see people are always under the impression-assumption they got to show-write in it how much withholding they wish. So they voluntarily say, Yes I want to be taxed and withhold this amount from me. Why do you think “Exempt” is there for..because I don’t voluntarily wish to participate..have any of my sweat equity renumeration withheld from me. It’s apart of my pursuit of happiness and necessities of life, I need and want it all then.. because necessity is always at the moment (maxim) 

But this then brings me to a delema. The Slave number..being tied to it and the worlds (America’s) presumption that everyone has to give it -provide it for employment…for whos benifit? Try living a life of a freeman in not adhereing to the presumption and adhesion it makes. After all, what did Colonel Edward Mandell house say they were going to do to every American…enslave them throught social insurance.

When I say..”Are you doing your part”, it’s that to which you are doing to ether keep supporting-being compliance and complicit to the assumed demands of all them PTB dictators, acquiescing to the status quo system and all their commands and demands from you? Or standingup against them ilks of oppression if you believe it so. 

Why does-would anyone here on IDC or vested in the baskets of the RV exchange think their deserving of it …the RV ? Why, because you had a ear to the ground of a huge wininvestment as with the Big Short and your here just to keep up with the activation of it. In that case, lucky you. But if your here and involved with it the RV/GCR because you feelthat there is something wrong..that you assume there were and are cabal elites (bankers) that have taken their power and usurped it for their may be misinformed and prejudice prejudging based onhearsay and lack of due diligence.   

When I try to explain law or subject matter jurisdiction to people..I always ask them, How much of what we think we know as being factual is mere presumption ? 

Everyone squawks about the big bad Federal Reserve system of the cabal bankers. Yet how many of you ever read the Federal Reserve Act ? Oh that’s too daunting. There are 1,225 pages of War and Peace. (Someone must have read it) and other lengthy novels ya read, yet this link for the FRA pdf;_ylu=Y29sbwNiZjEEcG9zAzEEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Ny/RV=2/RE=1624339259/RO=10/ says and shows that the FRA is only 25 pages. What do you think should-would be more important to read? 
It says what it’s for at the start.

An Act to provide for the establishment of Federal reserve banks, to furnish an elastic currency, to afford means of rediscounting commercial paper, to establish a more effective supervision of banking in the United States, and for other purposes rule 101 in of the first thing law students learn about at collage. The FRA. is for Commercial purposes…to furnish elastic bills for exchange. Is it Constitutional in adhering to the Constitution for paying debts ? Humm.

“Article I, Section 10 contains a long, somewhat diverse list of prohibitions on the power of the states to engage in certain activities. Understanding its significance depends on first placing it within the larger framework of Article I, which is primarily devoted to setting out the structure of Congress and then enumerating its legislative powers. Those activities occupy Sections 1 through 8. Section 9 prohibits a broad array of activities by the federal government, which run the gamut from weakening the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus to taxing exports from the states.

Section 10 imposes a similar list of prohibitions on the powers of the states….

These prohibitions in Section 10 can be divided into several subclasses. One group imposes on the states some of the restrictions that Section 9 imposed on Congress: the power to pass bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, or to grant titles of nobility. …

A third category applies to financial matters, dealing with such issues as the power to coin money, emit bills of credit, or lay duties on imports and exports. During the Revolutionary War, both the Continental Congress and the states resorted to the massive issuance of various instruments of credit, unsecured by adequate taxation. …

Under the Articles of Confederation, both the Continental Congress and the states had the authority to coin money, but only Congress could fix its “alloy and value.” The evident intention is to give that power exclusively to Congress under Article I, Section 8, Clause 5.


Section 10, Clause 1 contains a general prohibition against states emitting letters of credit, unless, as it came to be understood, they were drawn on some specific fund set aside for that purpose. The result reads like a compromise designed to prevent the open-ended use of state credit without shutting down the capacity of the states to borrow at all. These provisions, together with the requirement that only gold and silver could be used for legal tender, stem from the desire to insulate other states in the union from the fiscal shocks created by any single state.

Relying on this clause, which applies only to the states and not to the Federal Government

1, the Supreme Court has held that, where the marshal of a state court received state bank notes in payment and discharge of an execution, the creditor was entitled to demand payment in gold or silver.
2 Because, however, there is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting a bank depositor from consenting when he draws a check that payment may be made by draft, a state law providing that checks drawn on local banks should, at the option of the bank, be payable in exchange drafts, was held valid.


  1.  Jump to essay-1Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, 446 (1884).
  2.  Jump to essay-2Gwin v. Breedlove, 43 U.S. (2 How.) 29, 38 (1844)See also Griffin v. Thompson, 43 U.S. (2 How.) 244 (1844).
  3.  Jump to essay-3Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Federal Reserve Bank, 262 U.S. 649, 659 (1923).,Contracts%2C%20or%20grant%20any%20Title

So the debt issue only applies to the States and left the Federal Gov..the ability to use what ever it wished as currencies and or payments of debt. Erie Railroad vs. Tompkins was the case that allowed the Fed Gov. the open door in this matter. That when deciding a case in civil matters it will make it’s decision based on the common law of each if the States..that there really is or was NO  Federal common law that ruled it and being that having to adhere to gold and silver to pay its debts. So as a result of this, the Fed had implimenting-franchising the Federal Reserve system and the 1932 Emergency Banking Act it left the citizens of the united American States short of its common law way in debt payments….and only that of commercial means and thus makeing all these citizen.. merchants of Venice.. under the auspices of maritime merchant law. One way to learn about this is to study about the Clearfield trust Doctrine.  And to read ” The Dispatch of Merchants”

OMg..this post is daunting
Section 30 of the 1913 FRA  says 

Section 30. Saving clause


If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of this Act shall for any reason be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair, or invalidate the remainder of this Act, but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, or part thereof directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered.”If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of this Act shall for any reason be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid,” Is part limited or Part can be all. 

Now to be compliant or uniform to further Banking acts it was revised to read as follow. 

Separability; Right To Amend, Alter or Repeal

Pub. L. 100–86, title XII, §1205, Aug. 10, 1987, 101 Stat. 663, provided that: “If any provision of this Act [see Short Title of 1987 Amendment note above] or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the remainder of the Act and the application of the provision to other persons not similarly situated or to other circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

Sections 30 and 31, formerly 29 and 30, respectively, of act Dec. 23, 1913, as renumbered by act Nov. 10, 1978, Pub. L. 95–630, title I, §101, 92 Stat. 3641, provided:

“Sec. 30. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of this Act shall for any reason be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair, or invalidate the remainder of this Act, but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, or part thereof directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered.

“Sec. 31. The right to amend, alter, or repeal this Act is hereby expressly reserved.”

So someone wrote in the Statues and via to the Codes a Remedy to that-those of the commercial merchants banking system Acts.  That if any one held that the provisions and application of the Federal Reserve Act was invalid to any person in circumstances, then to them only shall it not apply or be valid (applicable) and to all other persons not in similar situations or circumstances (as to the one person claiming in valid) shall not be affected there by this ones claim.In short it’s on a individual based stituation.

How many here on IDC have ever read..National Bank of Montgomery vs Jerome Daly?

Watch “First National Bank of Montgomery v Daly

A hard copy..

This was a court of competent jurisdiction, at the vary bottom or start of the civil court system. A common law court of ones peers. The reason this case is not sited – catalog>? in the law books for referring to it for citing, is because it started at the lowest of the court system thus there is no lower court that can site it as a precedent ruling. I don’t think that the court system wanted it to be appealed to a higher court..this could be one reason amongst others.

So based on this and what I’ve shown above.. If you have a Mortgage.. and you read this facts of truth…will and would you keep paying on that Mortgage ? What would your conscience say..would you want to help keep the perpetual criminal syndicate in business..making wars..keeping countries in poverty… stealing homes from ones putting their sweat equity into it. Thats what they do. Or is it the individual own doing by their ignorance? 

What if 50% or more of America quit paying their mortgage to their banks giving it notice ( got to send it to the Presidents of the bank as I’ve post on IDC many times before because of noticing for “ultra vires” Latin, meaning “beyond the powers.” Describes actions taken by government bodies or corporations that exceed the scope of power given to them by laws or corporate charters.)

What would that do to the cartel banking Financial system? Ya think it would “crash” ? It would be a tsunami worse than 2008. And then what. We know what …I’m only saying that if there were a few 100k – million Patriots out there that stopped accepting things at face value, presumption it would change the world..just stopped paying credit loans..mortgages things could have been pushed faster ahead esp. in 45’s administration. 

Yet as I stated at the start of this post..there are 2 ways of looking at this. Is it wrong and perpetrated fraud on We the People of the union States..or..were We tbe People of the union States just lackadaisical to our rights (station and position on the land) and thus the law. We are not to be ignorant of our rights thus then we would know the law and its application. 

But let me give you another tidbit. You got the FRA of 1913..then came the gold confiscation and Banking Acts to follow.
Emergency Banking Act of 1933

March 9, 1933

Signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on March 9, 1933, the legislation was aimed at restoring public confidence in the nation’s financial system after a weeklong bank holiday.

“The emergency banking legislation passed by the Congress today is a most constructive step toward the solution of the financial and banking difficulties which have confronted the country. The extraordinary rapidity with which this legislation was enacted by the Congress heartens and encourages the country.”
– Secretary of the Treasury William Woodin, March 9, 1933
“I can assure you that it is safer to keep your money in a reopened bank than under the mattress.”
– President Franklin Roosevelt in his first Fireside Chat, March 12, 1933

Many people were withdrawing their money from banks and keeping it at home. In response, the new president called a special session of Congress the day after the inauguration and declared a four-day banking holiday that shut down the banking system, including the Federal Reserve. This action was followed a few days later by the passage of the Emergency Banking Act, which was intended to restore Americans’ confidence in banks when they reopened.

The legislation, which provided for the reopening of the banks as soon as examiners found them to be financially secure, was prepared by Treasury staff during Herbert Hoover’s administration and was introduced on March 9, 1933. It passed later that evening amid a chaotic scene on the floor of Congress. In fact, many in Congress did not even have an opportunity to read the legislation before a vote was called for.

Emergency Banking Act of 1933 | Federal Reserve History

June 16, 1933. The Glass-Steagall Act which was aka The Banking Act of 1933 effectively separated commercial banking from investment banking and created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, among other things. It was one of the most widely debated legislative initiatives before being signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in June 1933.

Then came the The National Banking Act of 1933 and then the 1935..and then the…and then the…
Every banking act from 33 on has that clause. The 2 Acts of 33 left the American citizen
(that’s what I am..not a U.S. one) without the
constitutional means to be paid or to pay others…
within the scheme of pursuing life’s necessities.

So again if you..claim that the act for some reason Is invalid..(which would be a question of why.)and doesn’t in someway-reason apply, then to you exclusively it would not valid, but yet to all others it does-would.

This clause as I in all further acts (Banking) under this USC Title 12 chp.3 Federal Reserve Act.

So now you know the facts..but that’s not all. USC Title 12 Banks and Banking is not positive law. So if the Fed-G-man was to come after you and quoting that your in violation of this and that Code of Title 12 is bogus.. irrelevant. Because non-positive law is only prima facie of the law.

prima facie: based on the first impression; accepted as correct until proved otherwise. …may be used as an adjective meaning “sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted.” An example of this would be to use the term “prima facie evidence.” … A prima facie case is the establishment of a legally required rebuttable presumption.

In other first its face it may be cited as the law-the code # but it isn’t. Because it’s non-postive…at first face’ or ‘at first appearance. In that case if it’s rebutted..yeah-they got to go to the written legislature statues of the legislative act.


If you wish to contact the author of any reader submitted guest post, you can give us an email at and we’ll forward your request to the author.


All articles, videos, and images posted on Dinar Chronicles were submitted by readers and/or handpicked by the site itself for informational and/or entertainment purposes.

Dinar Chronicles is not a registered investment adviser, broker dealer, banker or currency dealer and as such, no information on the website should be construed as investment advice. We do not support, represent or guarantee the completeness, truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any content or communications posted on this site. Information posted on this site may or may not be fictitious. We do not intend to and are not providing financial, legal, tax, political or any other advice to readers of this website.

Copyright © 2022 Dinar Chronicles



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here