Advertisement

“There is No Money” by Doug Duff – 1.7.23

0
418
Advertisement

Entry Submitted by Doug Duff at 1:45 PM ET on January 7, 2023

THERE IS NO MONEY

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:

Advertisement

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!!

Advertisement

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:

Advertisement

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.”

Advertisement

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 “obligation 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.

Advertisement

“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 contrabanda 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:

Advertisement

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).

Advertisement

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 largesse, 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 (It is permissible, but it is only persuasive authority (as opposed to binding authority)). 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,

Advertisement

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).}

P.S. The “License” posted for every city, county, state, AND COURT was purchased with WHAT? Federal Reserve Notes. 

PDF for Public Debt, Private Asset:

https://docplayer.net/27063701-Public-debt-private-asset.html

______________________________________________________

If you wish to contact the author of any reader submitted guest post, you can give us an email at UniversalOm432Hz@gmail.com 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

Advertisement

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here