| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: Joe Kelley |
|
||||||||||||||
| Offer of Lesson 1 | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Sun Jan 5th, 2014 05:03 pm |
|
1st Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
In the effort to focus on one specific thing one step at a time: Step 1 is an offer of information: Federal Reserve Act Remedy Video Step 2 is a counter offer: I stopped at time 1:33 The reason I stopped is to point out what I consider to be a very serious error. The speaker's message I get is such that the speaker is claiming that there is legitimacy afforded to anything done at the Federal Level of government after 1787. I do no such thing. Why, I ask, would anyone afford any measure of legitimacy to the criminals who run the false federal government at any time after 1787? To me such a claim, or such an offer, of lending moral or material support to those criminals running the false Federal government after 1787 is an example of incuplatory evidence on its face. The only possible counter offer I can see, without my willful participation in the same crime, is to offer back the possible hope that my counter offer will be accepted, as I offer back the measure that the speaker is merely ignorant of the facts, and that forgiveness is afforded to the speaker, because the speaker didn't know the facts. Why should I proceed if such a grave error is so obviously self evident this early in the offer offered to me? Am I unspecific? “…to understand the authority behind remedy in the United States of America…” “…saving to suitors in all cases the right of a common law remedy where the common law is competent to give it…” “…allows for the exclusive original cognizance by congress and by The United States Government of all seizures on land. Therefore congress was required to write the remedy from elastic currency into section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act.” Where does the authority to punish anyone, anytime, anywhere, in this country come from? Moving on: “…no State shall make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debt… “(5) To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures.” “Considering these two clauses in the context intended by the founding fathers the United States of America does not have fiat currency, and it didn’t have fiat currency between 1789 and 1861.” That is patently false unless the words being used are of a duplicitous meaning, or my understanding of what actually happened between 1776 and 1861 is the source of the error. What is fiat currency? Who is a founding father, such as Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, John Adams, George Mason, Patrick Henry, and Luther Martin? Of those there are two very distinct groups who belong in their respective groups because one group sought to create and maintain fiat currency and the other sought to create and maintain defense of Liberty. Which group won in 1787? I really need to stop listening to this offer at this point as the offer comes from a foundation of quicksand and therefore the possibility of the offer finding solid ground is not likely in my view. I need help at this point.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Jan 6th, 2014 08:15 pm |
|
2nd Post |
|
Doug555 Guest
|
I agree that after the Articles of Confederation (ratified March 1, 1787) and the Northwest Ordinance (July 13, 1787), "legitimacy" was lost because the people who attended the Convention to revise said Articles were never authorized to draft a "Constitution". The concept of "authority" and "legitimacy", however, should start at the beginning, in Genesis, in Eden, where man was granted "dominion" until he did his own thing, and played God, producing mental constructs not endorsed by the Creator. Thereafter this entire world-matrix is illegitimate, unauthorized by the Creator. From then on, it is an ever-diminishing continuum of color of authority/law. So why start at 1787, or 1789? To me that is an arbitrary date along the fraud of "this world". So, perhaps I need to clarify "My Offering" entitled "Lesson 1". I offer only what I have been taught, to the best of my understanding. I do not offer to defend it. That may be David's job. I am only presenting what worked for me, and why I think it worked. You are surely welcome and entitled to go deeper than what I and David present, and I truly respect your questioning mind as that is how I am too, but I am not as good at it as you are.... yet... LOL. I really do appreciate your thought-provoking analysis and perspectives. It makes me THINK more... and QUESTION more. But at this point, while working full-time, I cannot answer the questions you are posing here, because they are deep questions and worthy deep thought and time, which I just cannot afford right now. So, I just want to clarify my offering... it is only a "mind-dump" of the state of state of David's technology because IT WORKED for me. Nothing else has to date, besides the conditional acceptance technology that stopped some debt collectors. I still encourage you to study all of David's work. I am still meditating on WHY it really works, and will share more ideas about that as time allows.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Jan 7th, 2014 10:55 am |
|
3rd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Doug, When you get a chance, please consider going back to a step by step process of transferring the knowledge you have discovered and have used effectively. I have books. When I sell these books and I receive more in return than the replacement cost for these books, if that happens, then I will have a means by which I can build up a FUND. That may happen in real time. I will most likely be offered Federal Reserve Notes in exchange for the books I offer. I will ask for 10 units of that fraud money, for each book. The replacement cost for each printed book is roughly 5 units of fraud money as the printers demand fraud money for their service of printing my book. I have to eat, sleep, and stay alive in order to write books for my exchanges of useful things with other people, so the unit price of each book is more than the replacement cost of the book already printed. If there is a demand for many books, which is possible, not likely, but possible, then there is a possibility that my book writing business may generate more income and income may exceed costs by a wide margin. If that happens then this idea of a FUND becomes more than an idea, it become a reality. Supposing I had in my hand a measure of this FUND and that measure was a check for 10,000 units of fraud money or 10,000 Federal Reserve False Promises to Pay. I have that, suppose, then what is my next step as far as you know? If I don't like your offer, because it is still foreign to me, then I can ask specific questions concerning what happens to that measure of Surplus Wealth, or Purchasing Power, in that form of 10,000 units of fraud money. Is it better to focus upon a specific record of Surplus Wealth/Purchasing Power such as a Silver coin? What if I take that 10,000 units of fraud money I earn by selling many books and I buy Silver coins with that "check" or with that stack of FRNs? What do I do as far as me wanting to do something with my FUND? My FUND is nothing at the moment, and what I want to do with anything that may become my FUND is to disconnect my life from the criminals who steal it with their crime of legal fraud which is denominated in FRNs. I tried to get this posted on your Blog but the web page began shutting down, and I tried to reload the blog page, and then it started producing error messages. Cut and Paste: Whoops, that's an error. We apologize for the inconvenience. Try refreshing the page to see if things are back in order.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Jan 7th, 2014 05:48 pm |
|
4th Post |
|
Doug555 Guest
|
Lawful Money Demands - Getting Started First, just decide when you want to stop using Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs), and start using United States Notes (USNs). Then, on that date, simply hand-write the demand as I propose above on a deposit slip or check that you issue. Keep doing that all year, just to create a preponderance of evidence. That date then becomes the starting date of your technically not using FRNs, but instead you are now using USNs in the form of presumed FRNs which will be redeemed by the IRS via 1040 Form on Line 21, which will be the grand total of all amounts of all transactions for the tax year, starting from your starting date. It is not our job to prevent the presumed use of FRNs. 12 USC 411 explains our job is to just demand lawful money. The 1040 is the vehicle used by them to reconcile the accounting annually. So there is no problem with using presumed FRNs for your business. It will be corrected on the 1040, where you have substantive proof that FRNs were never used. You do not have to wait to accumulate a FUND and then redeem that fund. In fact, that won't work, because you need to record your demand FIRST before you can start adding USNs to that FUND. FRNs and USNs both exist on that same piece of paper. Your demand determines what type of currency it is - private credit (FRN), or public money (USN). The piece of paper is neutral, but the default choice is FRNs. Does this make sense? If not, there is more at: http://iuvdeposit.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/lawful-money-demands-getting-started/]
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Jan 7th, 2014 10:43 pm |
|
5th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Doug, Now I may be able to put some foundation on this thing; however there are problems I already see with me personally. I have no personal reason to go to any bank. A fictitious person, or personal experience may be in order. It is even possible to work 3 competitive avenues as such: 1. Me personally planning ahead in case I return to a situation where measures of Purchasing Power are given to me in exchange for measures of Purchasing Power that I earn in some way - the book writing business. 2. Theoretical person that can be imagined into being for the purpose of moving this person along in a story line that is then useful for explaining the process by which the Fraud FUND ends in this country by a certain date such as July 4th, 2014. 3. Your personal experience along this path. I'm going to cut off this reply at this point instead of digging in deep with the information you offered in your last response.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Jan 10th, 2014 03:59 pm |
|
6th Post |
|
Doug555 Guest
|
Joe Kelley wrote:Doug, http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1066-ATM-card-DEBIT-vs-CREDIT-option&p=12526#post12526 Above link may answer the AUTHORITY for 12 USC 411 issue. A PDF version of above is at: https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B8BdR0w2oZY_bXAtbTRnekkzT1k&usp=sharing To answer your post: You don't need a bank account. You can record an Affidavit instead. See https://drive.google.com/?tab=mo&authuser=0#folders/0B8BdR0w2oZY_RUh4T214dEFuY28 Why not use the fiction provided you at birth? Open a bank account and a Paypal account for that PERSON to make business MUCH easier. I started just by writing my demand on checks and deposit slips for my bank account.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Jan 11th, 2014 02:26 pm |
|
7th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Doug,Why not use the fiction provided you at birth? Open a bank account and a Paypal account for that PERSON to make business MUCH easier. You and I are worlds apart in many ways. I could explain in detail, but the point is that we will have difficulty communicating. So... I pick out words that are assembled by you as you seek to accomplish a goal that we both agree to share, and with those recognizable arrangements of symbols I can build the bridge from my side, reaching for your side. That quote above is an exemplary arrangement of symbols that I can recognize as a part of my own world. So... Step 1 when someone, anyone, proceeds from not using the fiction provided at birth to the goal of using the fiction provided at birth. I can get past the words that constitute a crime in progress, such as the word "provided," and I can merely look at each step of the way, as I set aside the obvious, accurate, measures of the crime in progress. A person decides to utilize something that exists and this thing that exists is called a fiction, and this fiction exists along side a human being who was not born, and then is born in time and space. Before is no human being being born. After is a human being having been born. In that time and place there is something called a fiction that appears into reality in some form at that time when that human being is born. The human being connected to that fiction can decide to utilize that fiction in some way. So steps have already occurred as such: 1. Human being is born 2. Fiction exists and is connected in some way to the human being that is born 3. Human being connected in some way to the fiction decides to USE or UTILIZE the fiction 4. Next step A source of confusion: Open a bank account and a Paypal account for that PERSON to make business MUCH easier. AND: To answer your post: You don't need a bank account. You can record an Affidavit instead. Often is the case where an obvious source of confusion is not precisely identified, and the shared goal of accurate communication is no longer possible?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Jan 11th, 2014 02:58 pm |
|
8th Post |
|
Doug555 Guest
|
I can accept that... And suggest that you work with David Merrill directly and the new Lessons he will soon provide on http://www.lawfulmoneytrust.com/ I am focusing on Lysander Spooner'a Trial by Jury audios right now, and on the duties of being a temporary county organizer...
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Jan 11th, 2014 03:10 pm |
|
9th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Doug, As far as I know I cannot communicate with David Merrill. The last I heard was that my acceptance onto his Forum was blocked. I see a problem with Dictatorial (one way) connections. I see problems with connections that intend to be shared (two way) connections when those connections fail to reach the goal of being shared connections. This is not a new problem to me. I can accept that... What do you think I offered to you; whereby you "accept" whatever it is you think I offered to you? I can't serve two masters. I can't get a bank account while I don't get a bank account. That is why I offered 3 ways to fix the communication problem. 1. Me personally will, or will not, get a bank account. I take this (as yet not known) step to reach that goal. 2. Fictional person A does get a bank account and Fictional person A takes this (as yet not known) step to reach that goal. Fictional person B does not get a bank account and fictional person B proceeds along the path that reaches for an Affidavit (for some unknown reasoning as yet) instead of getting a bank account. 3. You were at a place and time in your past, and then you got a bank account along this path, step by step, or you did not get one. If you did not get a bank account, then you proceeded along, step by step, to reach the goal of getting an Affidavit (for a reason that you understood). Now, I may be asking too much, I understand that fully. My questions often put people on the defensive, and then I ask why? Often someone says that I said this or that, and I often respond with an offer along the lines of no, I did not say that, as my words were precisely this, and my words were definitely not that, so now it can be understood that I definitely did not say what someone thought I said, and it could be understood that I definitely did say what I did say. That arrangement of words in that last paragraph could be "The story of my life" in one paragraph.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Jan 19th, 2014 09:52 am |
|
10th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Doug, Fictional person ideally will do the following? 1. Get a bank account (not get an affidavit) 2. Get an affidavit (not get a bank account)
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Jan 19th, 2014 10:11 am |
|
11th Post |
|
Doug555 Guest
|
1. Get a bank account An affidavit can only be done by a man who can testify/utter to it in open court.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Jan 19th, 2014 01:14 pm |
|
12th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
My immediate response to the advice of "get a bank account" is to look HERE. I do not intend to obfuscate the messages offered in this learning experience; the bank account idea that immediately forms in my mind is that Utah Gold and Silver Bank idea if my intention is to accumulate a FUND of Legal Purchasing Power or "savings account," and so that is my response to the bank account idea. If the intention is to have a multipurpose bank account used for both saving and current transactions (currency), then it may be a good idea at this time to identify that multipurpose bank account idea, or to specify otherwise? So forming one question: Is the bank account idea an idea involving multipurposes or a single purpose: either savings or commerce (equitable commerce)?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Jan 19th, 2014 02:38 pm |
|
13th Post |
|
Doug555 Guest
|
I recommend opening a non-interest bearing checking account only. Then open a Paypal account and connect it to this checking account to facilitate eCommerce... like John Darash has. You can try adding the demand for lawful money to the "signature card", but it is not necessary, as the demand on the checks/deposit slips will create substantive evidence.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Jan 19th, 2014 05:32 pm |
|
14th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Is there any preference as to the Bank where the checking account is opened? I could open an account for my book sales, but that effort is on hold because the printers misprinted my first 100 copies; which used up my investment fund. So I have to look for minimum balance charges and other considerations. Moving from me personally to the hypothetical redeemer of lawful money I suppose I can imagine a checking account in a bank and move from that step to the opening of a PayPal account. I don't know if you are familiar with Pay Pal Wars; as that is a significant part of modern American history. Elon Musk, and Peter Thiel were in on that Start-up, and that endeavor inspired the creation of the CAPTCHA (an acronym for "Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart") process. Non-interest bearing checking account account, Pay Pal account, and then demands on checks and deposits - including the initial deposit to start the account?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Jan 19th, 2014 06:28 pm |
|
15th Post |
|
Doug555 Guest
|
"Any preference as to the Bank where the checking account is opened?" I prefer local smaller banks who offer free checking... not the big chains like BOA, Wells Fargo, etc who are not as customer-friendly.. "Non-interest bearing checking account account, Pay Pal account, and then demands on checks and deposits - including the initial deposit to start the account?" Perfect!
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Jan 19th, 2014 06:47 pm |
|
16th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Supposing the redeemer has 100 of those fraudulent Federal Reserve Notes, such as 10 so called 10 dollar bills: how are the demands demanded during the process of opening a bank account that will be connected to Pay Pal or other competitive eCommerce services? I arrive at the bank, I have 100 units of legal fraud, and I demand that my deposit be redeemed and I also ask that my redeemed (no longer fraudulent) legal tender be connected to at least one competitive eCommerce service? One thing at a time: How is the demand made by which the fraud is nullified?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Jan 19th, 2014 07:01 pm |
|
17th Post |
|
Doug555 Guest
|
Joe Kelley wrote:Supposing the redeemer has 100 of those fraudulent Federal Reserve Notes, such as 10 so called 10 dollar bills: how are the demands demanded during the process of opening a bank account that will be connected to Pay Pal or other competitive eCommerce services? Handprint the demand on the very 1st deposit slip, just under your name & address. Once scanned into their system you demand has become substantive evidence by their rules of evidence (FRE 803(6). Your demand is now registered as affecting ALL transactions. It gets nullified annually via 1040, line 21.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Jan 19th, 2014 07:06 pm |
|
18th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
How is that demand worded?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Jan 19th, 2014 07:37 pm |
|
19th Post |
|
Doug555 Guest
|
lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2)
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Jan 19th, 2014 07:51 pm |
|
20th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Here: 12 U.S.C. § 95a (2) Any payment, conveyance, transfer, assignment, or delivery of property or interest therein, made to or for the account of the United States, or as otherwise directed, pursuant to this section or any rule, regulation, instruction, or direction issued hereunder shall to the extent thereof be a full acquittance and discharge for all purposes of the obligation of the person making the same; and no person shall be held liable in any court for or in respect to anything done or omitted in good faith in connection with the administration of, or in pursuance of and in reliance on, this section, or any rule, regulation, instruction, or direction issued hereunder.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 04:39 pm | |
| Power Independence > National Liberty Alliance > DUE PROCESS > Offer of Lesson 1 | Top |
