Quoting: Anonymous Coward 7043507 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 31297288
... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 7043507
What about home births or other situations in which there was no exchange of money?
Was the birth (actually a nativity) recorded in any public arena/record? Was a midwife there? Was the event recorded in a family record (like a bible) with a witness?
It really is not relevant if the man or woman uses Federal Reserve Money (or accepts any benefit from the Government) as each of them are a contractual agreement and subjugation.
For example, there are thousands of people in prison in the US who are there without a US Birth Certificate.
Most likely, they have a BC from another "country" that is part of the IMF and they are still commercial property because of it.
Let's say no midwife and no record of the birth made ,no witness. Just parents present. Born in the U.S Are you saying that the mere act of using currency becomes a contractual agreement? A contract would require both parties to be cognizant of all obligations and responsibilities. The mere act of using currency could not be considered a contractual agreement.
Actions make contract. You are free to argue (in their courts) fraud by omission when it comes to the use of private currency (Federal Reserve Credit) if you would like.
The fact is, the Government relies on caveat emptor all the time. They are under no obligation to educate you on the law, there are free libraries to do that. The public notice is right there on the FRN:
"THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE"
Their only authorized used is spelled out in 12 USC 411. That is available on line and in public libraries free of charge, nothing obligates you to use them, nor is the government obligated to inform you of every obligation you take on by their use.
12 USC 411 spells out they are "redeemable in lawful money on demand" just because you are ignorant of the that fact and did not act on is not the Governments fault.
You (and everyone) is given a TRIAL if they want you in prison or property seized for good, you could bring up the fact the contract details were not fully disclosed, or you could tell them you would have been redeeming lawful money the whole time if you had known.
In that case, your argument would have legal standing (fraud by omission on the part of the Government or the Federal Reserve). But, nobody has done that.
"Ignorance of the law is not a valid defense" but fraud by omission is. The law is there, it is public record, you are just ignorant of it.