Pay No Taxes legally -End the FED -synopsis page 8-Why are waiting for someone to do it for us like Ron paul

That is because you cannot accept the fact that the People are in control and not the Federal Government.

Please show me where in the Constitution, it would be a "function of the state rather than the Federal."

When Article III of the Constitution(s) clearly provides that power to the District Courts of the United States.

Then read the 10 amendment.

The District Courts of the united States are the venue for the Suitor and common law remedy.

You can "think" all you like, it does not change the Law of the land. You go subject you to a commercial court via your consent to be heard in a private venue and see how far that gets you.

Better yet, why don't you become pen pals with any number of "pay-tree-ots" in State and Federal prisons who have tried to get a law of the sea court to be governed by the law of the land.

To forget that all judges, state and federal, operate under the presumption of maritime/admiralty jurisdiction is legal suicide.

I am going to make this clear, a Judge cannot even act as an Article III judge without a suitor demanding it no matter what VENUE (local) the case is being filed.

Another fatal flaw is you think you need a Judge (of any Status) to agree with you, when in reality, you only need to be competent in your court and the District Court clerk will agree with you, as they are bound by laws to do.

Subject/peon mentality: "I need daddy government to tell me its okay for me to do this."

Sovereign/Suitor mentality: I am one of the people, I hold all powers, rights and privileges of any of my servants. Which includes that of holding an ordered and lawful court of record where my rulings have the force of law.

Opps, forgot to add, only Federal Court Judges can act as Article III judges when a suitor demands it.

That pesky Constitution again.

708 .. comments to your post in bold above.

613,

“… saving to suitors, in all cases the right of a common law remedy where the common law is competent to give it, and [the district courts] shall also have exclusive original cognizance [and culpability of the United States to protect your property rights] of all seizures on land…” First Judiciary Act; chapter 20, page 77. September 24, 1789."


There is the "black letter" law you need, look it up, it has not been repealed or changed. Now look at the SEAL of the US Treasury on any FRN/US Bank note from today. The date on the SEAL is 1789 because the remedy to the elastic, debt note is the common law remedy of demand by a suitor to a common law remedy to the contractual commercial LEGAL TENDER status of the Note.

The remedy provided in the 1879 "saving to the Suitor" clause extends to ALL CASES where common law is able to provide remedy, but the court to access that remedy is the exclusive jurisdiction of the District Courts, as already pointed out.

You are trying to use court records from people who have chosen to have their cases, for whatever reason, heard in the venue of a Civil/tort/contract admiralty court.

If you have a commercial contract with another and you or the other person breaks the contract, commits fraud (anything illegal)whatever, the State courts can handle it. And they must handle it if there has been no use of lawful money, no reservation of rights, and no restriction of endorsements on commercial agreements. You have no right to the common law remedy because you have not met the lawful requirements to do so. Thus no filing as a "Suitor" in any state or Federal Commercial courts.

When the offending party is the State(agents) and the violence, theft or Fraud is on the part of the STATE against a free man or woman who has only acted under a full reservation of rights, and use of lawful money, and the separation of the PERSON from the man or woman, then and only then does common law remedy apply. The courts with the original jurisdiction to handle it, are the District Courts of the united States.

If there is a remedy in common law, only a SUITOR has the right to that remedy.

If the subject matter is one (real, presumed or assumed)of contract (law of the sea), statute or commercial law, the remedy can be had in the civil courts.

Since a legis persona (peon) does not have any property (no lawful money = no allodial title, no land, no 'rights' in common law, that includes ones 'body'). There is no 'common law remedy'. And the case is jurisdiction of the lower law courts.

After a full reservation of rights by a living man or woman on all commercial agreements, and the demand and use for lawful money, the man or woman then has the RIGHT to a common law remedy where the common law is able to provide it.

That where is always have been, the District Courts of the united States accessed with lawful money and demand after a full reservation of rights to do so. The State or territorial courts, never have been, never will be the venue to access a common law remedy, even IF the common law is competent to give remedy.

That answers everything you have posted, from the start, and it is the exact same answer that has always been given.

It is pure folly to expect or demand a lower court to rule on a common law case or claim or even an unalienable right they have zero jurisdiction to do so.

Since anyone and everyone who does not demand redemption of lawful money is, in effect, in-a-lien to the Federal Reserve they are obligated to act accordingly, they have consented to lose their status as property owning, law abiding people via endorsement and unlawful acts.

The lien of the Federal Reserve indemnifies "all goods and services", and in all actions, one is presumed to be acting unlawfully and dishonorably by the use of private credit for public transactions.

No lawful money, no unalienable rights, no common law remedy, no suitor status, no lawful standing, no dry land, law of the land not applicable.

Which Judge, who endorses his/her deposits with extra-constitutional debt/credits (in direct violation of their oath of office) acting as an enemy to the law by doing so, is even qualified to sit in an Article III court and provide common law remedy?

Which attorney could stand in that venue and jurisdiction and honorably practice there?

All are in dishonor, as such, you will never see a lower court (what you call proof) ruling which you so desperately seek. You are seeking good fruit from a poisonous tree.

The rulings from an honorable man or woman, in a court of competent jurisdiction and recorded via an honorable and lawful transaction between the Suitor and the Clerk of the Court are more 'lawful' and enforceable than any ruling made by a de jure court or judge in a commercial court.

That includes SCOTUS.

That is the power of the people, served, recorded, noticed, sealed and adjudicated with prejudice.

More here: [link to www.constitution.org]

I don't know about everyone else, but I think this would be a good time to address the who, what, when, where and why of the term "suitor".

Anyone? Rken? 708?

Have really been enjoying this thread from afar.
I find it remarkable that it has held its shape so well. You guys have done a great job reigning it in.

Also really appreciate the occasional summary throughout.

Today, Suitor is legal speak for the man or woman making a claim or counter claim in Common law/law of the land jurisdiction. In the time when the Constitution was written, it generally applied only to white male land owners, also known as "We, the people".

It also means a living, breathing man or woman as opposed to a Defendant, a Plaintiff, Person, Corporation, Peon, US Citizen, slave which are all legal titles with no unalienable rights, but privileges given or taken at the whim of the master.

Even in normal definition, it is a male courting a woman.

I agree, Rken has done a great job and its been a great thread.

You can't crash the Federal Reserve, it's America's central bank and if it crashes then there will be widespread economic ramifications to it. If you think you will be able to get a job or even pay for basic necessities you are sadly mistaken. People will go berserk and loot your stash of stuff OP. If it's not the people then it will be the army and they've got bigger guns than you do. The government will wipe out 10% to 50% of the population to protect the central bank.

There's a good chance that people will die and it won't be just the bankers. If the NWO wanted to crash the Federal Reserve there would be massive depopulation in America.

Crashing the nation's central bank is against every Americans best interest.

You like riding with a drunk at the wheel, don't you?

Get ready it will occur soon. They will not be part of our grand future.

708...thank you for the information. it will take some time for me to digest this.

The connection between the remedy available under common law and the standing to obtain it (as you referenced, prior being white landowner males) makes intuitive sense to me. There is apparently a connection between the loss of standing in common law being available to "suitors" and the use of private credit via the federal reserve system. If I understood you correctly, all courts of record PRIOR to 1913 must then have been common law courts? I don't recall specifically, but I seem to remember case law from state courts prior to 1913. If the commercial/state/municipal courts are a function of the private credit/commercial transformation of prior free men and women taking place prior to 1913, what was the duty of the state courts and what, if any differences were there between the DcuS and the commercial courts prior to the fed reserve act of 1913?

Setting that aside, do the common law courts follow the same/similar procedures as the DcuS and state courts procedurally? In other words, is there a COMPLAINT filed by the suitor, followed by an answer, discovery, depositions, and ultimately a trial by jury? I would assume that there would be no such thing as a bench trial in common law as the judge is supposed to act only as arbiter. Is the result a finding of the cuort (court order)? Reading what you wrote earlier, it sounds like the DcuS clerk receives and files the claim by the suitor, but that the suitor essentially makes the file and serves the counter-party. If the counter-party does not challenge the facts, the suitor presses a claim which would be perfected by the peace officer (sheriff)? If the facts are contested, then (for matters exceeding $20) a jury trial would be held. But ultimately, is there an actual court order which would/could be presented to the local sheriff?

I have been reading the federal rules of criminal procedure to try and gain an understanding of the federal court system. Sounds like it wouldn't be applicable under a common law court?

You mention the common law remedy being available to white, landowning men. Is this still a requirement under common law?

slept for a few hours after posting the above and woke up with the following thoughts:

1) During the early years in the Republic when only white landowners were allowed to vote, they were essentially "free men upon the land"...in that free men assembled to make their laws and free men voted on them. By virtue of the fact that ALL of the voters had "skin in the game"...their land and freedom...it made perfect sense that they should have THE say in what and how laws were made. By extension, those same men entered into the courts on a "level" playing field.

The "hired hand" working for the landowners did not receive the right to vote. Because he "worked for another" for "wages", he did not enjoy the rights and freedoms of the landowners. It makes sense to me that once we became chattel of the federal reserve system, we, in the fullest sense, are truly "working for another". As such, we become the "hired hands" and follow the orders of our superiors while losing the rights of free men.

2) As an officer of a company, I can sign a document "personally" or as an agent of the corporation. Both are equally valid by "law" and recognized by the commercial courts. I can effortlessly go back and forth between identites by simply SIGNING a declaration to that effect. Similarly, if i endorse/sign a document and note that I am signing it personally or as an agent of the company, my legal rights and duties are hugely different. Signing as an agent of the corporation, I have theoretically limited my liability of the person and seperated the liabilities of both (fictitious) entities. It's like two corporations, and I can go back and forth between the essentially identical roles/functions WITH MY SIGNATURE. This is IDENTICAL to the endorsement that 708 and David Merrill are talking about vis a vis the duties and rights each form of currency imposes.

Civil law essentially treats the corporation and the "individual" identically. A fictitious corporate structure and a living, breathing man are treated identically in the commercial court system...which is to say...treated like serfs.

At my last court date, I appeared in response to a summons. Even though I had clearly physically "appeared", I had not filed an "appearance". The judge asked if I had filed an "appearance" with the clerk to which I replied I had not. He then ordered me to file an "appearance" within 7 days by order of the court. I asked him why I had to file an "appearance" when I had already clearly "appeared" in response to the summons. He replied that I "had to". I told him that I had "appeared" under threat of incarceration (via the summons) and now I was being ordered to file an "appearance" under threat of contempt of court. (the judge didn't directly threaten me, but it would be a possible sanction for refusing a court order, along with a default judgment. When I went to the clerks office, they had a standard "appearance" form which was very much along the lines of check-a-box and written for lawyers representing "another". I left and wrote my own as a special appearance, paid with redeemed lawful money, and reserving all rights. When I tried to file it with the clerk, they said they didn't know how to process such an appearance...I left and made a change (added the lawful money part since she wouldn't write on the appearance). I can see now that the court HAD to have an appearance or they couldn't see me. The appearance involved both the form and the payment, likely presumed to be federal reserve notes.(?).

As a side note, a few days after filing my custom "appearance" I received an amended MOTION of the "plaintiff's" law firm dismissing me from the case. I don't personally think it had to do with the lawful money or rights reservation in the appearance, but the argument I made in the special appearance motion to dismiss was strong and well grounded in state case (commercial) law. But I can't be 100% sure of that.

3) Exactly like "color of title" and "color of law", we are presently living under "color of freedom". A man's signature is important and defines his rights and responsibilities. Of that there can be little doubt.

i should have said...

..."hired hands" and follow the orders of our superiors while losing all rights (reserved)for free men

613, you got it. Now I introduce you to the 14th Amendment and the US Citizen of today.

The 14th basically states, everyone who wants to be treated 'equally' will be treated 'equally' as a Subject (peon) of the State.

Peon: {legal} A condition of enforced servitude by which a person is restrained of his or her liberty and compelled to labor in payment of some debt or obligation..

I would add, via endorsement of some debt or obligation. (consent of the governed)

"peon and peonage are derived from the Spanish peón [peˈon]. It has a range of meanings but its primary usage is to describe laborers with little control over their employment conditions." Which is what you called 'laborer'.

"of the United States [District of Columbia] and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". This is why the "jurisdiction challenge" in lower courts does not work.

Thank you for relating your life experience with the court. You appearing gave them one element of the jurisdiction they needed, you identified your living body as the 'person' they had on the Dock-ette, waiting to board their ship.

But, they needed your 'signature' appearance (CONTRACT) for proof of 'consent'. You had not given them consent until you told them, in writing, there was a commercial controversy for them to mediate/rule over you on, you admitted to them you were incompetent to handle your own affairs as a free man and needed them to settle it.

In fact, it is that element of their jurisdiction that started me on this path. Why, if they have lawful authority, do they need my signature on anything?

As for the District court in common law, I can only get you here:
[link to www.law.cornell.edu]

"XIII. SUPPLEMENTAL RULES FOR CERTAIN ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME CLAIMS

* A. Scope of Rules
* B. In Personam Actions: Attachment and Garnishment
* C. Actions in Rem: Special Provisions
* D. Possessory, Petitory, and Partition Actions
* E. Actions in Rem and Quasi in Rem: General Provisions
* F. Limitation of Liability
* G. Forfeiture Actions In Rem

Rule A. - Scope of Rules...(C) the procedure in statutory condemnation proceedings analogous to maritime actions in rem, whether within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction or not."

I cannot take you any further, as I have not been beyond this point in my personal journey. I can only say again, David is the one who blazed this path, and he has been down it to the end. Others have successfully done it as well.

Go to the source. Your last posts are dead on, you are have seen the matrix for what it is, and that is a giant step.

Thank you for allowing me to learn more and share what I do know.

708

Hi All

Lasted Update with the Bank

The bank refused my stated desire verbally, on the phone, to honor my demand that all transactions in regards my bank account be conducted in redeemed FRN's. But to this date I have not receive this in writing. Their reason was that I had signed a contract with them in signing the signature card when I opened the account and they were not willing to alter that agreement.

Upon presenting a second check drawn on my account for cash they crossed out the restricted signature "redeemed for Lawful money".

I had already copied the check before submitting it for payment. I consider my demand was made and therefore what they handed me was lawful money. They had no right to cross out my restriction and demand.

So I will continue to proceed with the Idea that all my transaction are indeed in lawful money until I receive notice in writing. I had my demand signed by the manager, stamped and dated. I believe they had 3 days to refute my claim in writing which they have not done. Comments are welcome

Things are getting interesting. rken

Last Edited by rken on 02/10/2011 03:20 PM

Are you going to withdraw all your funds (in lawful money, of course) and get a new bank?

They are using a common trick, blame it on the contract. Did you make them show you in the contract where they reserved the specific right to alter your endorsement instructions?

I would close that account and open a new one at a new bank and restrict all endorsements on all agreements with them, but say nothing about lawful money until you make your first deposit and restrict your endorsement on that too.

I seriously doubt anything in the contract you have gives them the right to tell you how to sign your name or what instructions to add to your endorsement.

Tell them to show you the stipulation or you will see them in court. (A common law court, of course) for violating your protected right to lawful money redemption.

Just random thoughts from the art of war.

Thanks for your thoughts

I am going to go shopping for a new Bank. By restricted endorsement I think you mean All Rights Reserved"

I did not have time when I last went to the bank to ask for the contract. I will do that tomorrow as I was frying some bigger fish at the time. Court would be desirable so that the question would be resolved for others.

My thinking that making my demand for lawfull money to be used in all transaction, would something they would have to respond to within a certain time frame. Failure would mean because they did not respond the presumption would be that my demand would be in force. rken

Rken,

Reservation of rights on a contract:

"§ 1-308. Performance or Acceptance Under Reservation of Rights.

(a) A party that with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as "without prejudice," "under protest," or the like are sufficient."

from: [link to www.law.cornell.edu]

Put clearly above your signature, "without prejudice" and your reservation of rights is complete.

Or:

VC before your contract.

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

"Vi coactus is a Latin term, abbreviated as V.C., and means: 'under constraint'. It is used to indicate an agreement made under duress."

Any contract savvy attorney will recognize the UCC form. Since it is the law/code, there is nothing they can do about it. They may try to intimidate you, but show them the UCC code and they will shut up.

Again, just saying "my lawyer" wants me to sign that way and laugh, it works very well if they notice it.

So here's the skinny on the the "Consumer Deposit Account Agreement and Disclosure statement that goes into effect when I signed my signature card.

Page 14

Checks bearing Notations. Although we are not obligated to, we may pay or accept checks and other Items bearing restriction or notations (eg Void after 6 mths" or "Void over $50. "Payment in Full" and the like, whether on the front or back, in any form or format. If you cash or deposit an item or write a check with such a notation you agree that it applies only between you and the payee or maker. The notation will have no effect on us, and you agree to accpt responsibility for payment of the item.

So there you have it. According to the Bank of Hawaii.

rken

One more reason to not "prejudice" any agreement with any business, they are not there for you or your protection, they are always for the sole purpose of protecting the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.​

If anything can be learned from this thread it is this:

Restrict ALL endorsements on ALL agreements.

technically ... I think you may have a case under full-disclosure ... the bank didn't do anything to disclose anything ... and you were frauded ...

however ...

a more friendly non-combative route maybe to say you incorrectly filled out the deposit slip (this is true) ... and would like to correct your errors ...

I must do this to the college up the street cause I gave them the wrong information .... filled out i was a resident, uscitizen the whole works ....

had good friend tell me best advice would be to go in there and admit I made a mistake in the information ... which is the truth... and change it accordingly


not saying you should take any of these routes just trying to give some soul food for thought...



remember half of the banks job is to keep up a Show!

Hi RKEN, Thanks for the update.

I have contended on this thread, per my personal interpretation of 12 USC 411, that the redemption process stipulated would require the frn's to be delivered to the federal reserve or treasury in washington, district of columbia. It seems logical that the commercial banks which are part of the federal reserve system MAY, at their discretion, accept your non-endorsement but that would require them to perform the redemption. Someone on here stated that would require the banks to maintain separate ledgers etc. which imposes a real cost to the business. Since you accepted the original terms, they would have to option to accept or reject the modifications to your terms.

IF 12 USC IMPOSED A DUTY FOR COMMERCIAL BANKS TO REDEEM FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE THE LUXURY OF ACCEPTING OR REJECTING THE REDEMPTION.

Also, have you read the entire agreement? What you posted was relative to "checks bearing notations". They reference restrictions in the examples relating to the terms of payment of the frn's primarily and UCC issues relating to discharge of debt (rather than payment in full). If the endorsement process is the keystone to this entire issue, there must be a paragraph explaining the endorsement process, what constitutes an acceptable endorsement, etc.

Personally, I am working directly with the source for redemption as specified in 12 usc 411. So far, I have no answer, but I am asking for clarification relative to the duty of commercial banks in the federal reserve system to perform redemptions. If you receive anything in writing relative to the banks refusal to redeem frn's, please pass it along.

1262354,

I agree with you on all points, there is a problem with it though.

The US Treasury is supposedly holding 300,000,000 gold in trust and has been since 1933/34. The Corporate Banks nor Government cannot and will not redeem any private credit for gold held in trust. It violates all trust laws if they tried.

That is why no business or person can demand a gold specie payment, accept via an express contract stating so.

If you want actual redemption in gold coin for your FRN or Credit, you will actually have to enter into a private contract with the US Treasury and those agents would have to get permission from Congress to do so, since the current agreement is already in place via Public law 73-10[ which was HJR 192] in 1933 and various other codes, treaties and agreements.

The entire IMF/Central Banking system is there to protect any creditor from getting their debts paid from the US in gold or silver specie.

The de jure US is under at least 3 states of emergency the last time I checked and has to act under those rules, or be in direct violation of their own Constitution(s).

You realize if the US actually redeemed even $1 in Gold specie, it would be considered an act of war and a violation of trust by every Creditor the US has?

I am going to say this: You will never see one FRN actually redeemed, the Courts have heard this argument over and over since the Civil War, the physical redemption you seek happened already in the 1800's and they took it all back in 1933/34.

The "New deal" is 100% in effect and nobody is going to change that.

You can demand your redemption, record that demand and control your personal signature endorsements, it is your Creator given right.

However, the redemption for private Credit notes (even ones issued by the US Treasury (US Bank Notes, Gold certs etc,) in Gold or silver coins (Constitutional lawful money) is currently null and void and that trumps the codified 12-USC-411 act for the Government and Banks.

Being one of the people (a Sovereign) only means you have control of you and your dealings with others and you cannot have your rights or property taken without just cause.

Once you are one of the people, you cannot mandate others to be held to the same standard when they are operating under the rules of foreign power (state of emergency/international/interstate treaties and maritime/admiralty jurisdictions.

But, knock yourself out, I am sure China will be contacting you if you can pull it off.

[link to www.financialsense.com]

Read that article from someone who actually had political standing and pull in Washington DC and tried to get even gold backed BONDS re-issued by the US.

Hi 708, appreciate all your help. I am still digesting all of this. It is incredible to me how detailed and pervasive is this fraud.

The US government has assigned, via the political process, an exclusive license to create "money" to the private federal reserve, the stock of which is held by select commercial banks. Every financial transaction using this delegated "money" serves as a binding contract of indentured servitude of "the people". In 1933, the wealth of the people, held in the form of gold coin, was extracted under duress, from the people and the reciprocal "value" paid in exchange to the people was in the form of worthless paper notes created as a result of this monopolistic franchise granted to the federal reserve, and "guaranteed" by the future labor of the very people from which the value was extracted. Apparently the gold so extracted was used as the basis of value for the issuance of the US NOTES, only 300 million dollars of which were put into "circulation". That parallel currency exists, but is not in use due to the ignorance of the people of their laws and constitutional rights. Use of the US NOTES is the only basis (aside from us mint coins) for which one can satisfy an obligation as "payment in full" as opposed to "discharge of debt".

(Discharge: To liberate or free; to terminate or extinguish. A discharge is the act or instrument by which a contract or agreement is ended. A mortgage is discharged if it has been carried out to the full extent originally contemplated or terminated prior to total execution).

(Discharge also means to release, as from legal confinement in prison or the military service, or from some legal obligation such as jury duty, or the payment of debts by a person who is bankrupt. The document that indicates that an individual has been legally released from the military service is called a discharge).

Since all transactions are in frn's, no debt is ever satisfied and debt continues to mount year after year, with interest being charged. Further, because use of federal reserve notes does not convey actual (allodial)title, or ownership, the people do not actually ever own anything, they are serfs upon the land, with the illusion of ownership, but in reality all of their possessions are subject to taxation and control of the state, including the states right to regulate and seize assets for almost unlimited reasons and rationale.

Many people claim that the federal government went bankrupt in 1933, 20 years after the federal reserve act of 1913. it would be logical that the us government would have to have security for any currency issued by it via US NOTES, which might be the 300 million of confiscated gold. That roughly translates to the 8 million ounces claimed to be held by the government at the $42/oz notational value showing up on the government balance sheet. So the us government has in essence "credit" for 300 million dollars that would actually extinguish debt. The rest is the private credit of the bankers, lent WITH INTEREST. The entire financial operation of this country is being conducted WITH INTEREST.

Essentially, a parallel legal system has been constructed to adjudicate the issues of the serfs and fictional corporate entities (which are also the fictional IDs of the serfs)and the entire population of the formerly wealthiest country in history has been shunted into this "new" system and systematically stripped of its assets, value and land. The banking industry not only has made paupers/peons of the "citizens" but stripped them of their constitutional rights, controls a standing army, navy and air force and nuclear resources through their absolute control of the political process.

I now wonder what the intent of the 700 billion bailout was, since the ability to create 700 billion has always been within the purview of the fed. Was the 700 billion used to buy treasuries from the chinese and saudis?

A couple of random questions. If the frn's are bifurcated (ie each half representing the "commitment" of the frn and treasury respectively and activated by action or redemption, why is the frn side not countersigned by the fed? The treasury side is signed by the Secretary of the treasury and the fed side is signed by the treasurer. if it is a federal reserve note, wouldn't the fed have to sign as a party (issuer or originator) to the note? Having a note signed by BOTH the secretary and treasurer seems redundant, since either party alone could bind the US to the debt under the federal reserve act of 1913.

If one cut a one dollar federal reserve note in half, the US seal appears on the reverse on the fed side...it would be expected to be on the treasury side. The "new order of the ages" and weird "all seeing" pyramid is on the treasury side, but seems more relevant to the private, watchful federal reserve.

I never really thought of the two seals appearing on the federal reserve note as being corporate seals...but that's exactly what they are. The treasury corporate seal is green, as are the serial numbers. everything else is in black ink. the reverse is entirely green. I know the us notes serial numbers are in red. Any significance to the color? I think i read on the thread that all contracts had to be signed in red. It makes sense since I have challenged documents in court relative to having the original and by signing in red it would provide a check that the document produced was not, if fact, an original. I am going to start doing that since almost all court documents are copied in black and white.

708, can you explain why the admiral/maritime law is relevant to any of this? If the state courts are by their nature adjudicating commercial and contractual matters,presumably entered by free choice of the parties, that would seem to be sufficient to preclude the conflicting tenants of common law from those courts. I don't understand how admiralty/maritime enters into any of this. I read on this thread that the us geological agency has designated high water marks to make areas of dry land maritime, but why bother? The us doesn't have jurisdiction in international waters and doesnt have jurisdiction outside of federal zones and areas under federal control and agency. However, by invoking contract law and the consent of the parties, the state and federal courts claim to acquire jurisdiction over a variety of matters.

Why is all of this information now just coming to the awareness of the people. Is the end of the fed at hand where it now doesnt matter? If so, what is coming to replace it?