HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid?

GL, if it has anything to do with government or banking in the US, it is all fraud because full disclosure was not made at the time you signed the contract (recorded your property, applied for a SS card, exchanged your note for theirs, etc.).

shimbumi

you are right. Its just like eating chips. LOL

So anyways any sites or books you can point me too for further research?

EVEN CAR PARKING IS FRAUD. YOU BUY A TICKET, ENTER INTO A CONTRACT. THE NOTICE THAT THEY ARE NOT LIABLE TO FOR DAMGE OR THEFT IS NOT VALID AS THEY ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT FOR VALUE WITH YOU THEY CANNOT VOID THEIR OBLIGATIONS IN LAW.

BY DECEPTION WAGE WAR, DOES NOT MEAN FIGHT, IT MEANS ROB YOU BLIND, DEFRAUD YOU, MAKE YOU SUBJECT OT HATE CRIMES, MAKE YOU FEEL GUILTY FOR BEING RAPED.

GL

visit teamlaw.org

ENTERTAINING YET TRUE!

what that one sheep said was true...there is a lot of bullshit and disinformation on websites....and bullshit is easy to accept as real if you don't know the BASICS.

first thing..look up and understand the words I posted above and really UNDERSTAND what they mean.

next...after you understand what a SOVERIGN citizen is....and you've decided whether or not that's what you are or want to become...

look up the US supreme court decision YICK WO v. Hopkins and read it.

WARNING...there are a ton of websites that dissect this case and decide one way or another what it means.

Read the actual WHOLE case.

If you look for someone to interpret everything for you, as websites want to do...you will never learn the whole truth.

shimbumi2

Thanks for the info and resources. I will do like you say.

also, watch out for "Paytriot$"

seriously dude....once you learn the truth, you will become a new man...you will look to the future with excitement and optimism.

then you can start learning about the frauds of the medical industry, law/lawyers/nutrition, etc.

LIVE AS A FREE MAN and unshackle yourself.

Heck ya! :)

Although, I'd still have liked to rebel against those bastards :/


You killed my fap...

nothing stopping you...just play the game your way, not theirs

if you do what those sites recommend, you'll not only owe a lot more money in the end, you just might end up in jail (for contempt of court at least).

can't argue with that logic...

Yeah, I am going to do it the way you said Shimbumi2. Doing my own research. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

NP dude...let me know if you need any assistance

Anyone studying this material is well advised to learn the difference between the UNITED STATES (INC) and the United States of America: [link to www.usofavus.com]

Alfred Adask is on First Amendment Radio every weekday evening and talks about this stuff. [link to wwfar.com]

This is supposed to be a valid link to his site, but the site is not found right now:
[link to www.adask.net]

You're not borrowing "money" you are merely having numbers representing money transferred from one account to another..If its not gole or silver ,its,not money , its fiat currency, created out of thin air

Using the ExemptionWhat so you say when the judge asks why you have a right to use the exemption as we call it? Below is what we have learned to say:
What gives you the right to do this/What did you give?"
The instrument tendered in discharge of this debt is an "Obligation of THE UNITED STATES," under Title 18 USC Sect.8, representing as the definition provides a "certificate of indebtedness ….drawn upon an authorized officer of the United States," (in this case the Secretary of the Treasury) "issued under an Act of Congress" (in this case public law 73-10, HJR-192 of 1933 and Title 31 USC 3123), which establish this and provide for its issuance as "Public Policy" in remedy for discharge of equity interest recovery on the public debt to its Principals, and Sureties who are bearing the Obligations of THE UNITED STATES.To my knowledge, This is a statutory remedy for equity interest recovery due the principles and sureties of the United States for discharge of lawful debts in commerce in conjunction with US obligations to the public debt.
This has been a difficult concept for others to grasp and to know how to use it, so its never gained common use.
But It is a fact:, During the financial crisis of the depression, in 1933 substance of gold, silver and real money was removed as a foundation for our financial system.
In its place the substance of the nation was, in effect, hypothecated by the government as the collateral for US debt, credit and currency for commerce to function.
This is well documented from the laws passed by Congress at that time, and if the Court questions this I will be happy to provide that information for its review.
But It is a fact: The entire financial reorganization of the United States continues on from 1933 backed by the private assets and wealth of that class of persons by whom it is owned, at risk backing the government's obligations and currency by their implied consent, through the government having provided remedy for recovery of what is due them on their assets and wealth at risk.
And even though the right to the remedy is not commonly understood, it is still an obligation the United States has bound itself to and has provided for in statutory law. and the United States still accepts these non-cash accrual exchanges today as a matter of law and equity. This is my understanding of the reason for this, your honor, but there may be others I do not know of.
It is a fact: Title 31 USC 3123 makes a statutory pledge of the United States government to payment of obligations and interest on the public debt.
It says, "the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay interest due or accrued on the public debt" and further delineates a portion of the total public debt which is held by the public, [you and me], as "the net public debt".
It is a fact: Title 18 Sect. 8 defines "obligation of the United States"..."to include" all certificates of indebtedness drawn upon authorized officers of the United States issued under any Act of Congress," which of course includes the Secretary of the Treasury, And of course includes public law 73-10, HJR-192 which provides for its issuance as "Public Policy" in remedy for discharge of equity interest recovery on that portion of the public debt to its Principals, and Sureties bearing the Obligations of THE UNITED STATES.It is also a fact, every day the United States Treasury department receives dozens or hundreds of such instruments making claims of this type. Some are valid and some are not.
And It is a fact: There are only 3 official government directives or alerts that address spurious, fraudulent, fictitious, or otherwise invalid, instruments sent to the US Treasury for payment, and only one that officially states what is to be official US government policy and treatment of them if they are received, this is ALERT 99-10: which is also published on the government website for the United States Treasury: [link to www.publicdebt] [url may be incorrect; try searching under Frauds and Phonies]It says: " Any of these instruments that are presented to the U. S. Treasury for payment will be returned to the sender."
So as we told them, get them to send it on in and if its not any good, it will comeback, just like a bad check. But they wouldn't do that and so we are here today.
I would ask what facts would our opponent or the Court dispute?
Would the Court dispute the fact the substance of those legal classes of persons:
their real property, wealth, assets, and labor that belongs to them, has been pledged by the government and placed at risk as the collateral that is now backing the obligations of the United States as Congress plainly declares?
Would the Court claim remedy for recovery on their risk is not what has been provided in the statutes we have cited here? And that this is not an acknowledged obligation of the United Stated as shown here?
Your honor, We didn't create the financial reorganization in 1933 or the basis it is built on. We weren't born.
I didn't define the terms to be what they are
or write the laws of Congress the way they have written them to provide the right to access such remedy in the way they have done it. But I would respectfully suggest that plaintiff and the honorable Court are going to have to accept what Congress has provided for in this Country in discharge of the public debt to those whom it is due, or somehow show in law that this is not so.
Congress has defined ‘Obligation of the United States’,It has defined those classes of persons who have right to access this remedy on the obligation of the United States due them in discharge of the public debt in the way that Congress has provided.
What more can we say? This is the way it is.
If our opponent wants to show otherwise they are free to do so if they can.
To my knowledge this is a lawful means of discharge of debt against the obligation of the United States for equity interest recovery due in discharge of the public debt. I have not seen or been presented with any evidence to the contrary, and I am of the firm belief there is none.
The objective is to establish on the record the facts in a way they cannot refute you and do not have the facts or evidence to show otherwise.

(formatting correction) Using the Exemption
What so you say when the judge asks why you have a right to use the exemption as we call it? Below is what we have learned to say:

What gives you the right to do this/What did you give?"

The instrument tendered in discharge of this debt is an "Obligation of THE UNITED STATES," under Title 18 USC Sect.8, representing as the definition provides a "certificate of indebtedness ….drawn upon an authorized officer of the United States," (in this case the Secretary of the Treasury) "issued under an Act of Congress" (in this case public law 73-10, HJR-192 of 1933 and Title 31 USC 3123), which establish this and provide for its issuance as "Public Policy" in remedy for discharge of equity interest recovery on the public debt to its Principals, and Sureties who are bearing the Obligations of THE UNITED STATES.
To my knowledge, This is a statutory remedy for equity interest recovery due the principles and sureties of the United States for discharge of lawful debts in commerce in conjunction with US obligations to the public debt.

This has been a difficult concept for others to grasp and to know how to use it, so its never gained common use.

But It is a fact:, During the financial crisis of the depression, in 1933 substance of gold, silver and real money was removed as a foundation for our financial system.

In its place the substance of the nation was, in effect, hypothecated by the government as the collateral for US debt, credit and currency for commerce to function.

This is well documented from the laws passed by Congress at that time, and if the Court questions this I will be happy to provide that information for its review.

But It is a fact: The entire financial reorganization of the United States continues on from 1933 backed by the private assets and wealth of that class of persons by whom it is owned, at risk backing the government's obligations and currency by their implied consent, through the government having provided remedy for recovery of what is due them on their assets and wealth at risk.

And even though the right to the remedy is not commonly understood, it is still an obligation the United States has bound itself to and has provided for in statutory law. and the United States still accepts these non-cash accrual exchanges today as a matter of law and equity. This is my understanding of the reason for this, your honor, but there may be others I do not know of.

It is a fact: Title 31 USC 3123 makes a statutory pledge of the United States government to payment of obligations and interest on the public debt.

It says, "the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay interest due or accrued on the public debt" and further delineates a portion of the total public debt which is held by the public, [you and me], as "the net public debt".

It is a fact: Title 18 Sect. 8 defines "obligation of the United States"..."to include" all certificates of indebtedness drawn upon authorized officers of the United States issued under any Act of Congress," which of course includes the Secretary of the Treasury, And of course includes public law 73-10, HJR-192 which provides for its issuance as "Public Policy" in remedy for discharge of equity interest recovery on that portion of the public debt to its Principals, and Sureties bearing the Obligations of THE UNITED STATES.
It is also a fact, every day the United States Treasury department receives dozens or hundreds of such instruments making claims of this type. Some are valid and some are not.

And It is a fact: There are only 3 official government directives or alerts that address spurious, fraudulent, fictitious, or otherwise invalid, instruments sent to the US Treasury for payment, and only one that officially states what is to be official US government policy and treatment of them if they are received, this is ALERT 99-10: which is also published on the government website for the United States Treasury: [link to www.publicdebt] [url may be incorrect; try searching under Frauds and Phonies]
It says: " Any of these instruments that are presented to the U. S. Treasury for payment will be returned to the sender."

So as we told them, get them to send it on in and if its not any good, it will comeback, just like a bad check. But they wouldn't do that and so we are here today.

I would ask what facts would our opponent or the Court dispute?

Would the Court dispute the fact the substance of those legal classes of persons: their real property, wealth, assets, and labor that belongs to them, has been pledged by the government and placed at risk as the collateral that is now backing the obligations of the United States as Congress plainly declares?
Would the Court claim remedy for recovery on their risk is not what has been provided in the statutes we have cited here? And that this is not an acknowledged obligation of the United Stated as shown here?

Your honor, We didn't create the financial reorganization in 1933 or the basis it is built on. We weren't born.

I didn't define the terms to be what they are or write the laws of Congress the way they have written them to provide the right to access such remedy in the way they have done it. But I would respectfully suggest that plaintiff and the honorable Court are going to have to accept what Congress has provided for in this Country in discharge of the public debt to those whom it is due, or somehow show in law that this is not so.
Congress has defined ‘Obligation of the United States’,
It has defined those classes of persons who have right to access this remedy on the obligation of the United States due them in discharge of the public debt in the way that Congress has provided.

What more can we say? This is the way it is.

If our opponent wants to show otherwise they are free to do so if they can.

To my knowledge this is a lawful means of discharge of debt against the obligation of the United States for equity interest recovery due in discharge of the public debt. I have not seen or been presented with any evidence to the contrary, and I am of the firm belief there is none.

The objective is to establish on the record the facts in a way they cannot refute you and do not have the facts or evidence to show otherwise.

MIDNIGHT FEAST TO LIGHTEN THE GLOOM.

GL

actually, the Federal Reserve Note is nothing more than a "promise to pay", backed by the "full faith and credit" of the United States Government. funny.

Two problems with this...the United States Government is a CORPORATION, and for all intents and purposes is bankrupt. So the guaranteed "promise to pay" is being backed by a bankrupt entity.

The soverign united States government makes no such promises, nor did they need to because the real and genuine MONEY of the united States (soverign) is gold and silver. So that when one receives payment in LAWFUL money of gold and silver coin, one has been PAID in lawful money and has paid or satisfied an obligation IN FULL. It's not a promise of future payment from some third party...it's payment on the spot.

Conversely, when one "discharges a debt", one is "tendering" an IOU/note in payment of a debt, but the debt is in reality not paid, it is shifted. If the party to whom the IOU is given realizes the default, their claim lies with the original debtor, since the debtor has not "paid their debt"

in other words, if I give you an IOU to settle a $10 debt, and you give that IOU in payment of you debt to a third party...the third party tries to collect on the IOU from me, and I tell him I will not pay. Is your debt to the third party satisfied under law?? NO.

That's the musical chairs game being played with the Federal reserve notes presently. the world is awash with them, and no one wants to be holding the bag when joe six pack finds out the truth.

the federal reserve note removed the words from the paper saing that they could be redeemed in gold or silver---lawful money---many years ago...so one can never truly pay their debts...they can only shift or discharge them to the government..which is bankrupt...and the government holds YOUR title to vehicles and houses/property...YOu don't own SHIT, jack...unless you knoiw what you're doing. And mainstream media isn't talking because they represent the interests of the shitheads that did all this.

so..the implications, and solutions are profound in their complexity and simplicity. Think about that truth and you will know what to do.

Free books on line For Your Interest:

Jonathan Duncan, The Bank Charter Act
[link to www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com]
The third chapter on the Origin of Coin is historically interesting.

Sarah Emery, Seven Financial Conspiracies
[link to www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com]
The Sarah Emery book is especially good at revealing discussion and acts
of law that happened around the time of the Civil War. Scroll down the
index to the "Exemption Act" and "Abraham Lincoln."

Peter Cooper, Ideas for good government
[link to www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com]

Retford Currency Society
[link to www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com]

Arthur Kitson, The Money Problem
[link to www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com]

William Berkey, The Money Question
[link to www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com]

Thomas Jefferson on money and banking
[link to www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com]

S.M. Brice, Financial Catechism
[link to www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com]

Ignatius Donnelly, The American People's Money
[link to www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com]

Senators Benton, Calhoun, Webster on money
[link to www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com]

William Royall, Andrew Jackson and the Bank
[link to www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com]

McNair Wilson, Monarchy or Money Power
[link to www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com]

Some of these books (linked from the links above) have been put on the
net using the .arj compression software. You might need to download the
software if you are using an older machine.
[link to mysite.verizon.net]

The previous links I posted are all old history.

Been there and done that.

Here is some conjecture about the possible future of money; read this and the next chapter: [link to www.thememorybank.co.uk]

BrokeAC,

Listen pal. The Bank of England have got you by the short and curlies so shut the fuck up and get back to work.

S2, CAN YOU THROW SOME LIGHT ON THE ORIGINAL HEIST, THE MAJOR STING. A USD 100 DEBT NOTE COST 3 CENTS TO PRINT ( SOURCE HIDDEN BY "CONTRACTING TO TREASURY TO DO THIS")

THAT NOTE IS THEN SOLD FOR USD 100 IN EXCHANGE FOR A TREASURY BILL AT AN AGREED INTEST RATE.

WHO POCKETS THE USD 99.97 AND HOW DO THEY HIDE IT.

GL

Nice job guys.

Shimbumi2 I am looking at local state laws. It seems I need to determine whether NJ is an 'original document state'.


If it is then not even a certified copy of the note will be admissable in court.

Here are the links I found and am reading through to determine if original document is necessary in court.

[link to www.judiciary.state.nj.us]


[link to www.judiciary.state.nj.us]

I hope these are the right ones.

I still have to read the Yick vs Hopkins and will do so tonight hopefully.