There have been so many papers written about the REDEMPTION PROCESS and yet there seems a lack
for understanding the basic concepts.
REDEMPTION was the initial path taken by people who know they are free but see no hope in the
judicial system as it is practiced.
It is vitally important for understanding how the people in the government turned our lives upside down
and have made us believe that We are subject under them; when in reality they are subject under We The
People-every being is part and partial for We The People. The important points:
1. In 1871 the Federal Government formed itself into a CORPORATION and pulled itself from
under the Constitution.
2. In 1913 the Federal Reserve Central Banks were created.
3. In 1933 President Roosevelt put into effect the "Trading with the Enemies Act". This applied
only for Federal Citizens.
4. In 1933 President Roosevelt took the Gold away from the People-although they were not required
for giving it away-thereby leaving the people without "Money"for paying “DEBTS” with.
5. In 1933 President Roosevelt passed HJR 192 June 5, 1933-simply put-since the government had
taken the Gold, the people had no "Money"-the government would pay the "DEBTS" for the
people-DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR-thereby giving the people-unlimited Credit.
6. In 1938 Erie Railroad vs. Tompkins made CONTRACTS the rule in our Courts.
7. In 1946 we lost our government and courts through the Administrative Procedures Act.
8. In 1965, silver was taken away as a means for paying “DEBT”, the UCC became the supreme law for
America concerning the Banking System, the courts were pulled together in Administrative/Admiralty
and Civil (Contract or Commerce/Corporation), and the Act and Intent were brought together thereby
taking away your plea of Innocent. You had to prove there was no Intent. Guilty until proven innocent -
changing the often quoted...you are innocent until "proven" guilty.
The Money Order For Gold
The Democracy on April 5, 1933 issued an Executive Order removing the gold
from circulation as a currency. This Executive Order served the same function as a
money order to the United States People for the purchase of all the gold in society. Gold
is substance and was used in the "payment of debt." When the President wrote the
money order for all of the gold to be taken out of the system and placed with the
government, the government then removed the people's ability to "pay a debt" because
they didn't have any money to pay with. The golden rule is usually summed up in "HE
who has the gold makes the rules", well sounds mosaic to Me. Here is another part of
the golden rule they don't tell you about "He who has the gold pays the bills." They got
the money; they make the payments. The government then became indebted to the
people to pay all of the debts because the government was holding all of the money.
You ever heard the phrase "All money is loaned into existence", well that is right
because they are borrowing it from Me. The money order debited the people by
removing the gold from their possession, which in turn credited the United States
Government with all of the newly held gold in their possession. This exchange is
halfway completed because the gold was taken from the people and nothing had yet
been returned. The people now need something in this exchange to balance out the
ledger and re-credit their original holdings. To complete the exchange, the United States
Government debited them selves with a promissory note (the promise of Abraham),
which in return re-credited the people. This was the executing order from the President
killing the legal capacity of the Government to control the people. The government was
then dead/debt (phonetically it sounds similar). Here is another interesting part. The
debtor always has the money because he is the one borrowing it, so when the President
wrote the money order which took the gold, they became the borrower/debtor, and that
is why there is a Public Debt, it is because they are borrowing the money from Us, the
Owner. What must happen now is the debt must be redeemed back to the original
owner. Here is the Executive Order (money order) that killed the government and made
them the ones liable for every debt they associate to. When you see "Executive" think,
"execute" and when you see "order," think "money order."
Because all the money was taken away in an executive order (money order), the
President is holding all the money that can pay the bills. Here is an example. A national
emergency occurs and an executive order is issued and money can now be sent to the
victims. Another example is when Mexico got money from the U.S. The Congress said
no but then the President by executive order, then sent the money. Another example is
when the prisons are running out of money, an executive order can be issued and now
the prisons get all the funding the need.
It's not sufficient to say 'Yeah, let's end the Fed!" While that may well be a very good thing to do, the function that it serves has to be replaced by something better....
...New money does not appear magically in equal percentages in all people's bank accounts or under their mattresses. Money spreads unevenly, and this process has varying effects on individuals, depending on whether they receive early or late access to the new money
It is these losses of the groups that are the last to be reached by the variation in the value of money which ultimately constitute the source of the profits made by the mine owners [or bankers in a fiat system] and the groups most closely connected with them.
This indicates a fundamental aspect of Mises's monetary theory that is rarely mentioned: the expansion or contraction of money is a zero-sum game....
Why did Mises defend a money system based on money metals? First, because such a system reduces fluctuations in the value of money. Second, in order to get the State out of the money business.
To ascribe to the state the power of dictating the laws of exchange, is to ignore the fundamental principles of money-using society
The Return to Sound Money
The first step must be a radical and unconditional abandonment of any further inflation. The total amount of dollar bills, whatever their name or legal characteristic may be, must not be increased by further issuance. No bank must be permitted to expand the total amount of its deposits subject to check or the balance of such deposits of any individual customer, be he a private citizen or the U.S. Treasury, otherwise than by receiving cash deposits in legal-tender banknotes from the public or by receiving a check payable by another domestic bank subject to the same limitations. This means a rigid 100 percent reserve for all future deposits; that is, all deposits not already in existence on the first day of the reform (p. 448).
In Human Action, Mises said that the government's task is to enforce contracts. Among these contracts are contracts for redeeming money-certificates for money metals on demand. He defined a money-certificate a receipt for a money metal that has 100% of the promised metal in reserve. He said that banks should not be favored by the government. They should not be allowed the right to break contracts, which is what a refusal to redeem money-certificates on demand is. "What is needed to prevent any further credit expansion is to place the banking business under the general rules of commercial and civil laws compelling every individual to fulfill all obligations in full compliance with the terms of the contract"
Mises on Money: www.lewrockwell.com...
First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Daly (1969)
Mr. Morgan, the bank's president, took the stand. To everyone's surprise, Morgan admitted that the bank routinely created money "out of thin air" for its loans, and that this was standard banking practice. "It sounds like fraud to me," intoned Presiding Justice Martin Mahoney amid nods from the jurors. In his court memorandum, Justice Mahoney stated:
Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, . . . did create the entire $14,000.00 in money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note.
When I tell people their taxes do not go to run the government, they look at me like I am the biggest liar in history. People are so asleep, deeply asleep, and they do not want to wake up.
...The size of the underground economy is understandable when one considers that median family income taxes have increased from $9 in 1948 to $2,218 in 1983, or by 246 times. This is runaway taxation at its worst.
Importantly, any meaningful increases in taxes from personal income would have to come from lower and middle income families, as 90 percent of all personal taxable income is generated below the taxable income level of $35,000.
Further, there isn't much more that can be extracted from high income brackets. If the Government took 100 percent of all taxable income beyond the $75,000 tax bracket not already taxed, it would get only $17 billion, and this confiscation, which would destroy productive enterprise, would only be sufficient to run the Government for seven days.
Resistance to additional income taxes would be even more widespread if people were aware that:
* One-third of all their taxes is consumed by waste and inefficiency in the Federal Government as we identified in our survey.
* Another one-third of all their taxes escapes collection from others as the underground economy blossoms in direct proportion to tax increases and places even more pressure on law abiding taxpayers, promoting still more underground economy-a vicious cycle that must be broken.
* With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government.
Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by Rockdisjoint
Not having a pop at you mate, but please go back and edit or remove (for your own good) your last post.
It's up to you of course, but it's against T&C here...not that i mind particularly, but those 'above' do.
Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by crimvelvet
You're a 'wealth' of financial info aren't you! (ok, groan..)
Cheers for posting it all.
One thing...what if the government turned around and told the Fed to go whistle for it's money?
Sort of "Sorry, we've decided that to pay you what you say we owe you would bring our country to it's knees, and that, we cannot allow at *any* price...go away, and suck it up..."
What are they going to do?
The treasury can print money just as well as the fed can.
I realise that's a *very* simplistic statement, but i'm curious really just what could be done if it was said.edit on 1/1/2011 by spikey because: Added info.
It's a tragedy because GENERATION X....is getting PAWNED! We don't know how to grow our own fruits and veggies; we don't know how to communicate with each other, outside of cellphones and chat; we don't even know how to survive if the power went off. ...
In July 2000, USDA officials claimed in our court hearing that, “The farmers have no rights. No right to be heard before the court, no right to independent testing, and no right to question the USDA....” Linda Fallice www.vtcommons.org...
For those who think it’s a good idea to give FDA more power, here are the agency’s views on your freedom to obtain the foods of your choice; these are direct quotations from the agency’s response to a lawsuit the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund filed earlier this year challenging the interstate ban on raw milk for human consumption:
* "There is no absolute right to consume or feed children any particular food." [A--p. 25]
* "There is no 'deeply rooted' historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds." [A--p. 26]
* "Plaintiffs' assertion of a 'fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families' is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish." [A--p. 26]
* "There is no fundamental right to freedom of contract." [A--p. 27]
Seems we only have the "RIGHTS" the government will ALLOW us!
We must never fear any taboos in our quest for knowledge or the truth, but to allow discourse and debate to happen, and only then, on the strength of our facts or logic, will the truth and reality emerge.