ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY
ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 The Roman World
 The Common Law
 Redeemed Lawful Money
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1141 Posts

Posted - 02 Jun 2012 :  15:36:05  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I like the idea that since Congress used a pronoun, They are people who demand lawful money.

They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...


Congress is talking about people being redeemed from elastic currency of the Fed.

Here is a recent example.

Edited by - David Merrill on 02 Jun 2012 15:36:56

Bondservant
Forum Administrator

381 Posts

Posted - 02 Jun 2012 :  15:53:24  Show Profile  Visit Bondservant's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Great to have you back posting again, David! Your "recent example" link above says it all

He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living... - Mark 12:27
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1141 Posts

Posted - 02 Jun 2012 :  22:00:30  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I like this example!

The NY tax authority spotted that he missed his City School Tax Credit for $125 but said nothing about $6.7K in withholdings on zero income!






Edited by - David Merrill on 02 Jun 2012 22:02:27
Go to Top of Page

Jay Scott
Advanced Member

uSA
181 Posts

Posted - 03 Jun 2012 :  10:57:52  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill

I like the idea that since Congress used a pronoun, They are people who demand lawful money.

They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...


Congress is talking about people being redeemed from elastic currency of the Fed.

Here is a recent example.



That's a novel perspective.

Although what is the purpose and basis for the claim "congress" is talking about people?

A quick search here:

http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.shtml

...brought up examples of the term "they" referring to things not people.

None-the-less I like view from here.

Jay Scott.
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1141 Posts

Posted - 03 Jun 2012 :  19:16:51  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Thank you for that link. I like mathematics!

Please show me how you filled in the fields to get your conclusion about things, not people?

My presumption is how Congress could and should (in my opinion) avoided the ambiguity of using a pronoun. Today I was speaking with a new suitor and she got it clearly because of spending two decades pondering with a Book of Revelation command to Come out of Her, My People.

It was always conflicted and dichotomized; never really making sense until she made the substitution.

Edited by - David Merrill on 03 Jun 2012 19:17:11
Go to Top of Page

Jay Scott
Advanced Member

uSA
181 Posts

Posted - 04 Jun 2012 :  08:40:29  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I'm glad to share. I think sharing is growing for all willing.

At that link, I typed the word "they" (no quotes) into the "Search Word(s):" box and clicked the "Search" button.

Then randomly clicked a link and searched the subsequent page for the word "they" using the "find" function in the browser.

This time the first one I clicked on was labeled: 37 USC Sec. 476

And the first instance of "they" I found is:

"When orders directing a change of permanent station for the member concerned have not been issued, or when they have been issued but cannot be used as authority..." blah-dy blah blah. :)

"...orders...have not been issued, or when they have been issued..."

Appears to me "they" here refers to "orders." I have not had trouble find similar examples.


More to the point, does the actual intent of the writer negate the unique message you received? Maybe the Writer of the writer had a different intent just for you and me.

I'm puzzled about the "I like mathematics!" comment. The first thought is what does "US Code" have to do with mathematics? Are you talking about the boolean logic used in the search terms? I get a kick outta boolean logic too.

Jay Scott.
Go to Top of Page

Jay Scott
Advanced Member

uSA
181 Posts

Posted - 04 Jun 2012 :  08:42:38  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill

Today I was speaking with a new suitor and she got it clearly because of spending two decades pondering with a Book of Revelation command to Come out of Her, My People.

It was always conflicted and dichotomized; never really making sense until she made the substitution.



Smells like a new topic to me. :)

Jay Scott.
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1141 Posts

Posted - 19 Dec 2012 :  09:49:41  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Here is a great testomonial:

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?758-IRS-recognizes-Redeeming-Lawful-Money-Yes!!!&p=8956&viewfull=1#post8956


Go to Top of Page

Bondservant
Forum Administrator

381 Posts

Posted - 20 Dec 2012 :  19:03:36  Show Profile  Visit Bondservant's Homepage  Reply with Quote
David, can you bring any light to how the IR$ stole church funds from a church bankster account because they merely proclaimed to the bank that the church was now a Nominee for a donor? No judicial declaration, no judicial hearing, no nothing of record anywhere except that the IR$ told the bank the church was now a "nominee" for the (donor) taxpayer and they demanded (as well as received from the bank) every FRN penny in the church bank accounts (2 separate accounts in two different States). The "taxpayer" (donor) they claimed the church was now a nominee for was not a signatory on any of the accounts and has absolutely no legal or lawful tie to the church or church bank accounts.
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1141 Posts

Posted - 20 Jan 2013 :  20:05:43  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Bondservant

David, can you bring any light to how the IR$ stole church funds from a church bankster account because they merely proclaimed to the bank that the church was now a Nominee for a donor? No judicial declaration, no judicial hearing, no nothing of record anywhere except that the IR$ told the bank the church was now a "nominee" for the (donor) taxpayer and they demanded (as well as received from the bank) every FRN penny in the church bank accounts (2 separate accounts in two different States). The "taxpayer" (donor) they claimed the church was now a nominee for was not a signatory on any of the accounts and has absolutely no legal or lawful tie to the church or church bank accounts.



An administrative letter to the bank is probably how they did it.

If there was any legitimacy to the action then the donor was probably using the church as a trust. If the donor was a beneficiary and trustee in the name of the church, in order to conceal funds from the IRS then the church's name would be an alter ego/nominee.
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1141 Posts

Posted - 29 Dec 2016 :  12:13:27  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
David Merrill here. I have been aligning my favorite communication sites.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_hixqP24lE

Please recommend Lawful Money Trust dot COM to your neighbors on Nextdoor too!

https://nextdoor.com/pages/lawful-money-trust-raleigh-nc/recommend/
Go to Top of Page

David Merrill
Advanced Member

USA
1141 Posts

Posted - 25 Jan 2017 :  23:17:39  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
David Merrill here. I am the one who started all this about redeeming lawful money. I hope this is helpful. It is a replica of a blog over on Lawful Money Trust:

https://nextdoor.com/pages/lawful-money-trust-raleigh-nc/recommend/

https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipPdyz5QF3bAIYADa4p82Y2f1IMzcGIspwnNldeS


Remedy is for any "Federal reserve agent" more commonly known as a state bank. In the tier of living and legal persons, that is pretty low. I think that is restating what Michael Joseph said above. The law is not respecter of persons. When people start presuming that they are the subhuman in the trustee/government's eyes they project that and get it back. When as you are alive, you are simply seen as the trustee/beneficiary and we teach here how to be responsible.

This might help clarify what Michael Joseph said:

Look at the first few paragraphs of the Federal Reserve Act - 1913.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImX3VDSU9Ja0tYUU0/view?usp=sharing

I feel that a lot of confusion is caused by projection. Like in front of a judge, if you think that he is viewing you as a US or subject citizen of some type, then that is what you will perceive as a reflection of your projection. He sees the living man alright - but he is doing business with the OFFICE of trustee and is presuming that you have been benefiting from the corpus (value) of the trust through property rights.

So take that to the TRUST as it was arranged under the Trading with the Enemy Act in 1933:

https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipNwMc5Q2H9VgFXl6taosym3JLIrjr3gGdQAiwZB

"...which will be held in trust and kept in one of the new forms..."

You might envision yourself being treated like the trustee for the state bank called FIRST MIDDLE LAST. Read from the bottom and top of Page 1066 - March 30, 1933.

https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipMfVutc2HJedtfrDojHJFFrrwJ8yh8cZHHonmAJ

I may be making Michael Joseph's explanation labored here. So I am simply saying that you are alive and the remedy will apply to whatever entity or person you create around you. Or better yet, if remedy applies to a legal person attached to you, then that is your remedy.

If you make your demand for lawful money then you can no longer be presumed to be a state bank because that is how state banks dissolved between 1913 and 1933, by redeeming their Federal Reserve notes in gold. In 1933 FDR was so determined to save the Fed, he illegally applied the Trading with the Enemy Act naming people the enemy, fighting a foe called The Great Depression.

This may help too:

https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipMuI7DETohDTg8QVhtZs9c4nzOe5rlTAXgNn6MS

In short, "In order to facilitate membership in the Federal Reserve System of any State bank... the Governors of the Federal Reserve System may waive in whole or in part the requirements of this section..."

Now I think that I have described this too well.

Once you get your head around it, unless you have been behaving expressly as a state bank, you will not become one in the eyes of any court or judge. Interestingly as I came into this heritage, true balances shall we call it, the judges around Colorado began changing their oaths of office so to avoid bonding.
Go to Top of Page

Jay Scott
Advanced Member

uSA
181 Posts

Posted - 26 Jan 2017 :  11:16:06  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The photos.google.com photos are not loading for me. :(

Here's the error I get from google:

quote:
404. Thatís an error.

The requested URL was not found on this server. Thatís all we know.



:)

Edited by - Jay Scott on 26 Jan 2017 11:42:33
Go to Top of Page

Bondservant
Forum Administrator

381 Posts

Posted - 26 Jan 2017 :  11:31:04  Show Profile  Visit Bondservant's Homepage  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Jay Scott

The photos.google.com photos are not loading for me. :(

For me, every Google photo link wants me to sign in with my account... and I don't have nor desire to ever have a Google account!

David, do you have these pics located anywhere else with open access?

He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living... - Mark 12:27
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY © MMXVII Ecclesiastic Commonwealth Community Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.42 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000