Looking at the issue of money and property, we will give to you some references which you can check out for yourself. One of the first ones, and probably the most interesting we researched, is a Supreme Court decision that was arrived at in the year 1884; Julliard v Greenman, 110 U.S. 421. This is a precedent setting case from a group or a series of decisions made by the United States Supreme Court that have come to be called, "The legal tender cases."

How did the Supreme Court come up with the idea that paper could be used for currency? Especially when you look at the light of the history of our constitution, and the words of President Andrew Jackson. President Jackson observed and stated;

"that it was the purpose of the convention to establish a circulating medium of exchange based on precious metals".

The Julliard v Greenman decision came out of something that happened to our constitution in the year 1868. If we look in the Amendments to our constitution, keeping in mind, that our constitution mandated gold and silver coin, something had to occur within our constitution in order for that to change.

We find in Article 14 of the constitution, that's the one that most people regard or they term it as "states rights." We find that the 14th Amendment had nothing to due with securing state's rights but it had everything to do with destroying state's rights. It allowed the federal government to reach past the barriers of the states and into the pockets of the people directly.

Our constitution said, " representative and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the states". The federal government never had the power or ability to reach directly into the pockets of the people, until the 14th Amendment came along. Section 4 says;

"the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services and suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned".

The important part to remember is the part where it is stated; " the validity of the public debt authorized by law, shall not be questioned." Remember, what we have said in previous information, Congress raises the debt limit by passing a law. The debt, authorized by law, shall not be questioned, what then does this mean?

This means, if you are one of the somebody’s, who is one of the citizens of the United States mentioned in the 14th Amendment, you can not question the validity of the public debt or bring the money issue into the courtroom system. This means you can not challenge the unlawful system of the federal reserve, if you are someone who participates in the privileges and immunities of the 14th Amendment.

We have a constitutional amendment, and based on that specific amendment, comes forth the 1884 citing of Julliard v Greenman for a decision before the United States Supreme Court. Based on Section 4 of the 14th Amendment the United States Supreme Court says, that ‘paper’ can be a legal tender.

This raised much alarm among the people of our land, particularly one person by the name of George Bancroft. George Bancroft was a very young boy at the time the Constitution was being written, therefore, he was familiar with the prevailing times and the attitudes which surrounded the writing of our constitution.

In 1884 when this case went before the United States Supreme Court, George Bancroft was so alarmed, that he wrote a small book titled, "A Plea For The Constitution." Those of you who have not read this book, we highly suggest you obtain a copy and read it. In the book, Mr. Bancroft reiterates, telling how destructive this is to our system of weights and measures, and how it will eventually bring about the complete destruction of our nation.

In order to understand the impact of utilizing ‘paper’ for a currency, an example, could be to those of you who are old enough to remember.

Example: When you were a youngster, your father might have sent you to the store periodically to get milk and bread. Sometimes, he might have been a little short of cash or was between paydays. If this was so, he would write a little note that said perhaps;

"To Fred the grocer, give my son a quart of milk and a loaf of bread, and I'll pay you next time I'm in your store."

He would sign it, and you'd take that note down to the store, and hand it to the grocer and the grocer would say, "Wait right there boy ", then he would get you the quart of milk and the loaf of bread, put it in a bag roll it up tight, and tuck it under your arm and send you on your way saying, "Don't stop anywhere on your way, go straight home."

The legal question involved at this point in time, when you are standing outside the door with the bread and milk tucked under your arm is; Who owns the bread and milk?

There are 3 possibilities. It can be the grocer, it can be the young boy who has actual possession, (possession is 9/10's of the law), right? Or it can be the father who sent the boy for the milk along with a note showing payment terms.

Who owns the bread and milk? Well, it can't be the grocer because he's given it away, and the young fellow has no legal capacity because he's too young. He has a disability, that is his age, he has not reached the age of accountability, so he can not own it. Old Judge Wapner from Wapner's court would understand in a moment that the milk and the bread belongs to daddy, and daddy is now obligated to perform in the future, or to obtain performance from somebody that's obliged to him.

Let's take this type of example one step farther. Example: Let's say you go down to K-Mart and you want to buy a pair of sneakers. You enter the store, pick out the sneakers, and go to the counter. You place your federal reserve note on the counter, and the sales clerk takes the federal reserve note. As you step out the door with the sneakers under your arm, who owns the sneakers?

You will find out, the Federal Reserve owns your sneakers. How is this? If you look on your Federal Reserve Note, you will find out it has daddy's signature on it. It says, "Treasurer of the United States" on one side, and "Secretary of the Treasury" on the other side. These are 2 different distinct jurisdictions. The person whose signature is on the note, is the one who actually has the right to property of whatever you've purchased. Is this not then the case with the boy, the grocer, and the father who signed the note which the boy gave to the grocer?

Let's look at an observation made by Thomas Jefferson during the time that the Constitution and our declaration were being made, He said;

"if the American people ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of all property, until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied".

That's a very interesting and startling statement because that’s the very thing we are looking at that today. We have banks issuing currency, we have inflation and deflation, and the banks and corporations that have grown up around them are today repossessing farms to the number of 6,000 plus farm foreclosures every week in the United States. We're losing our property, we're losing our land, just as Jefferson stated.

Remember we told you the Bible has a mandate for using a monetary system? The Bible is a law book, a book of laws, with a covenant, which states in part;

"if you will obey my law, you shall dwell in peace, and safely in the land".

If we have the land, we can apply our labor, to generate food, make clothing, and provide shelter which will be the sustenance we need to keep us alive. What happens if we take the laws that are in the Bible and disobey or throw them out? We are going to see land and property foreclosures spoken of in the Bible.

Look at the book of Ezekiel, Chapter 33, verses 23-24, it says;

"Then the word of the Lord came unto me, saying 'Son of man, they that inhabit those wastes of the land of Israel, speak, saying Abraham was one and he inherited the land, but we are many, and the land is given us for an inheritance."

Here the scriptures refer to the land, land is tied to the law, without the law, you do not have the land. With the law, and observing the law of the Bible, you are allowed to dwell in safety in the land, as stated in Ezekiel Chapter 33, verse 25;

"Therefore say unto them, thus sayeth the Lord God, You eat with the blood and lift up your eyes toward idols."

Remember we said that Federal Reserve notes are idols made of wood?

"And you shed blood," like Nicaragua, El Salvador, Vietnam, "and you shall possess the land".

"You stand upon your sword," (like we did in the Persian Gulf).

"You work abomination," (that's homosexual teachers in our schools).

"You defile everyone his neighbors wife," (this one's pretty well understood by most people in our society).

"and you shall possess the land?"

This is a prophesy by the prophet Ezekiel, which states, that if we violate this law in the scripture, then the covenant for the people to dwell safely in the land is gone, and we lose our land.

John Adams made another observation, he said:

"All the perplexities confusion and distress in America, arise not from defects in their constitution or confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation."

We have found even today that once again, our people are perishing for lack of knowledge. Out of ignorance and an, ‘ I could care less attitude’, we are losing our land. We practice a monetary system that will not let us "dwell safely in the land".

In the Book of Revelation, Chapter 18, and verse 23, it says;

"for your merchants were the great men of the earth because all the nations were deceived by your sorcery"

Since money represents property, is it any wonder that a money which can be manipulated in value can ultimately deprive the owners of their property?

From a practical standpoint, if we observe what is happening, we will find that man does not learn or retain what he has learned, or history would not keep repeating itself.

Let's say that today, you have a pocket full of gold and silver coins. Gold and silver has value in and of itself, therefore, it does not depend on someone else’s promises in order be able to trade for something else of value.

If Congress were to come out tomorrow and state;

"Starting today, gold and silver have no value".

People would laugh at them, because Congress does not have the power to say what the value of gold and silver will be, that is determined in the marketplace. However, what if you had a pocket full of Federal Reserve notes, and Congress came out tomorrow and said;

"Federal Reserve notes are no longer legal tender."

What you then would have, is a pocket full of worthless paper right? The reason being, ‘paper’ itself has no value. So now with the stroke of a pen, Congress used their power in an illegal manner to deprive you of the purchasing power of everything in your checking account, your savings account, your pocket, buried in your mattress, coffee can or wherever you keep it.

After Julliard v Greenman established the precedent, now we have our Supreme Court telling congress they can, "Congress can make paper money."

This was against the original concept of our founding fathers, and please remember that it took a constitutional amendment, an amendment which was not correct, and was not properly ratified. As a matter of fact, it was done at the point of a sword.

Let's look at a little piece of legislation that occurred on June 5, 1933. It was House Joint Resolution 192. It is called, "The Resolution to Stabilize the Value of Coin and Currency in Our Land." For those of you who would like to do additional research in a law library, we give you additional citations where you can find this particular piece of legislation, and where it occurs in today's law.

This is in Volume 31, that's Title 31 of the United States Code, Section 440 Et Seq., this means Et Sequences or whatever follows in this number series. You might have trouble finding this series today, because you will find out that these were changed in 1976. However, if you do some historical research on this particular piece of legislation, you'll come across these items.

Another is Title 31 U S C Section 463. The title of this act is "A Joint Resolution to Assure Uniform Value Through The Coins and Currency of the United States," approved June 5, 1933. Today, you'll find this citing has changed from Section 463 to Title 31, U S C 5152, and if you look at the historic notes at the bottom you'll find out that it used to be 463, and before that 440. You can trace it all the way back to House Joint Resolution 192 and you can trace this Joint Resolution all the way back to the 14th Article of Amendment.

Pursuant to House Joint Resolution 192, we had an executive order that was issued by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, it was order number 6260. Executive order 6260 was effective August 28, 1933, and it prohibited the private ownership of gold by the American people. This was based on House Joint Resolution 192. House Joint Resolution 192 suspended the ability of the American people to pay a debt, now they can only discharge a debt, which means you can pass the debt from one to the other, but the debt is never extinguished, it just continues to grow and grow.

This particular order, #6260, was revoked by Richard Nixon, on Executive Order #11,825, which went into effect on December 31, 1974, after Nixon had already left office, but it was signed by Richard Nixon. Remember when Americans thought they could own gold again? The people of our land were saying "Wow, we can really own gold again."

However, this was not the case, if you read this executive order, you would have found out, there is nothing in Order #11,825 referring to Americans being able to own gold once more. The purpose of this executive order was to reinstate the payment of the interest on the national debt in gold. Very shortly thereafter, we heard on the news that the world bank wanted 44 billion dollars worth of gold transferred to them, and the people of the United States said: "Why should we give them our gold?"

Within a couple of weeks we sent them our gold. Why? Because these executive orders, using House Joint Resolution 192, are paying once again, transferring the gold, mine and your gold out of this land and giving it to a foreign and alien jurisdiction.

We have also in Title 31 U S C Section 449, the start of a new system of money. You will find this one left our code book in 1976, so you will need to find a Title 31 dated 1976 or before. You will find in Title 31 U S C Section 449, that this section replaced the standard of value in our land, took away the gold and replaced it with something known as an SDR.

An SDR is a Special Drawing Right. A Special Drawing Right is the supposed standard measure of value. However here we find that it is not standard, because it can be modified at any time by the World Bank, and by the International Monetary Fund. It is changed from time to time, therefore it is not really a standard.

It's an arbitrary number or figure that's selected by a group of individuals telling you what the value of the money in your pocket is. What House Joint Resolution 192 did, was to suspend gold as a medium of exchange.

Remember we said that the basis and foundation for this was the 4th Section of the 14th Article of Amendment, which made debt the standard of value in our country. The only way we can have debt as a standard of value is if we give up our ability to control our own property to someone else.

If we look at money and property issues, we find that money represents property. We now have an entity who is able to control what the value of our property is. This includes the value of our lands, the value of our chattel. If we look at an automobile today, selling for $15,000 or $20,000 that 25 years ago, was $3,000 or $4,000, we can see what has happened to the difference in value can’t we?

The value hasn't changed, but the sweat of our brow that's represented by the money that we use, has lost its value. So man has become worth less and less, until the government also considers us as worth less, and worthless. You will even find that in some of the decisions for the Internal Revenue Service they say that labor has no value at all. Money has been defined as ‘anything that circulates as a medium’.

If you look at what's happening today, and if you order the publications from the Federal Reserve which we recommended, you will find that in these Federal Reserve publications, they themselves, very openly and blatantly will tell you;

"that today, money is issued into circulation, it is drawn into circulation, borrowed into circulation, and what helps it to maintain its voracity in the buying realm today is that the people of the United States have faith that the money will be able to purchase something".

This is why it is used as a medium of exchange. What we have done, we have generated a new religion in our country because people place their faith in idols of wood or stone, not in God or God’s law, we call it idolatry.

We now can look at the word "note." There is a piece of legislation that was passed some time ago called ‘The Negotiable Instruments Act.’ It says:

"a note is an unconditional promise in writing, made by one person to another, signed by the maker, engaging to pay on demand or at a fixed or determinable time, a sum certain in money to order to the bearer".

There are 4 requirements for a note:

1) Who will pay,

2) Who will be paid,

3) What will be paid, and

4) When will it be paid.

If we look at a couple of $2 dollar notes, we can compare them to see what the differences are. The first note is a 1953 United States Note, it has no seal on the left, it has the Treasury Seal on the right, (there is no Federal Reserve Seal on the left). It says at or near the top, "United States Note", and underneath the portrait of the President, it says, the United States of America will pay to the bearer $2. This note has all of the requirements which actually make it a note.

Let's now take a look at one that's a little bit different. This is a 1976 $2 bill, it looks very similar to the first note, but the Treasury Seal is green instead of red, and it does have a Federal Reserve Seal on the left hand side. This note also has some different words on it, above the President it says "Federal Reserve Note", rather than "United States Note", and under the President it says, The United States of America, 2 Dollars.

The first note says that the United States will pay to the bearer 2 dollars, the second note says The United States of America 2 dollars. The 1953 note does not claim to be the 2 dollars, but the 1976 note does claim to be the 2 dollars.

As an example of what this is actually being done, we look at a silver dollar. That's a United States dollar, one of those 371 1/4 grain pieces of silver that we spoke of in The Federal Reserve and ‘Paper’ Money, that's circulated as money in our country.

The 1953 Treasury Note says that it will pay to the bearer 2 of these. The 1976 Federal Reserve Note and it claims to be 2 of these. Let's look at a practical application of what. we are attempting to explain.

Let's say you went down to the grocer and said, "I need 5 quarts of strawberries," and you put your money on the counter. The grocer gives you a picture of 5 quarts of strawberries. You say, "Wait a minute, I can't eat that!" . He says, "No problem, all you have to do is take this down to our warehouse, and the warehouse man will give you 5 quarts of strawberries in exchange for the picture of strawberries."

So now you have a picture of strawberries, and at the bottom it says, "Will pay to the bearer on demand 5 quarts of strawberries." You go down to the warehouse and bring your picture, and the warehouseman gives you 5 quarts of strawberries. Now you have the actual substance, don't you?

Let's say the warehouse man instead comes out with another picture, and it says, this is 5 quarts of strawberries. Here are the strawberries, (the silver coin), here's the picture of the strawberries which says they will be given to the bearer on demand, and here's the picture that says, "I am the strawberries." The question is, have we lost the substance from our money?

Now you take the picture of strawberries home. Do you think your family is going to complain when put it on your shortcake? The money we have in circulation, is not money, it is a picture of the money, and even the money itself is not the property, so we have a three-fold removal here. Remember, the silver actually represents the strawberries, or the labor that somebody applied to the ground to get the strawberries.

We've taken a picture of that, with a Treasury Note which says it will pay you the representation you can then trade for your strawberries, however, now we have another piece of paper that says, "I am the strawberries."

Do we begin to see what the difference is here? The money represents property, and what the requirements are of a note. However, remember what the Federal Reserve Note had on it - it says, The United States of America, 2 dollars. That doesn't say who will pay, it doesn't say who will be paid, it doesn't say what will be paid, or when.

What do we have here? We have something called a Federal Reserve Note, we have found out already that it is a private organization, it is not Federal, we have found out that there is no money in reserve, and now we find out that it is not even a note.

It is a paper lie, and we've been living with this lie for so long now, that one gets to the point where you can go down and talk to an individual at a store counter and say, "How would you like me to pay you? I have silver." And he'll say, "I can't take silver, give me paper money." What he wants is the picture of the strawberries, so what your really doing is stealing, but if you get his permission, you assume it must be okay.

There are a few things to remember when you are utilizing notes. One of them is that any writing in the form of a note, is a note. If it has these requirements it is a note. If you have a checking account, every time you sign a check, you endorse the payment at some future time. Who will pay? You will pay. Who will be paid? You write that out to "pay to the order of...." You have what will be paid, you have a denomination in dollars, and when - you date the check. So a writing in the form of a note, is a note.

There are other things you need to remember about notes, remember also that in our legislative banks in the United States Code is that, when you pass a note you have passed a simple contract. If you look up this word "note" in a law dictionary you'll find that the definition of a note, is a simple contract. What's the significance?

If you ever get into a courtroom situation, and a person who you have a contract with says, "Your honor, this guy was supposed to do this and do that, and he didn't", the judges first question is, "Do you have a contract? ", and you say, yes I do your honor. Then the judge will ask, "Did you do what the contract says?" If your answer is no, the judge will say, then you are required by this court to pay the other guy.

A contract binds you to performance in the court. Something else you need to know, any one who endorses a contract becomes obligated for their performance. Endorsement obligates you to perform in accordance with the contract.

One more thing you should know, legal title passes by endorsement. What does this mean? It used to mean that if you had a check while we still had silver as a backing for our currency, when you endorsed that note, then the legal title to what that note represented passed on to the other individual.

However, since we have a Federal Reserve and there is no substance behind it, the question becomes what is it that you pass by endorsement? Remember, the Federal Reserve comes into these notes by placing the people of the United States under obligation to perform at some future time.

What you're doing is since you have not paid for anything, and you pass a note, you are recognizing that the obligation applies to you and the obligation for you to perform passes to whoever you endorse that note to.

Ultimately remember, when checks clear, they get back to the Federal Reserve and anybody who is attached to that instrument can now be compelled to perform in a court of law in accordance with the terms and conditions of contract. If you look at our Federal Reserve notes, the terms and conditions of the contract is, that at some future time, you will perform a service to generate goods, or you will perform a service for other people based on the obligation passed by Congress.

And since you have passed the note on by endorsement, (and passing a Federal Reserve Note from your hand to the grocers hand is an endorsement), or by using a checking system or a credit system, you have now obligated yourself to performance, and that performance can be compelled in a court of law.

WAREHOUSE RECEIPT

If you were around during the time prior to the administration of John Kennedy, you might remember something that circulated in our land known as "silver certificates." These silver certificates were in fact, warehouse receipts. A warehouse receipt is a receipt given by a warehouse man for chattel (moveable property), placed in his possession for storage purposes.

A receipt represents property and, an assignment is equivalent to the delivery of property. Here's how it works: Say that you've got something stored in a warehouse, and you have a receipt that shows something is stored, and it belongs to you. You write on the bottom, "Give this material to Fred Jones," then you sign it. An assignment of that receipt is equivalent to delivery of the property, because Fred Jones can now take that receipt to the warehouse and obtain the goods.

There are certain things that are required to make a warehouse receipt legitimate, and they are:

1) The location of the warehouse. If you remember our silver certificates, they had a location of the warehouse, they said, "The United States Treasury,"

2) The date of issue. All of our warehouse receipts, and even our Federal Reserve Notes today have a date of issue, they say series 1953, 1967 etc.

3) A consecutive number. Today we call them "serial numbers" on our paper currency.

4) To whom it is to be delivered. Those silver certificates said "To the bearer," whoever has the note in his hand, so when you pass the note from one to another, that's a delivery or an assignment of the warehouse receipt.

5) The rate of storage charges. On the silver certificates there wasn't any, because there was no storage charge for the silver, the silver belonged to the people and was stored as a function of government. Taxes are what paid for the storage, the proper taxes that we find in Article 1, Section 8, in post duties and excises.

6) A description. On those silver certificates, the description said it will pay to the bearer on demand whatever the denomination was, $1, $5, $10, in silver.

7) A signature. The silver certificates definitely have a signature on them, the Treasurer is the warehouseman.

8) The ownership. The ownership can be found on the silver certificate, it says, payable to the bearer, so whoever was the bearer of the note owned the chattel or the silver that was in storage, and it also had any advances or liabilities caused by the storage. The warehouseman is liable for any omissions on the receipt, and he is bound to tender or offer out these commodities when the receipt is presented.

I can remember times where individuals could take silver certificates down to the local bank (which at those times were a little bit different than the banks today), and they could obtain silver coin in exchange for the certificates. A number one silver certificate would get you a 1 dollar coin etc.

From time to time there would be a shortage of coins, and if this happened, the bank would give you a little pouch with the specified weight of silver, as per the coinage act of 1792. At this time, we actually practiced a warehousing system, where the government, by the power and authority of the Constitution, the Treasury had the ability to be the warehouseman for the commodity of silver and gold that circulated as a medium of exchange our country.

After 1964, when the redeemability passed from our currency, and the silver passed from our coin, the Treasurer of the United States was no longer held liable, because there was no substance on deposit. The liability then passed on to the people of the United States. The warehouseman is no longer the Treasurer, because the Treasurer no longer has any substance in his warehouse. Instead, we have the Secretary of the Treasury, who is acting as a fiduciary capacity as agent for the Federal Reserve, and he is required to bring up the goods.

How does this warehouseman of today produce goods? When goods and services must be produced today, the warehouseman comes to the American people, through Congress, and Congress says we're going to have a tax increase. They send the agents of the Federal Reserve, commonly known as Internal Revenue Service agents, out among the people and collect the goods and services.

Remember, you bought them with notes, they don't really belong to you, so now the agents are coming out and taking their property back. The warehouse property is now the property of the people of the United States. It is no longer the metals of gold and silver, it is now your sneakers, your cars, your condominiums, etc.

This is why the Federal Reserve can send their agents out and take their warehouse property back again when they need to distribute it somewhere else. It's a shameful scam that we have a system like this. They the Federal Reserve can create things out of thin air, and consume the property of all the people, in one fell swoop.

Remember those items required for a warehouse receipt? If you look at our Federal Reserve Notes, you'll find out that these items are no longer a part of the Federal Reserve note, because they don't have a location, they do have a date, they have a number, but it doesn't say to whom, rate of charge, there is no description of goods. There is a signature, in fact, there are 2 signatures on them. What your relationship is to the government depends on which one of those signatures has significance to you in a courtroom scene.

LEGAL TENDER

If you look in a dictionary, a "tender" is an offer to deliver something made in pursuance of some contract or obligation. So when you tender a Federal Reserve Note, you are offering to deliver something, you will fabricate goods and services, and those goods and services now belong to the man or the entity which in this case is the Federal Reserve, who holds the obligation.

Every time you pass a Federal Reserve Note, or any of the instruments that arise out of the Federal Reserve and the banking practices, such as a check or a plastic credit card, you are tendering to perform the obligation that arises by the act of Congress.

Contracts state, a tender may be either of money or of specific articles. In this case, since we don't have money in circulation anymore, then the specific article is an article of performance, and that performance comes out in statutory law which says: "that you will conduct certain activities or you will be held against the law".

One of those that is most familiar amongst our people today is a willful failure to file a tax return. This is a performance obligation which arises out of the use of a debt issued monetary system.

Remember the strawberries? When you put your money on the table, and the guy came out with a picture? What he did, he offered, he hasn't delivered, he has only offered. When you present those Federal Reserve Notes, you have made an offer to perform.

Legal tender is defined as that currency which has been made suitable by law for the purposes of a tender in payment of debts. House Joint Resolution suspended the ability of the American people to pay a debt.

Payment is the fulfillment of a promise for the performance of an agreement. It implies the existence of a debt of a party to whom it is owed and of the satisfaction of the debt to that party. So if you are only tendering, then you don't pay, all you do is make a tender, and that's the difference between "legal tender" and "lawful money."

If we go back into the Coinage Act of 1792 and follow the aspects of this piece of legislation forward to the current time, we find that we've had such things as Gold Coins of the United States, Treasury Notes, Standard Silver Dollars, a Minor Coin (quarters, dimes, nickels, etc.), United States Notes, Gold Certificates, Silver Certificates, National Bank Notes are not a legal tender but are receivable for all debts except for duty on imports, interest on the public debt or for redeeming the national currency.

Federal Reserve Notes are obligations of the United States, which is a requirement to perform. Who are the United States, according to the Constitution, it's "We The People," we are the United States, so those Federal Reserve Notes represent an obligation of we the people to perform.

Legal tender versus lawful money, this is probably the most important issue for you to understand. The utilization of the Federal Reserve Fractional Banking System in this country as we have shown so far, is what obligates you to specific performance and changes your standing in the court.

If we are going to peacefully bring about the restitution of our constitutional principles, it will be through the courtroom system, a system that was established in this land (and our judicial system was established based upon the system that was taught to Moses by his father in law, Jethro).

The problem we have with ‘legal tender’ as opposed to a lawful money is, lawful money actually represents property, it represents the goods and services that are produced by the people. Whereas a ‘legal tender’ might not represent the same. The current ‘legal tender’ that we use does not represent any property, it represents an obligation in debt.

According to Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914, the definition of the word "money," is "gold and silver coin, the common medium of exchange in a civilized nation." Since we don't use gold and silver anymore, we must not be civilized any more.

That's probably pretty true, because what we've done is given the usurper control of our laws and now they mandate policy and they tell us how to perform, because we use a system by which we are unable to pay our debts.

Even the definition of "money" in contemplation of our founding fathers, was gold and silver, there were no other definitions at the time of our constitution. Later on the courts would say money is any thing that passes for a medium of exchange. So if it passes for a medium of exchange, it must be money.

We find out however, that this is not necessarily true, because ‘legal tender’ laws say that bank notes are not ‘legal tender’, they are not receivables for a duty on imports , etc. According to Black's Law Dictionary, 1979, "money" is defined as follows:

"In usual and ordinary acceptation, it means coins and paper currency as used as circulation medium of exchange and does not embrace notes, bonds, evidences of debt, or other personal or real estate."

This definition of money does not include bonds, like the ones issued by Congress, or evidence of debt, like these federal reserves notes.

From 1914 until today there has been a dramatic change in the definition of the term money. If we go back and see what our founding fathers' ideas and concepts were regarding paper currency and gold and silver, we will find interesting statements such as Thomas Jefferson, who in Jefferson's works, vol. 4 pg. 260, states:

"The Federal Government? I deny their power to make paper money a legal tender."

Pelatiah Webster, who was a contemporary of the individuals who wrote the Constitution of the United States made the following observation which appeared in the Pennsylvania Gazette in 1789:

"Paper money polluted the equity of our laws, turned them into engines of oppression, corrupted the justice of our public administrations, destroyed the fortunes of thousands who had confidence in it, enervated the trade, husbandry and manufacturers of our country, and went far to destroy the morality of our people."

We find that almost these same exact conditions exist in our country today.

Andrew Jackson said in his 8th annual address to Congress in 1836:

"that it was the purpose of the convention to establish a currency consisting of the precious metals".

George Bancroft who wrote "A Plea For The Constitution," also wrote something called "The History Of The United States From The Discovery Of The Continent". His history is the most comprehensive and is still one of the most accurate historical discourses on the United States. In Volume 6, page 303, Bancroft states:

"James Madison left his testimony that the pretext for a paper currency and particularly for making the bills a tender, either for public or private debts was cut off."

That means it was killed, terminated, finished. Bancroft continues by saying:

"This is the interpretation of the clause, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5, made at the time of it's adoption alike by it's authors and by it's opponents, accepted by all the statesmen of that age, not open to public dispute because too clear for argument and never disputed so long as any one man who took part in the framing of the Constitution remain alive."

So we find, that as long as the individuals who framed the Constitution were alive, they stood up and argued vehemently that paper money was not allowed in our country.

Thomas Jefferson as President made other observations, he said:

"I place the economy among the first and most important virtues and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared." We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. The prudence which in private life would forbid our paying money for an unexplained project, forbids it in the disposition of public money. We are endeavoring to reduce the government to the practice of rigid economy, to avoid burdening the people."

The way in which we reduce government to a controllable entity is by establishing the purpose of the constitution (remember, the honest weights and measures?) a currency consisting of the precious metals. As long as the people hold the currency, the gold and silver, in their pockets, government can't spend for unexplained projects without coming and asking the people.

When we have a debt money system that is issued at the whim of somebody's imagination, government can spend for anything they want, like Korea, Vietnam, World War I, World War II, expend huge sums and send people to their deaths without being answerable.

In Webster's 1828 Dictionary (the first American Dictionary of the English Language), money is defined as: "coin, stamped metal, any piece of metal, usually gold or silver or copper, stamped by public authority and used as the medium of commerce. Coin or money, which is the representative of commodities of all kinds of lands, and of every thing that is capable of being transferred in commerce."

Money then represents all of these goods and these chattels, it is not the chattels themselves (remember the story of the strawberries?). Now that we have an idea of the difference between ‘legal tender’ and lawful money, we can take a look at what happens in the courtroom system.

In law, when you are utilizing paper, there is something that arises that is called, a "chosen action." In Bouvier's Law Dictionary, we find that a chosen action is,

"A right to receive or recover a debt or money or damages for a breech of contract, or for a tort connected with a contract but which cannot be enforced without action."

What is an action? An action is the act of doing something, but it is also the formal demand of one's right from another person made and insisted on in a court of justice.

What is a breech of contract? A breech of contract says that you will perform certain things and if you do not, then you can be brought into the court and compelled into that performance.

One of the most common ways that people in our country are familiar with today is specific failure to perform in willful failure to file, a charge instituted by IRS. Are Federal Reserve Notes evidences of a chosen action, and is the chosen action due to the Federal Reserve? Can they go into the court? They sure can, and they do, every day. It is one of those qualities of a chosen action that at common law it is not assignable.

What's the difference between the common law and the law that we practice in our courts today? At the common law you couldn't transfer that right, but at the law we practice today, you are just passing the note, and that transfers your right to that chosen action to somebody else.

Payment and Debt.

Payment is the fulfillment of a promise or the performance of an agreement.

A debt is something owed, a sum of money due by certain and express agreement. A debt may be evidenced by matter of record. An evidence of a debt can arise out of a record in the court.

By a contract under seal (remember our Federal Reserve Notes, there is a seal on it, and we said it was a contract, we have a contract under seal, it is an evidence of debt). Federal Reserve Notes are more than one kind of contract, they are a simple contract, and they are also a contract under seal.

The distinguishing and necessary feature is that a fixed and specific amount is owing and no future evaluation is required to settle it. What's the fixed and specific amount that's owed? Today we have a public debt that goes into the trillions of dollars, and each and every individual who utilizes Federal Reserve Notes becomes liable for their specific portion of that debt.

It’s been said, that when a baby is born in the United States today, upon taking it's first breath, it owes to the government $4,500 and the price goes up from there. What we have done is place our children into bondage and slavery, and if we don't extract them soon, I fear we will suffer the retribution of an angry god.

If we look up the word debt in our law dictionary, we find the following:

"In practice, a form of action which lies to recover a sum certain".

The sum certain here is performance. Remember that House Joint Resolution that suspended the ability to pay a debt and left us only the ability to discharge? Discharge is the act by which a person in confinement , and it goes on to say:

"thus we speak of a discharge of asurity whereby he is released from his liability of a debt, of a contract, of lands, of money,".

Discharge of a contract may be discharged by performance. We can no longer pay our debts, but we can discharge that debt by performing. A discharge is the release from liability, but it does not terminate the obligation, payment terminates an obligation.

We hear talk about the common law, and that at common law you can go into the court and obtain a remedy. A remedy is the means employed to enforce a right or redress an injury. Remedies for non-fulfillment of contracts are generally by action, However, your rights can be superceded by a contract, this negates common law use.

A favorite example of mine is, you are an electronics technician and you work for Motorola, but before you go to work for them they say we need from you a contract which states that for the time you are working with us, and for 2 years after you leave our employment that you will not divulge the contents of what you've been working on because it is proprietary information. What you generate for us is our property, and you cannot tell others what we are doing.

Let's say that after 6 months the foreman irritates you so much that you say, "I've had enough of this, I'm going to work somewhere else," and you leave their employ, and you hire on with IBM. Then you tell the foreman at IBM, "I just came from Motorola and they have some new techniques, let me show you what we were doing."

As soon as Motorola finds out what you are doing, they are going to bring an injunction against you. They may say, we are going to shut his mouth because he has taken proprietary information, and he is violating the contract that we made with him that he wouldn't divulge any information.

When you get into the courtroom, they make the charge that you were divulging information to IBM. At this point you whip out his handbook and say:

"Wait a minute judge, look here, Article 1 of the Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech". That's one of my rights, I have the freedom of speech."

The judge is going to say to you, "I have a copy of a contract, is this your signature?" , if it is, you have obligated yourself into contract and waived your right to free speech by contract.

So if we are bound by contract we find out we no longer have a remedy at law to enforce our rights. We are no longer in the court that can look at rights, we are in a different court that only looks at the contract, it looks at who are the parties of the contract and whether or not the conditions of the contract have been fulfilled.

When you pass that Federal Reserve Note, remember you have made a contract, and now you will perform your portion of the goods and services that are represented by that note.

This moves you out of the arena of being able to remedy your rights and into the arena where you can only adjudicate the issues of whether or not you performed in accordance with the contract. You may say, "I never signed a contract," but you endorsed the note when you use it, that is enough to obligate you and bind you.

Some might say they've never seen anyone prosecuted on the basis of using Federal Reserve Notes, there is a reason for that. Out of our population of 250,000,000 plus people in this country today about 249,900,000 of them have checking accounts.

The Internal Revenue Service which is an agent for the Federal Reserve is going out and collecting on all those chosen in action, and like most people, if there is an easy way to do it, they'll do it that way.

Whenever the Internal Revenue Service wants to check on someone to find out if they are one of these people that has some of this property that can be recovered by a chosen action, they run right down to the bank and ask if this person has a checking account, a savings account etc., this is done if you owe IRS money.

The first thing they do is put a lien on your checking account or they confiscate the contents or whatever. If it ever comes to the point where people stop using checking accounts, then the next issue that will come up will be, is there a witness available to demonstrate that this individual has tendered (that's an offer to deliver a performance) this obligation, and if he has, we can hold him liable for the debt.

A remedy is the means used or employed to force a right. If you are in contract, you no longer have the court available to you to enforce that right. Remedies do not apply to those who have alienated their property right by conveyance (a transfer of property). When you pass a Federal Reserve note, you transfer your rights with that, and, put yourself under obligation.

Guardian Paralegal Service does research on various subjects, and has additional information available. If the reader is interested, we will do research on subject matter of interest to the requestor. Write to Guardian Paralegal Research P.O. Box 510404, SLC, Utah 84151.

Research Guardian Paralegal Service ©