Again to repeat the purpose in this exercise: As a peaceful inhabitant, my goal in this exercise is to help reduce the national debt and never have it reissued in support of the governing documents of the United States.? I support fully 100% the United States, as it is my understanding the United States is a bankrupt corporation since the 1930s, under a continuous national declared state of emergency, as there is no ?money? to pay anything only ?extend credit? with private debt instruments issued by private banks thereby increasing the national debt. As a society, it would seem to be an unconscionable act in bad faith to ?mortgage future generations? well being? with the extension of private credit, a promise to pay ?some future interest? which can ultimately be demanded by the creditors of the United States. In a letter by Thomas Jefferson to James Madison in 1789, The Earth Belongs to the Living, these same ideas of debt and its consequences were of great concern. ?The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water? I set out on this ground which I suppose to be self evident, that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living; that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it?.. But the child, the legatee or creditor takes it, not by any natural right, but by a law of the society of which they are members, and to which they are subject. Then no man can by natural right oblige the lands he occupied, or the persons who succeed him in that occupation, to the paiment of debts contracted by him. For if he could, he might during his own life, eat up the usufruct of the lands for several generations to come, and then the lands would belong to the dead, and not to the living, which would be ! reverse of our principle. What is true of every member of the society individually, is true of them all collectively, since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of individuals?. then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation.? If a representative of the bank decides to respond to the following, the intent of this second inquiry is to have the bank?s rep answer the questions categorized by simple topic completely, truthfully and honestly: 12 USC 411: 1. When an indorsement ?on a normal? check is written on the back, Demand is made for Lawful Money per 12 USC 411? OR similar language/indorsement, is it BBT?s policy to ignore such indorsement and ?fractional reserve? the FRNs anyway, thus increasing the national debt? 2. What recourse or other option, if any, does the ?unauthorized users of private internal currency which is backed by the credit of the nation? have from ?a public perspective? NOT to use private script or FRNs, thus by NOT increasing the national debt? 3. How does one obtain a Treasury Direct Account or more specifically, does the BBT offer private accounts where said funds are not, per se, FRNs but are considered US notes and therefore NOT increasing the national debt? 12 USC 342: 1. According to 12 USC 342, in essence, BBT is a member bank of the FRB that has authority to receive CHECKS, bills, notes, OR OTHER ITEMS and upon presentation to the FRB can ?demand collection or credit? and the member bank gets a ?reasonable charge of 10 cents per $100?. The original indorsed instrument that was hand-delivered on October 2, I believe to be executed properly, on the front, with accept for full faith and credit?, then indorsed on the back with the laws stating the how and why, per 12 USC 342, pay to the account of the US per 12 USC 95a(2) AND was ignored by BBT?s authorized representatives, with request to either accept and deposit it OR provide written info with defect. Is it the bank?s policy to ignore these types of demands? 2. Did the bank or any of its agents as ?holders of this instrument dated October 2 actually monetize the signature? on this instrument and personally profit and gain from this transaction? 3. If not, why was not the instrument simply returned? 4. Where is this instrument now? 5. If a ?person? were to provide a bunch of ?receipts? properly indorsed for deposit into a personal checking account, would BBT ignore this as well [as this too should help reduce the national debt, since presumably FRNs were used to ?purchase? the items listed on the receipt, thus increasing the national debt and now these same receipts are being turned in to an agent of the treasury for an ?opposite effect? to now reduce the national debt]? 6. Would a ?different account type be required to be set up for this type of deposit under 12 USC 342?, if so, please give details? General Questions: 1. Does BBT provide full, truthful and complete disclosure to all its banking customers/persons? 2. Is BBT required by law to provide full, truthful and complete disclosure to banking customers/persons? 3. If BBT is not required by law to provide full, truthful and complete disclosure, is it presumed by BBT and/or law that all ?persons?, by operation of law, are presumed to have adequate knowledge of banking transactions and their consequences, ie use of private script v lawful money by non-endorsement of FRNs? Please know and I mean this most sincerely, it is not my ?intention to back ANYONE in a corner, divulge private secrets, get anyone in trouble, make a pest of myself or get something for nothing.? I intentionally did not question anything with regard to mortgages, as I just want to focus on the simple without attempting to ask: whose credit does the bank lend out, UCC 3-501, 12 USC 24, FS 697.02, form 1098 as a tax class 5 form, etc. The sole purpose of this is how, I, along with other men and women [for those that this matter resonates spiritually, physically, and mentally] can provide aid and support to the United States by reducing the national debt and help future generations live freely and unencumbered. I, do not care one way or another how anyone makes ?his living? or personally profits and gains under ?marshal law rule? or not. I would suspect that many people still DO NOT have full understanding that it is THEIR signature as authorized signer FOR the BIRTH ESTATE NAME that allows the state and its agencies to monetize that signature for financial support, thus increasing the national debt and at the same time, place liens against that estate, as everything financial has debits along with credits. This is already at 4 pages and I am sure the reader of this has no interest in me going into detail [not necessarily perfect knowledge but close enough] with: Usufruct, Cestui Que Vie Trust, 13 stat 99/1864 banking act, Trading with the Enemy Act [1917], Bankruptcy of the Untied State [1933], Estate of the Infant, Tax Class 5 IRS forms, Law of Nations, Lieber Code, Hague Convention, Admiralty, 11th Amendment, 13th Amendment [peonage] and 14th Amendment, Declared National State of Emergency, Federal Reserve Bank, Federal Reserve Notes, 12 USC 411, Removal of silver and gold, debt discharge, IRS and reversionary interest and who is ?liable?, who are the Parties to the Constitution, 12 USC 95a, Vital Statistics and the Name being property owned by the State, and how the State receives payment from the United States under the Social Security Act, thus making the United States the ?protected purchaser? under the UCC 8-303, etc. I have no issue accepting and agreeing to the offer made in the last sentence of the Declaration of Independence: ?And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor?. I just wish public administrators would just not ignore but rather ?honor those men and women? who sincerely care enough. And even though there are not many, there are enough out there desiring to help the United States under this emergency. If one of the bank?s representatives chooses not to respond to this, it is not a problem. Then I have no option but to presume that the questions being asked above have hit a chord and the bank does NOT act upon required statutes except the ones where the bank profits and gains to the maximum. If you decide to respond, please do so within ten [10] business days with wet-ink signature otherwise the presumption stands and silence, therefore is agreement. It is not necessary for the bank to ?school me? as all I am looking for is simply responses to simple questions. Please do not respond with: seek YOUR legal counsel ? as this would be considered non-responsive, insulting and incompetent [leally speaking, of course]. Thank you and God Bless
Posted on: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 17:40:23 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015