Entry Submitted by Vee at 6:26 PM EDT on September 3, 2019
Ok .. This is for those that are sick and tired of the BS/HS..we are always getting from whom ever.. and of this charade of a RV.
As I've stated before.. what I'm posting is not about a RV push.. for if you-we knew what I'm about to show you .. it will change the face of the nation for the better of it..forever, as you'll see.
Here is this issue .. If your not part of the solution.. Then you know.. You are the problem.. because of your mine virus and insanity...of Believing .. and I say believing because for most here continue to be controlled by their Lords.. the Lords and their laws to keep you as sheeple to them. Oh your not ?? ha. you are subject to them PTB because you live your lives under their rule of law.. you have to do this and that , ask yourselves what you don't do that it tells you? (I'll make a separate post for a portion of a article to read which will help support my resolve) .
So what can you Believe...I'm going to show you..This is for all of you that have made you post here on IDC with question and assertion of various degrees concerning the RV, banking etc.
This vary well can and should put to rest all of the questions and concerns about the Bankers getting back the power and control they once had..IF!!! you are doing your part ..and keeping a watchful eye on your representative..and more important.. teaching your children..the next generations to always question..and know BS/HS..when they hear it. How is that ??? Because there will know the basic fundamental elements bottom line to the rule of law.. That no one can compel anyone to do anything against their will to preform in anyway.. that it will have to be at the end of a gun barrel...under duress.
What I'm going to share.. expose is our compelling ... our putting the PTB under duress.. because We are the Sovereigns ..read.
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793)
( I always say the further back in time one goes, you'll find the true organic nature of things)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/2/419/
read Wilson, Justice. option ..
(This is a case of uncommon magnitude. One of the parties to it is a State -- certainly respectable, claiming to be sovereign. The question to be determined is whether this State, so respectable, and whose claim soars so high, is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States? This question, important in itself, will depend on others more important still, and, may, perhaps, be ultimately resolved into one no less radical than this: "do the people of the United States form a Nation?"
A cause so conspicuous and interesting should be carefully and accurately viewed from every possible point of sight. I shall examine it 1st. By the principles of general jurisprudence. 2nd. By the laws and practice of particular States and Kingdoms. From the law of nations, little or no illustration of this subject can be expected. By that law, the several States and Governments spread over our globe are considered as forming a society, not a NATION. It has only been by a very few comprehensive minds, such as those of Elizabeth and the Fourth Henry, that this last great idea has been even contemplated. 3rdly. and chiefly, I shall examine the important question before us by the Constitution of the United States, and the legitimate result of that valuable instrument.
1. I am, first, to examine this question by the principles of general jurisprudence. What I shall say upon this head I introduce by the observation of an original and profound writer who, in the philosophy of mind and all the sciences attendant on this prime one, has formed an era not less remarkable, and far more illustrious, than that formed by the justly celebrated Bacon in another science, not prosecuted with less ability, but less dignified as to its object; I mean the philosophy of matter. Dr. Reid, in his excellent enquiry into the human mind, on the principles of common sense, speaking of the sceptical and illiberal, ...
Page 2 U. S. 454.....)
We-You're the Voice..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbkOZTSvrHs
We have the chance to turn the pages over
We can write what we want to write
We gotta make ends meet, before we get much older
We're all someone's daughter
We're all someone's son
How long can we look at each other
Down the barrel of a gun?
You're the voice, try and understand it
Make the noise and make it clear, oh, woah
We're not gonna sit in silence
We're not gonna live with fear, oh, woah
This time, we know we all can stand together
With the power to be powerful
Believing we can make it better
The Iroquois (Six Nations of Indians) symbol is a white pine tree with a Eagle on top.. representing that they are always on watch keep an eye out for evil comers.
Your gurus have not shown you this .. because their wannabe's.
To Wit,
As I've stated many times here on IDC,,the PTB had to give remedy or be charged with fraud with intent to defraud. And I've said it was-is not their job to educate you on the law .. it's your responsibility to know it .. know your rights and relation with the Gov and anyone.. again.. because nothing or no one can compel another to preform.. the system is set up to make you believe you have to do things ..like get a drivers licence , marriage license, SS #, file taxes, have taxes with held, use a SS# when engaging in a barter exchange- your equity to another.
And again the organic nature of things was founded back to the roots of nature... somethings are
im·pre·scrip·ti·ble
/ˌimprəˈskriptəb(ə)l/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
LAW
(of rights) unable to be taken away by prescription or by lapse of time.
"inalienable and imprescriptible rights"
FACT !!!!
Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. (1796) 2 S.E. 70: Subjection to laws must be by consent.
"When a change of government takes place, from a monarchial to a republican government, the old form is dissolved. Those who lived under it, and did not choose to become members of the new, had a right to refuse their allegiance to it, and to retire elsewhere. By being a part of the society subject to the old government, they had not entered into any engagement to become subject to any new form the majority might think proper to adopt. That the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule upon mankind in their natural state. There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent"
[Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. (1796) 2 S.E. 70: Subjection to laws must be by consent]
Consent; Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 305:
consent. "A concurrence of wills. Voluntarily yielding the will to the proposition of another; acquiescence or compliance therewith. Agreement; approval; permission; the act or result of coming into harmony or accord. Consent is an act of reason, accompanied with deliberation, the mind weighing as in a balance the good or evil on each side. It means voluntary agreement by a person in the possession and exercise of sufficient mental capacity to make an intelligent choice to do something proposed by another. It supposes a physical power to act, a moral power of acting, and a serious, determined, and free use of these powers. Consent is implied in every agreement. It is an act unclouded by fraud, duress, or sometimes even mistake.
Ask yourselves .. (as you may presume to know) why the Indians of Indian Nations do not pay or file a Federal Income Tax - you say .. because they're not citizens ??? no .. because they do not consent to it ..period.
Everything we Americans have done we've allowed the PTB-Government to get into our lives has been .. voluntary.
OK next.. put this into application and construction of law.
Sub Silentio
: under or in silence
: without notice being taken or without making a particular point of the matter in question
[overruled sub silentio this court's holding in Collora "State v. Olsen, 498 N.W.2d 661 (1993)"]
Sub Silentio Law and Legal Definition
Sub silentio means under silence. This term mostly refers to matters that are not expressed but implied…. In certain circumstances, passing a thing under silence is an evidence of consent.
: under or in silence : without notice being taken or without making a particular point of the matter in question.
It is often used as a reference to something that is implied but not expressly stated.
Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1593
SUB SILENTIO. Under silence; without any notice being taken. Passing a thing sub silentio may be evidence of consent.
Ejus est non nolle, qui potest velle.
He who may consent tacitly, may consent expressly. Dig. 50, 17, 8.
Id quod nostrum est, sine facto nostro ad alium transferi non potest.
What belongs to us cannot be transferred to another without our consent. Dig. 50, 17, 11. But this must be understood with this qualification, that the government may take property for public use, paying the owner its value. The title to property may also be acquired, with the consent of the owner, by a judgment of a competent tribunal.
Qui tacet consentire videtur.
He who is silent appears to consent. Jenk. Cent. 32.
ARE YOU READY !?!?!?
Here is the facts and truth to what "Colonel Edward Mandell House letter to President Wilson " stated only on in a million will find the loop whole.
Everyone says THE BANKS , the Banks , The Banks are the problem,, not really,,
In my past postings Tick - Tock pg,1-4 I gave you all a link to a pdf called "The Dispatch of Merchants" ..the man that wrote it tells us about 2 Supreme court cases and that how Erie railroad v. Tompkins (1938) over turned a previous S.C. ruling and infect left the American citizens without a lawful Constitutional medium of exchange.. it placed the Americans in a position of in ability to preform other wise.. with no alternative. And thus made everyone as Merchants dealing in these merchants negotiable instrument notes.
Like what the Clearfield Trust Doctrine Law states .. when using these (commercial) instruments .. everyone is subject to the commercial jurisdiction, to be treated as such.
SO .. where is or was the remedy ??? In the law that binds.
U.S. Constitution of America - Article 1 Section 10 Article 1 - The Legislative Branch Section 10 - Powers Prohibited of States
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
That's the law... so let me show you now how we - you were Sub Silentio .
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-111publ203/pdf/PLAW-111publ203.pdf
(P.L. 111-203), into law on July 21, 2010.
Public Law 111–203 111th Congress
An Act To promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end ‘‘too big to fail’’, to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for other purposes.
SEC. 3. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provisions of such to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
If I know that this Act is not in compliance with the Constitution then non of it applies.. and I know that this Act is not in compliance to Articular 1 Section 10 of the Constitution ..because it's based on the Federal Reserve Act (fiat commercial notes) .. which is a private franchise act.
Did you read the catch text ?? "the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provisions of such to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby"
It's based on a individual bases, only if each one make the claim that the Act does not apply to them... the rest is left to SUB SILENTIO.
is that it ?? the only one ?? We got to keep going back in time..
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/files/docs/historical/congressional/bankinglaw1913-1956_complete.pdf
pdf. pg. 749 .
There it is again and in more understandable text.. the "remainder of the act" if not even the one portion of it being claimed by one,,
shall be applicable to all others unless claimed by therm.
pdf.pg 705
pdf. pgs 688,689
pdf.pg 647
pdf pg. 544 there's a lot there for what ever..
the 1933 Banking Act
pdf.pg. 540 This is the banking Act under the franchise of the private Federal Reserve Act.
It's as plan as day.. the provisions of a act will apply to everyone unless they make their claim
as to it not to be SUB SILENTIO. Under silence of effect.
pdf.pg. 503
pdf. pg . 446.
So here is the Banking and Currency Act under the private Federal Reserve Act.. This is the Federal Reserve
currency making act ,, this is not the Organic Currency Act.. which is the Law.
Here riddle me this ... what would the President of the First National Bank of Montgomery in First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Jerome Daly make this statement ?
https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-83f9GYTm1KE7PLuo/Jerome-Daly-The-Mahoney-Credit-River-Decision_djvu.txt
before the Court and a Jury of 12 on December 7, 1968 at 10:00 am. Plaintiff appeared by its President Lawrence V. Morgan and was represented by its Counsel, R. Mellby. Defendant appeared on his own behalf.
Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of their interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire $14,000.00 in money or 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 Statute existed which gave him the right to do this.
there is a rule of law.. that when one makes a claim or a assertion as fact.. and this is not rebutted than it will stand as fact ..as the above shows. a settled matter and affirmed buy the court below.
" Although a mere allegation of a constitutional violation would not be sufficient to avoid the effect of a statutory finality provision, see Reid v. Engen, 765 F.2d 1457, 1461 (9th Cir. 1985), the record before us indicates that Rodrigues may have cognizable due process claims. Rodrigues does not make a facial attack on the constitutionality of the FECA procedures themselves, but, instead, asserts that the procedures are unconstitutional as applied to him. ...
We simply conclude that, on the basis of the record before us, Rodrigues's due process contentions appear to be more than mere allegations included in the complaint to create jurisdiction where none would exist otherwise. "
If procedures are unconstitutional to Sherwood then they would be to everyone else.. we are all equal under the law..
The Federal Administrative Procedures Act of 1946, Title 5 USC 1011, June 11, 1946, Ch 324, Section 12, 60 Stat 244, in the first and last sentences, the words, "This subchapter, Chapter 7, and sections 1305, 3105, 3344, 4301(2)(E), 5362, and 7521, and provisions of section 5225(a)(B) of this title relate to hearing examiners are substituted for 'this Act' to reflect the codification of the Act of this title." The words, " to diminish the constitutional rights of any person" are omitted as surplus usage as there is nothing in the Act that can be reasonably construed to diminish those rights and because A STATUTE MAY NOT OPERATE IN DEROGATION OF THE CONSTITUTION!
Ok there ya go .. something to study.. I'll go into the next applicable portion on banking in another post..the Organic act. And I'll tell you all how to utilize this info.
Watch the Hudsucker Proxy movie.
PS.. if this post doesn't make it to the top of the "Feature post" ..and even stay there then something is wrong..?
Vee
______________________________________________________
If you wish to contact the author of any reader submitted guest post, you can give us an email at UniversalOm432Hz@gmail.com and we'll forward your request to the author.
______________________________________________________
All articles, videos, and images posted on Dinar Chronicles were submitted by readers and/or handpicked by the site itself for informational and/or entertainment purposes.
Dinar Chronicles is not a registered investment adviser, broker dealer, banker or currency dealer and as such, no information on the website should be construed as investment advice. We do not support, represent or guarantee the completeness, truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any content or communications posted on this site. Information posted on this site may or may not be fictitious. We do not intend to and are not providing financial, legal, tax, political or any other advice to readers of this website.
Copyright © 2019 Dinar Chronicles
Ok .. This is for those that are sick and tired of the BS/HS..we are always getting from whom ever.. and of this charade of a RV.
As I've stated before.. what I'm posting is not about a RV push.. for if you-we knew what I'm about to show you .. it will change the face of the nation for the better of it..forever, as you'll see.
Here is this issue .. If your not part of the solution.. Then you know.. You are the problem.. because of your mine virus and insanity...of Believing .. and I say believing because for most here continue to be controlled by their Lords.. the Lords and their laws to keep you as sheeple to them. Oh your not ?? ha. you are subject to them PTB because you live your lives under their rule of law.. you have to do this and that , ask yourselves what you don't do that it tells you? (I'll make a separate post for a portion of a article to read which will help support my resolve) .
So what can you Believe...I'm going to show you..This is for all of you that have made you post here on IDC with question and assertion of various degrees concerning the RV, banking etc.
This vary well can and should put to rest all of the questions and concerns about the Bankers getting back the power and control they once had..IF!!! you are doing your part ..and keeping a watchful eye on your representative..and more important.. teaching your children..the next generations to always question..and know BS/HS..when they hear it. How is that ??? Because there will know the basic fundamental elements bottom line to the rule of law.. That no one can compel anyone to do anything against their will to preform in anyway.. that it will have to be at the end of a gun barrel...under duress.
What I'm going to share.. expose is our compelling ... our putting the PTB under duress.. because We are the Sovereigns ..read.
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793)
( I always say the further back in time one goes, you'll find the true organic nature of things)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/2/419/
read Wilson, Justice. option ..
(This is a case of uncommon magnitude. One of the parties to it is a State -- certainly respectable, claiming to be sovereign. The question to be determined is whether this State, so respectable, and whose claim soars so high, is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States? This question, important in itself, will depend on others more important still, and, may, perhaps, be ultimately resolved into one no less radical than this: "do the people of the United States form a Nation?"
A cause so conspicuous and interesting should be carefully and accurately viewed from every possible point of sight. I shall examine it 1st. By the principles of general jurisprudence. 2nd. By the laws and practice of particular States and Kingdoms. From the law of nations, little or no illustration of this subject can be expected. By that law, the several States and Governments spread over our globe are considered as forming a society, not a NATION. It has only been by a very few comprehensive minds, such as those of Elizabeth and the Fourth Henry, that this last great idea has been even contemplated. 3rdly. and chiefly, I shall examine the important question before us by the Constitution of the United States, and the legitimate result of that valuable instrument.
1. I am, first, to examine this question by the principles of general jurisprudence. What I shall say upon this head I introduce by the observation of an original and profound writer who, in the philosophy of mind and all the sciences attendant on this prime one, has formed an era not less remarkable, and far more illustrious, than that formed by the justly celebrated Bacon in another science, not prosecuted with less ability, but less dignified as to its object; I mean the philosophy of matter. Dr. Reid, in his excellent enquiry into the human mind, on the principles of common sense, speaking of the sceptical and illiberal, ...
Page 2 U. S. 454.....)
We-You're the Voice..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbkOZTSvrHs
We have the chance to turn the pages over
We can write what we want to write
We gotta make ends meet, before we get much older
We're all someone's daughter
We're all someone's son
How long can we look at each other
Down the barrel of a gun?
You're the voice, try and understand it
Make the noise and make it clear, oh, woah
We're not gonna sit in silence
We're not gonna live with fear, oh, woah
This time, we know we all can stand together
With the power to be powerful
Believing we can make it better
The Iroquois (Six Nations of Indians) symbol is a white pine tree with a Eagle on top.. representing that they are always on watch keep an eye out for evil comers.
Your gurus have not shown you this .. because their wannabe's.
To Wit,
As I've stated many times here on IDC,,the PTB had to give remedy or be charged with fraud with intent to defraud. And I've said it was-is not their job to educate you on the law .. it's your responsibility to know it .. know your rights and relation with the Gov and anyone.. again.. because nothing or no one can compel another to preform.. the system is set up to make you believe you have to do things ..like get a drivers licence , marriage license, SS #, file taxes, have taxes with held, use a SS# when engaging in a barter exchange- your equity to another.
And again the organic nature of things was founded back to the roots of nature... somethings are
im·pre·scrip·ti·ble
/ˌimprəˈskriptəb(ə)l/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
LAW
(of rights) unable to be taken away by prescription or by lapse of time.
"inalienable and imprescriptible rights"
FACT !!!!
Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. (1796) 2 S.E. 70: Subjection to laws must be by consent.
"When a change of government takes place, from a monarchial to a republican government, the old form is dissolved. Those who lived under it, and did not choose to become members of the new, had a right to refuse their allegiance to it, and to retire elsewhere. By being a part of the society subject to the old government, they had not entered into any engagement to become subject to any new form the majority might think proper to adopt. That the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule upon mankind in their natural state. There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent"
[Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. (1796) 2 S.E. 70: Subjection to laws must be by consent]
Consent; Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 305:
consent. "A concurrence of wills. Voluntarily yielding the will to the proposition of another; acquiescence or compliance therewith. Agreement; approval; permission; the act or result of coming into harmony or accord. Consent is an act of reason, accompanied with deliberation, the mind weighing as in a balance the good or evil on each side. It means voluntary agreement by a person in the possession and exercise of sufficient mental capacity to make an intelligent choice to do something proposed by another. It supposes a physical power to act, a moral power of acting, and a serious, determined, and free use of these powers. Consent is implied in every agreement. It is an act unclouded by fraud, duress, or sometimes even mistake.
Ask yourselves .. (as you may presume to know) why the Indians of Indian Nations do not pay or file a Federal Income Tax - you say .. because they're not citizens ??? no .. because they do not consent to it ..period.
Everything we Americans have done we've allowed the PTB-Government to get into our lives has been .. voluntary.
OK next.. put this into application and construction of law.
Sub Silentio
: under or in silence
: without notice being taken or without making a particular point of the matter in question
[overruled sub silentio this court's holding in Collora "State v. Olsen, 498 N.W.2d 661 (1993)"]
Sub Silentio Law and Legal Definition
Sub silentio means under silence. This term mostly refers to matters that are not expressed but implied…. In certain circumstances, passing a thing under silence is an evidence of consent.
: under or in silence : without notice being taken or without making a particular point of the matter in question.
It is often used as a reference to something that is implied but not expressly stated.
Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1593
SUB SILENTIO. Under silence; without any notice being taken. Passing a thing sub silentio may be evidence of consent.
Ejus est non nolle, qui potest velle.
He who may consent tacitly, may consent expressly. Dig. 50, 17, 8.
Id quod nostrum est, sine facto nostro ad alium transferi non potest.
What belongs to us cannot be transferred to another without our consent. Dig. 50, 17, 11. But this must be understood with this qualification, that the government may take property for public use, paying the owner its value. The title to property may also be acquired, with the consent of the owner, by a judgment of a competent tribunal.
Qui tacet consentire videtur.
He who is silent appears to consent. Jenk. Cent. 32.
ARE YOU READY !?!?!?
Here is the facts and truth to what "Colonel Edward Mandell House letter to President Wilson " stated only on in a million will find the loop whole.
Everyone says THE BANKS , the Banks , The Banks are the problem,, not really,,
In my past postings Tick - Tock pg,1-4 I gave you all a link to a pdf called "The Dispatch of Merchants" ..the man that wrote it tells us about 2 Supreme court cases and that how Erie railroad v. Tompkins (1938) over turned a previous S.C. ruling and infect left the American citizens without a lawful Constitutional medium of exchange.. it placed the Americans in a position of in ability to preform other wise.. with no alternative. And thus made everyone as Merchants dealing in these merchants negotiable instrument notes.
Like what the Clearfield Trust Doctrine Law states .. when using these (commercial) instruments .. everyone is subject to the commercial jurisdiction, to be treated as such.
SO .. where is or was the remedy ??? In the law that binds.
U.S. Constitution of America - Article 1 Section 10 Article 1 - The Legislative Branch Section 10 - Powers Prohibited of States
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
That's the law... so let me show you now how we - you were Sub Silentio .
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-111publ203/pdf/PLAW-111publ203.pdf
(P.L. 111-203), into law on July 21, 2010.
Public Law 111–203 111th Congress
An Act To promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end ‘‘too big to fail’’, to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for other purposes.
SEC. 3. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provisions of such to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
If I know that this Act is not in compliance with the Constitution then non of it applies.. and I know that this Act is not in compliance to Articular 1 Section 10 of the Constitution ..because it's based on the Federal Reserve Act (fiat commercial notes) .. which is a private franchise act.
Did you read the catch text ?? "the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provisions of such to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby"
It's based on a individual bases, only if each one make the claim that the Act does not apply to them... the rest is left to SUB SILENTIO.
is that it ?? the only one ?? We got to keep going back in time..
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/files/docs/historical/congressional/bankinglaw1913-1956_complete.pdf
pdf. pg. 749 .
There it is again and in more understandable text.. the "remainder of the act" if not even the one portion of it being claimed by one,,
shall be applicable to all others unless claimed by therm.
pdf.pg 705
pdf. pgs 688,689
pdf.pg 647
pdf pg. 544 there's a lot there for what ever..
the 1933 Banking Act
pdf.pg. 540 This is the banking Act under the franchise of the private Federal Reserve Act.
It's as plan as day.. the provisions of a act will apply to everyone unless they make their claim
as to it not to be SUB SILENTIO. Under silence of effect.
pdf.pg. 503
pdf. pg . 446.
So here is the Banking and Currency Act under the private Federal Reserve Act.. This is the Federal Reserve
currency making act ,, this is not the Organic Currency Act.. which is the Law.
Here riddle me this ... what would the President of the First National Bank of Montgomery in First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Jerome Daly make this statement ?
https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-83f9GYTm1KE7PLuo/Jerome-Daly-The-Mahoney-Credit-River-Decision_djvu.txt
before the Court and a Jury of 12 on December 7, 1968 at 10:00 am. Plaintiff appeared by its President Lawrence V. Morgan and was represented by its Counsel, R. Mellby. Defendant appeared on his own behalf.
Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of their interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire $14,000.00 in money or 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 Statute existed which gave him the right to do this.
there is a rule of law.. that when one makes a claim or a assertion as fact.. and this is not rebutted than it will stand as fact ..as the above shows. a settled matter and affirmed buy the court below.
" Although a mere allegation of a constitutional violation would not be sufficient to avoid the effect of a statutory finality provision, see Reid v. Engen, 765 F.2d 1457, 1461 (9th Cir. 1985), the record before us indicates that Rodrigues may have cognizable due process claims. Rodrigues does not make a facial attack on the constitutionality of the FECA procedures themselves, but, instead, asserts that the procedures are unconstitutional as applied to him. ...
We simply conclude that, on the basis of the record before us, Rodrigues's due process contentions appear to be more than mere allegations included in the complaint to create jurisdiction where none would exist otherwise. "
If procedures are unconstitutional to Sherwood then they would be to everyone else.. we are all equal under the law..
The Federal Administrative Procedures Act of 1946, Title 5 USC 1011, June 11, 1946, Ch 324, Section 12, 60 Stat 244, in the first and last sentences, the words, "This subchapter, Chapter 7, and sections 1305, 3105, 3344, 4301(2)(E), 5362, and 7521, and provisions of section 5225(a)(B) of this title relate to hearing examiners are substituted for 'this Act' to reflect the codification of the Act of this title." The words, " to diminish the constitutional rights of any person" are omitted as surplus usage as there is nothing in the Act that can be reasonably construed to diminish those rights and because A STATUTE MAY NOT OPERATE IN DEROGATION OF THE CONSTITUTION!
Ok there ya go .. something to study.. I'll go into the next applicable portion on banking in another post..the Organic act. And I'll tell you all how to utilize this info.
Watch the Hudsucker Proxy movie.
PS.. if this post doesn't make it to the top of the "Feature post" ..and even stay there then something is wrong..?
Vee
______________________________________________________
If you wish to contact the author of any reader submitted guest post, you can give us an email at UniversalOm432Hz@gmail.com and we'll forward your request to the author.
______________________________________________________
All articles, videos, and images posted on Dinar Chronicles were submitted by readers and/or handpicked by the site itself for informational and/or entertainment purposes.
Dinar Chronicles is not a registered investment adviser, broker dealer, banker or currency dealer and as such, no information on the website should be construed as investment advice. We do not support, represent or guarantee the completeness, truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any content or communications posted on this site. Information posted on this site may or may not be fictitious. We do not intend to and are not providing financial, legal, tax, political or any other advice to readers of this website.
Copyright © 2019 Dinar Chronicles
0 Comments: