Saturday, November 30, 2013


The legal statutory and professional definitions of “bank”, “banking”, and “banker” used in the United States Code and Code of Federal Regulations are not those commonly understood for these terms and have made the statutory definition of “Bank” accordingly:
a.      UCC 4-105 PART 1 “Bank” means a person engaged in the business of banking,"
b.     12CFR Sec. 229.2 Definitions (e) “Bank” means-"the term bank also includes any person engaged in the business of banking,"
c.      12CFR Sec. 210.2 Definitions. (d)“Bank” means any person engaged in the business of banking.
d.     The term “person” means a legal fiction (corporation or trust) construct such as PATRICIA A MORRIS transmitting utility.
e.      TITLE 12 Sec. 1813. -Definitions of Bank and Related Terms. (1) Bank. - The term "bank" - (A) "means any national bank, State bank, and District bank, and any Federal branch and insured branch;"
f.       Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 133, defines a “Banker” as: "In general sense, person that engages in business of banking. In narrower meaning, a private person…; who is engaged in the business of banking without being incorporated. Under some statutes, an individual banker, as distinguished from a "private banker", is a person who, having complied with the statutory requirements, has received authority from the state to engage in the business of banking, while a private banker is a person engaged in banking without having any special privileges or authority from the state.”
g.     “Banking'”- Is partly and optionally defined as "The business of issuing notes for circulation ....., negotiating bills."
h.     Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 133, defines “Banking”: The business of banking, as defined by law and custom, consists in the issue of notes intended to circulate as money…
i.      And defines a “Banker’s Note” as: "A commercial instrument resembling a bank note in every particular except that it is given by a private banker or unincorporated banking institution."
j.      "In the absence of a statutory definition, courts give terms their ordinary meaning.” Bass, Terri L. v. Stolper, Koritzinsky, 111 F.3d 1325, 7thCir. Apps. (1996).
k.     As the U.S. Supreme Court noted, “We have stated time and again that courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.” See, e.g., United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 241-242 (1989); United States v. Goldenberg, 168 U.S. 95, 102 -103 (1897).

We, the people, are banks! So, to whom do we make these “Accept for Values” out to? The way I see it, these codes said Treasury department is to settle the debts. However, the IRS is the accounting and collection department of the Treasury Department. Let us see what the IRS has to say.


What can we do? “Accepted For Value” or “Accept for Value”. When you accept the illegal, void, non-gold or non-silver related debt, then you, the creator of governments, give it value. Are you not the sons and daughters of God? Ambassadors? Representation of God, to do all acts in his name? John 14:13; John 14:14; John 16:23; John 16:26. Sovereigns can create money or value. What of the Law Of Nations? I have never signed up or agreed to the LON, therefore, value is whatever I claim it to be and you accept; however, no country or other sovereign has to accept it. There lies the problem; my creation may not be recognized by anyone. But wait!

UCC § 1-204: “Except as otherwise provided in Articles 3, 4, [and] 5, [and 6], a person gives value for rights if the person acquires them:
(1) in return for a binding commitment to extend credit or for the extension of immediately available credit, whether or not drawn upon and whether or not a charge-back is provided for in the event of difficulties in collection;
(2) as security for, or in total or partial satisfaction of, a preexisting claim;
(3) by accepting delivery under a preexisting contract for purchase; or
(4) in return for any consideration sufficient to support a simple contract”.

UCC § 3-419:
“(a) If an instrument is issued for value given for the benefit of a party to the instrument (“accommodated party”) and another party to the instrument (“accommodation party”) signs the instrument for the purpose of incurring liability on the instrument without being a direct beneficiary of the value given for the instrument, the instrument is signed by the accommodation party “for accommodation.”
(b) An accommodation party may sign the instrument as maker, drawer, acceptor, or indorser and, subject to subsection (d), is obliged to pay the instrument in the capacity in which the accommodation party signs. The obligation of an accommodation party may be enforced notwithstanding any statute of frauds and whether or not the accommodation party receives consideration for the accommodation.
(c) A person signing an instrument is presumed to be an accommodation party and there is notice that the instrument is signed for accommodation if the signature is an anomalous indorsement or is accompanied by words indicating that the signer is acting as surety or guarantor with respect to the obligation of another party to the instrument. Except as provided in Section 3-605, the obligation of an accommodation party to pay the instrument is not affected by the fact that the person enforcing the obligation had notice when the instrument was taken by that person that the accommodation party signed the instrument for accommodation.
(d) If the signature of a party to an instrument is accompanied by words indicating unambiguously that the party is guaranteeing collection rather than payment of the obligation of another party to the instrument, the signer is obliged to pay the amount due on the instrument to a person entitled to enforce the instrument only if
(i) execution of judgment against the other party has been returned unsatisfied,
(ii) the other party is insolvent or in an insolvency proceeding,
(iii) the other party cannot be served with process, or
(iv) it is otherwise apparent that payment cannot be obtained from the other party.
(e) If the signature of a party to an instrument is accompanied by words indicating that the party guarantees payment or the signer signs the instrument as an accommodation party in some other manner that does not unambiguously indicate an intention to guarantee collection rather than payment, the signer is obliged to pay the amount due on the instrument to a person entitled to enforce the instrument in the same circumstances as the accommodated party would be obliged, without prior resort to the accommodated party by the person entitled to enforce the instrument.
(f) An accommodation party who pays the instrument is entitled to reimbursement from the accommodated party and is entitled to enforce the instrument against the accommodated party. In proper circumstances, an accommodation party may obtain relief that requires the accommodated party to perform its obligations on the instrument. An accommodated party that pays the instrument has no right of recourse against, and is not entitled to contribution from, an accommodation party”.
UCC § 3-103(a):
(1)  “‘Acceptor’ means a drawee who has accepted a draft”.
(4)  “‘Drawee’ means a person ordered in a draft to make payment”.
(7)  “‘Maker’ means a person who signs or is identified in a note as a person undertaking to pay”.


Even though in the case, Guaranty Trust of New York vs. Henwood; 1977 (makes reference to Title 31 § 5118 ) “ tender for the discharge of debt is no longer required”, legal tender are Federal Reserve Notes.
The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago in its booklet: Modern Money Mechanics (page 2), states; “In the United States neither paper currency [e.g., Federal Reserve Notes] nor deposits have value as commodities. Intrinsically, a dollar bill is just a piece of paper, deposits merely book entries. The acceptance of said “currency” is merely a “confidence” game predicated upon the people’s faith or “confidence” that these currencies/instruments can be exchanged/accepted for goods and services”. Does this go against the LON? Absolutely! It is Treason!
From the document “There is no legal tender”, it concluded with “In section one of HJR-192 there is a single very important sentence, which states: “Any such provision contained in any law authorizing obligations to be issued by or under the authority of the United States, is hereby repealed.
This is hugely important because under § 16 of the Federal Reserve Act (above, at PART ONE) the Federal reserve notes issued under that section were expressly said to be obligations of the United States. Then, in June of 1933 the authority to issue those § 16 Federal reserve notes was repealed! Result? ALL Federal reserve or Reserve notes are without authority of law.”
If there is a method to get the government to settle the claims of the public debt, what is it? After all, this is the only way we can actually claim our property, toys, our lives and get rid of the national debt. The United States Supreme Court said, in United States v. Russell [13 Wall, 623, 627] “Private property, the Constitution provides, shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.”
The National Debt is defined as “mortgages on the wealth and income of the people of a country.” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1959.)
The United States cannot pledge or risk the property and wealth of its private citizens, for any government purpose without legally providing them remedy to recover what is due them on their risk.
Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th edition, defines “surety”: “One who undertakes to pay or to do any other act in event that his principal fails therein. Everyone who incurs a liability in person or estate for the benefit of another, without sharing in the consideration, stands in the position of a “surety.”
The rights of a surety to recovery on his risk or loss when standing for the debts of another was reaffirmed again as late as 1962 in Pearlman v. Reliance Ins. Co., 371 U.S. 132 when the Court said: “sureties compelled to pay debts for their principal have been deemed entitled to reimbursement, even without a contractual promise”


Is there a code that claims all this craziness concerning gold? Does it matter? Yes, it matters, as you are a US Citizen by the all money name, upper case, capitalization, a vessel. If you cannot use gold to pay debts and now cannot use gold to pay debt obligations, then how does one “pay” debts? It is written, so shall it be: therefore:

USC (US Code or Title) 31, § 5118. Gold clauses and consent to sue
(a) In this section—
(1) “gold clause” means a provision in or related to an obligation alleging to give the obligee a right to require payment in—
(A) gold;
(B) a particular United States coin or currency; or
(C) United States money measured in gold or a particular United States coin or currency.
(2) “public debt obligation” means a domestic obligation issued or guaranteed by the United States Government to repay money or interest.
(b) The United States Government may not pay out any gold coin. A person lawfully holding United States coins and currency may present the coins and currency to the Secretary of the Treasury for exchange (dollar for dollar) for other United States coins and currency (other than gold and silver coins) that may be lawfully held. The Secretary shall make the exchange under regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
(1) The Government withdraws its consent given to anyone to assert against the Government, its agencies, or its officers, employees, or agents, a claim—
(A) on a gold clause public debt obligation or interest on the obligation;
(B) for United States coins or currency; or
(C) Arising out of the surrender, requisition, seizure, or acquisition of United States coins or currency, gold, or silver involving the effect or validity of a change in the metallic content of the dollar or in a regulation about the value of money.
(2) Paragraph (1) of this subsection does not apply to a proceeding in which no claim is made for payment or credit in an amount greater than the face or nominal value in dollars of public debt obligations or United States coins or currency involved in the proceeding.
(3) Except when consent is not withdrawn under this subsection, an amount appropriated for payment on public debt obligations and for United States, coins and currency may be expended only dollar for dollar.
(1) In this subsection, “obligation” means any obligation (except United States currency) payable in United States money.
(2) An obligation issued containing a gold clause or governed by a gold clause is discharged on payment (dollar for dollar) in United States coin or currency that is legal tender at the time of payment. This paragraph does not apply to an obligation issued after October 27, 1977.

So this all means in Title 31 § 5118, you have gold coins that you can replace them with FRNs dollar for dollar § (b)- what a rip off! The government withdraws its consent to assert a claim against the government (c)(1). YET they will settle dollar for dollar (c)(3) when consent is not withdrawn, payment on a public debt. It can be discharged dollar for dollar (d)(2). It is their law and affects the all money name. So, there has to be a remedy, or this would be a huge conflict. What does this say; you can use the government to settle your “illegal and void” debts dollar for dollar. Americans are foreign to the democracy. What we do is always foreign on behalf of the US Citizen, as a representative of the public debt, (all money name) which Americans have to settle. Foreigners have to settle the debts of the UNITED STATES, as all things created in the democracy are debtors, and debtors cannot create credit. Can FRNs be used to pay debts? No. In Echart v. Commissioners C.C.C 42 Fd2d 158, “Giving note (Federal Reserve) does not constitute payment” and Legal tender (Federal Reserve) Notes are not good and lawful money of the United States. See Rains v State, 226 S.W. 189. What have you actually paid for? Nothing! Who owes it? The Democracy, as all property is abandoned. We have made no valid claims. These are just a form of a promise to pay; the use of a (federal reserve) ‘Note’ is only a promise to pay. See Fidelity Savings v Grimes, 131 P2d 894.

Just try to redeem FRNs at a bank, even if it says you can. Section 16 of the current Federal Reserve Act, which is codified at Title 12 § 411: “Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption:
v  Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal Reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve Bank”.