HERE WE GO AGAIN

I received this recording in an email and I'm going to share it with you. It illustrates to me a game being played with the mind, to bring it back into servitude and obedience, trust in the goodness of people who have shown over and over they are lacking in it -- people who have caused nothing but pain and suffering through debt and involuntary servitude.  People who have a vested interest in opening the door a crack so they can relieve themselves of liability for their actions -- but they will never be able to open the door all the way as the risk is too great.  There are many people who don't have all the facts -- who will be very angry once they find out the truth.  Their reaction can't be predicted, but yours can, as long as they control the rules of the game.

We are to trust in two people in particular, who are privy to knowledge that we aren't.  Who can open doors that we can't.  Who can give us tools to build a better world as long as we follow instructions.

Do you think this is true?

Didn't the OPPT foreclose on all these corporations that they encourage you to do business with in 2017, back in 2012?   Why do I want to re-contract with a bankrupted corporation, and what's more, why are they encouraging you to do it?  I heard on the call that this is "temporary."  Re-contracting with a bankrupted corporation is temporary, because when you contract with them you put them right back in business.

If it isn't enough that the apathy and lack of knowledge of the people of this country hinders it from moving forward to restore the rule of law to our courts, government, and banking industries, those who continue to attempt to keep control are throwing out all kinds of bones right now to anyone who will grab them.  Truth based on facts and evidence is in order here.

I'm not saying I know it all.  What I am saying is I'm erring on the side of caution in all things, building on what I know to be factual and true, then sharing it here for anyone who might get something out of it.

Yes, I lost my home using the OPPT filings.  Many people did.  The courtesy notices didn't work either, for the vast majority of people who used them.  Several years later, we forget these things, the pain diminishes somewhat, and our never-ending hope finds its way back into our hearts.

I don't come here from a place of anger and resentment.  I come here as someone who's learned a very hard lesson -- look before you leap. 

The people who use digits on a computer screen to create "money" are the same ones who twisted the law, the language, and the reality of money and credit to secure their own financial freedom, at the expense of the people.  And this is the only reason that digits on a computer screen signify "credit" to us.

It was against the law then, so why is it not against the law now? 

What happens to bankers and politicians and judges who break the law?  Not much.  But what happens to the people when they break the law?

Take a look at the Constitution, Article I, section 10. Lawful money is gold and silver coin.  It is not digits on a computer screen, or someone's paper balance sheet. It is not bonds, notes, credit cards, or Federal Reserve notes.

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Sec. 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."

We like to cite the constitution when it comes to free speech and any attempt to take away our guns.  But we seem to ignore it when it comes to lawful money and I can't figure out why.  Also take into account our Congress knows these facts, but chooses to ignore them.  This is because they represent the best interests of the USA Inc., and the people are considered their employees.

Is it a wish of the people of the organic united states to use the Constitution as a basis for control over government power, or is it not?

I'm not into "government" anything.  But this is where we are right now and tearing something down tomorrow that so many people still believe in doesn't seem to me to be the most responsible way to proceed. 

The Emergency Banking Act of 1933 took away our right to own gold.  Why do you think they did that?  Consider how the issue of "lawful money" has been confused over time, and how Congress changed the whole system using layers of terminology -- from "Debunking the Federal Reserve":

"The constitution in Article I, section 10 reads "No state shall...coin money, emit bills of credit, make any thing but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts..." This means that the only constitutionally valid forms of money are gold or silver coin. This is called 'lawful money.' U.S. paper money used to be redeemable in lawful money, but no more. Our monetary system is based on unconstitutional forms of money. At least, this is how a few conspiracy theorists see it. [No, it's not conspiracy.  It's the truth hidden behind twisted language.  Read on ... ]
  
The source of their confusion is easy to see and, in this case, easy to understand. Simmons (1939) and Cross (1939) shed some light on the subject. The phrase 'lawful money' had appeared repeatedly in the money and banking laws of the U.S. in the first half of this century, but had never been explicitly defined. It first appeared on February 25, 1862 when Congress authorized the issue of greenbacks and declared them to be "lawful money and a legal tender" for all debts, public and private. This terminology may have been adopted to promote the acceptability of the currency, since the occasion was the first in which Congress attempted to make a paper money a legal tender. At this point in time, then, the terms 'lawful money' and 'legal tender' had no distinct meaning. They were they same thing.
During the Civil War era Congress gave several types of money the status 'lawful money.' On March 17, 1862 Congress declared that Treasury notes (not the T-note debt instrument we know by that name today) were lawful money. February 12, 1862 saw Congress make clearinghouse certificates a lawful money. After the Civil War, on July 12, 1870, Congress placed the U.S. back on the gold standard and specified what types of money national banks could count to meet their legal reserve requirements. "The terms 'lawful money' and 'lawful money of the United States," the Act read, "when applied to these banks shall be held and construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States." So, by 1870 greenbacks, Treasury notes, clearinghouse certificates, and gold and silver coin were all 'lawful money.' The annoying part, though, is that Congress never stated exactly what lawful money was supposed to be. The only concrete conclusion that can be reached is that lawful money and legal tender were two separate things. Lawful money was money that banks could count toward satisfying their reserve requirements. Legal tender was any money that government would accept in payment of taxes. Some money was lawful money, but not all lawful money was legal tender. And vice versa.

Confused?

One last example of the confusion Congress created on the lawful money topic concerns Federal Reserve notes. Prior to 1933-34, they were redeemable at any Federal Reserve bank "in gold or lawful money," and Federal Reserve banks were compelled to hold a 35% reserve "in gold or lawful money" behind their deposits. Congress did not use the phrase "in gold or in other forms of lawful money." It definitely set the terms in contrast to each other. This leads one to conclude that Congress did not deem gold to be lawful money, which at the time would have been absurd.

After 1933 all forms of U.S. money were conferred with legal tender status. This set up a paradox for currency redeemability. Federal Reserve notes and U.S. Notes, for example, were redeemable in "lawful money," but what was lawful money? Because redeemability had ended, there was no longer any distinction between lawful money and legal tender. Federal Reserve notes were therefore redeemable with other Federal Reserve notes, or with U.S. Notes, or with any other legal tender.

To illustrate how some people were confused by this, consider the following correspondence between the U.S. Treasury and citizen of Cleveland.

December 9, 1947 
Honorable John W. Snyder
Sec. of the Treasury
Washington, D.C.

Dear Sir:

I am sending you herewith via registered mail one ten-dollar Federal Reserve note. On this note is inscribed the following:

"This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private, and is redeemable in lawful money at the United States Treasury or at any Federal Reserve bank."

In accordance with this statement, will you send me $10.00 in lawful money? Very truly yours,

A.F. Davis

*****

December 11, 1947 
Mr. A.F. Davis
12818 Colt Road
Cleveland 1, Ohio

Dear Mr. Davis,

Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of December 9th with enclosure of one ten dollar Federal Reserve note.

In compliance with your request, two five-dollar United States notes are transmitted herewith.

Very truly yours,

M.E. Slindee,
Acting Treasurer

*****

December 23, 1947

Mr. M.E. Slindee
Acting Treasurer
Treasury Department
Fiscal Service
Washington 25, D.C.

Dear Sir:

Receipt is hereby acknowledged of two $5.00 United States notes, which we interpret from your letter to be considered lawful money. Are we to infer from this that Federal Reserve notes are not lawful money?

I am enclosing one of the $5.00 notes which you sent me. I note that it states on the face, "The United States of America will pay to the bearer on demand five dollars."

I am hereby demanding five dollars.

Very truly yours,

A.F. Davis 

*****

December 29, 1947

Mr. A.F. Davis
12818 Colt Road
Cleveland 1, Ohio

Dear Mr. Davis:

Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of December 23rd, transmitting one $5 United States note with a demand for payment of five dollars.

Your are advised that the term "lawful money" has not been defined in federal legislation. It first came to use prior to 1933 when some United States currency was not legal tender but could be held by national banking institutions as lawful money reserves. Since the act of May 12, 1933, as amended by the Joint Resolution of June 5, 1933, makes all coins and currency of the United States legal tender and the Joint Resolution of August 27, 1935, provides for the exchange of United States coin or currency for other types of such coin or currency, the term "lawful money" no longer has such special significance.

The $5 United States note received with your letter of December 23rd is returned herewith.

Very truly yours,
M.E. Slindee,
Acting Treasurer

*****

It is understandable how reasonable people can become confused when studying the history of the terms 'lawful money' and 'legal tender' in U.S. history. The blame for this rests with Congress who never bothered to define lawful money when it first used the term. However, the line of thinking that it is defined by the constitution as only gold or silver coin is incorrect. The constitution makes no such definition. Moreover, the restriction that States not make anything but gold or silver a legal tender does not apply to Congress, only to the States. Congress may declare anything it wishes a legal tender. And as the history above shows, it certainly has."

Today, we have people urging those who will believe them that digits on a computer screen is "lawful money." They are telling people to trade in their Social Security number (without the dashes) to pay their bills, many of which we were never obligated to pay in the first place.

What's more, they are urging people to contract with a corporation they claim they bankrupted in 2012.

On top of that, you don't know who they're dealing with -- even if you trust those relaying their information to you, are you absolutely sure the people they are dealing with are trustworthy and honest? 

Look at Title 18, Sec. 8 of the United States Code. Read it carefully.

OBLIGATION OF THE UNITED STATES

"The term “obligation or other security of the United States” includes all bonds, certificates of indebtedness, national bank currency, Federal Reserve notes, Federal Reserve bank notes, coupons, United States notes, Treasury notes, gold certificates, silver certificates, fractional notes, certificates of deposit, bills, checks, or drafts for money, drawn by or upon authorized officers of the United States, stamps and other representatives of value, of whatever denomination, issued under any Act of Congress, and canceled United States stamps."
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 685.)

Do you see anywhere in that code that it is the obligation of THE PEOPLE to pay the debts of the United States, Inc.? Anywhere?

This is because there IS NO MONEY. Many people are aware of this. When you pay your utility bill through your Social Security Account, you are still paying them twice.  They are still double dipping, because they still control the account.  Paying through your Social Security Account with digits PAYS THE DEBT BELONGING TO THE UNITED STATES INC. DOWN.  THE DEBT OF THE LARGEST CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE IN WORLD HISTORY.

With someone else in control of pushing the button to keep the flow going, you are still not in control of your value (if you see your value in this accounting realm).

Do you know what assets have been created in your name, where to access them, how to use them for your benefit and the benefit of future generations? Have you been given the keys back to your kingdom, so no one can ever take control of your stuff again? 

Look at Modern Money Mechanics, published by the Federal Reserve.  The word "law" is mentioned three times.  That's it!

Also consider Congressman McFadden's speech to Congress on the Federal Reserve.

Do you know what a "honey pot" is -- how to spot one, and how to protect yourself from being part of one should something that sounds really good come your way that isn't -- and you participate before doing some serious fact-finding and research first?  It happened to the Bundy Ranch people, WACO, Ruby Ridge, and most recently, eight people in Colorado.  They won't come after you right away.  They like to wait til they have a lot of people to take down at one time.

Sting Operation, or Honey Pot

This is not paranoia.  It's being aware of what's going on around me, and cautious in my actions. The same people who created the methods to get around the law and get away with it all these years, are the same ones you are being urged to play with now.  Do you have protection for yourself in the event they decide to pull the plug on this?  Are you sure they won't use the law I'm showing you here as an excuse to prosecute you for doing what they do?

The US Corp. owes a lot of debt.  More than they could ever pay back.  Per 18 USC Sec. 8, it is their obligation to pay it, not ours.  And they owe it to the people of the united states as well as the rest of the world.  If they can remove us from the planet, they remove their debt.  

This is something we should all be aware of right now.

I looked up Harvey Dent on the internet.  His youtube channel popped up in October 2016.  I could find no CV, no biography, nothing.  The only other reference to this man's name anywhere on the internet is the description of a character from the Batman series of comics and movies: 

"Two-Face is a fictional character, a comic book supervillain who appears in comic books published by DC Comics, and is a prominent member of Batman's Rogues Gallery. Two-Face was originally Harvey Dent, Gotham City's district attorney and an ally of Batman. However, Sal Maroni threw acid at him during a trial, hideously scarring the left side of his face and scarred him mentally as well. Dent went on to adopt the "Two-Face" persona and became a criminal, choosing to bring about good or evil based upon the outcome of a coin flip. The character first appeared in Detective Comics #66 (August 1942), and was created by Bob Kane.

Alongside The Joker and Ra's Al-Ghul, Two-Face is one of Batman's greatest enemies, but not because of the threat he poses to the rest of the world. Instead, he reminds Batman of how far the greatest can fall, and how he cannot save all of his allies - Batman's feelings of guilt that he failed to save his old friends and constant attempts to 'redeem' Dent remain one of the biggest themes of the character."

I had to laugh out loud.  The Universe does have a sense of humor.