The Federal Reserve is not part of the US Government

[500,000]

...

[TheLegendaryJP]

lol you just learned this?

[500,000]

...

[Poker]

lol you just learned this?

No stranger to the snooze button, The OP seems to be hitting it again.

This must have been bothering him for a long time, long before Obama was elected, because Republican Bernanke was appointed by Republican George W Bush and before him Republican Alan Greenspan was appointed by Republican Reagan in 1987 and went on to run the Fed for let's see...wait for it...19 years.

[Designempire]

Not only the Fed Greg - Also the Bank of England.

Have a look at Iamthewitness.com

[draggar]

The federal reserve is about as federal as federal express.

[JuniperPark]

Most Americans, if they know anything at all about the Federal Reserve, believe it is an agency of the United States Government, but its not. http://www.land.netonecom.net/tlp/re..._reserve.shtml

Obama is the bankers Puppet
Get you its a 2 hour HD video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw


Resistance futile

More news for you: This was all set up before Obama arrived, so blaming him for it is a little whacko.

[500,000]

...

[jberryhill]

lol you just learned this?

There's a lot of that going around, JP. The conspiracy theorists are having a field day with folks who never learned some utterly mundane fact, and then casting as something new and suspicious.

The whole "OMG! The Fed" thing ties in with the usual Bilderberg/CFR/Trilateral crap, and is the introductory hook to a path of merry madness.

I will say this, they have stopped saying "Jews", and pretty much use the term "International Bankers" these days, but the rest of the song remains pretty much the same.

I should move all of my spare cash into tinfoil futures.

It's very simple - Barack Obama is the antichrist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raCRSjnT0Wc

[Acro]

John, thanks for that link. Reminds me of how desperate one can be to construct a conspiracy from the ground up.

[jberryhill]

Reminds me of how desperate one can be to construct a conspiracy from the ground up.

It's a requirement that every president be accused of being the antichrist.

My favorite was "Ronald Wilson Reagan - count the letters in each name! OMG!"

[JMJ]

John you have stated before that you have done a lot of research in the "conspiracy theory" realm. I'm curious as to what you think about this conspiracy theory.


BAR -- A particular portion of a court room. Named from the space enclosed by two bars or rails, one of which separated the judge's bench from the rest of the room; the other shut off both the bench and the area for lawyers engaged in trials from the space allotted to suitors, witnesses, and others. Such persons as appeared as speakers (advocates, or counsel) before the court, were said to be "called to the bar", that is, privileged so to appear, speak and otherwise serve in the presence of the judges as "barristers." The corresponding phrase in the United States is "admitted to the bar". - A Dictionary of Law (1893).

SQUIRE, n. [a popular contraction of esquire] 1. In Great Britain, the title of a gentleman next in rank to a knight. 2. In Great Britain, an attendant on a noble warrior. 3. An attendant at court. 4. In the United States, the title of magistrates and lawyers. In New-England, it is particularly given to justices of the peace and judges. - Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

ESQUIRE n. Earlier as squire n. 1 lme. [Origin French. esquier (mod. écuyer) f. Latin scutarius shield-bearer, f. scutum shield: see - ary 1.] 1. Orig. (now Hist.), a young nobleman who, in training for knighthood, acted as shield-bearer and attendant to a knight. Later, a man belonging to the higher order of English gentry, ranking next below a knight. lme. b. Hist. Any of various officers in the service of a king or nobleman. c. A landed proprietor, a country squire. arch. - Oxford English Dictionary 1999.

During the English feudal laws of land ownership and tenancy, a squire - esquire- was established as the land proprietor charged with the duty of carrying out, among various other duties, the act of attornment for the land owner and nobleman he served.

ATTORN v. ME. [Origin French. atorner, aturner >assign, appoint, f. a-torner turn v.] 1. v.t.Turn; change, transform; deck out. 2. v.tTurn over (goods, service, allegiance, etc.) to another; transfer, assign. 3. >v.i. Transfer one’s tenancy, or (arch.) homage or allegiance, to another; formally acknowledge such transfer. attorn tenant (to) Law formally transfer one’s tenancy to), make legal acknowledgement of tenancy ( to a new landlord) -- Oxford English Dictionary 1999.

ATTORN, v.i. [Latin ad and torno.] In the feudal law, to turn, or transfer homage and service from one lord to another. This is the act of feudatories, vassels or tenants, upon the alienation of the estate. -- Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

ATTORNMENT, n. The act of a feudatory, vassal or tenant, by which he consents, upon the alienation of an estate, to receive a new lord or superior, and transfers to him his homage and service. -- Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

ATTORNMENT n. the transference of bailor status, tenancy, or (arch.) allegiance, service, etc., to another; formal acknowledgement of such transfer: lme. -- Oxford English Dictionary 1999.

Solicitor -- one who petitions (initiates) for another in a court

Counselor -- one who advises another concerning a court matter

Lawyer -- [see counselor] learned in the law to advise in a court

Barrister -- one who is privileged to plead at the bar

Advocate -- one who pleads within the bar for a defendant

Attorney -- one who transfers or assigns, within the bar, another's rights and property acting on behalf of the ruling crown

It's very clear that an attorney is not a lawyer. The lawyer is a learned counselor who advises. The ruling government appoints an attorney as one who transfers a tenant's rights, allegiance, and title to the land owner.

Now that we have defined it all here's the theory which I'll tie into this topic via Kucinich question to Neel Kashkari.

I don't think anyone questions Mr. KashKari that you're working hard. Our question is who you're working for?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evpFtFfPWP8

[jberryhill]

It's very clear that an attorney is not a lawyer.

There is no distinction in the US between those two terms.

Mr. Kashkari is at the assistant secretary level of the Treasury Department, so he works for the Secretary of the Treasury, and indirectly for the President.

His career trajectory is pretty typical of certain engineers with an analytical bent. With two engineering degrees from UofI "Chambana" and an MBA from Wharton, I'd bet he's a pretty smart guy. I know quite a few technology folks who later went into tech-related financial analyst types of work, along the same sort of career path.

He's not a lawyer of any kind, so I don't quite understand the preamble.

[JMJ]

The Independent Treasury Act of 1920 suspended the de jure Treasury Department of the United States government. Our Congress turned the treasury department over to a private corporation just like they did in 1913 with the Federal Reserve Act.


This sums up the conspiracy which I was referring to.

"In 1933 the American People, being sovereigns in this country, voted Franklin D. Roosevelt into the position as their spokesman and President. In order to accomplish the task desired of him, Mr. Roosevelt had to spend more money than the sovereign citizens were willing to pay in taxes. This made it necessary for the people's representative to borrow bank credit from the international banking houses. It was written into that loan contract that the loans of bank credit, in addition to the interest (usury) upon them were to be repaid in gold coin. By the year 1938 (actually 1933 is when the United States was declared bankrupt and Roosevelt enacted the War Powers act of 1933 which is how the country is being ran to this day. He used this to seize the people's gold and sold it to the international bankers at a fixed price to fund government. 1938 is when they usurped common law via Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins) the international banking houses had extended their credit to the United States in excess of the gold coin, available for repayment of the same, thus the former sovereign citizens of the Nation, through Mr. Roosevelt their representative, could no longer meet their contract obligations to pay their international debt in gold coin, and they lost their sovereign status under common law, because of this default on the debt to the international banking houses, and the Bar Associations accommodated the situation by blending "law" with "equity" in 1938 in such a way as not to alarm the American citizens over their newly acquired servile status. >> (U.C.C.)As every licensed attorney knows, the rules of equity are quite different from the rules of law. American equity compels performance upon the letter of a contract obligation, or in interest of the creditor in the case of financial default, but it allows a jury trial for controversy above $20.00, and it outlaws debtors prisons. However, the equity jurisdiction of international default on debt is tried in Admiralty Courts, which do not recognize any of the constitutional protections of American Equity Courts, since they are International. A jury in an Admiralty Court is only advisory to the chancellor (judge) who may rule contrary to a jury verdict if he wishes. Also Admiralty courts impose Criminal penalty on those who fail to perform. The legislative bodies in America today, no longer pass Public "law" statutes, pursuant to the limitations upon such statutes by National and State Constitutions, but rather our legislative bodies in America are now sovereign, over the Courts and Executive Officers, as well as over all of the so-called citizens, and their function is to pass Public "policy" statutes in the interest of the nation's creditors, which civil statutes contain Criminal penalties under an Admiralty jurisdiction. In these public policy statutes defendants are charged with a criminal action for the failure to perform within a public policy statute written in the interest of the Nations Creditors, who feel they want people protected from their own careless behavior because dead men pay no taxes, and the nations' creditors need these taxes to help pay the international debt, which is in default. The courts claim admiralty jurisdiction over a "person" (has a different meaning than you think) because of their failure to perform their duty under the contract of repayment of debt. Howard Freeman"

A social contract which the majority of American's know nothing about but have become a party to more or less via silent acquiescence. This happened in other western countries as well IE England, Canada, etc and some Eastern IE Australia. All countries which are/were supposedly under the rule of the Crown. Or like in the US's case became under said rule.

"The "Bar" Treaty of 1947
Effectively Tying the Bar Associations of the Respective Pan-American States Together and subverting our Constitution to United Nations International Law

Today an attorney is a sworn officer of the court, and by his own admission, as that officer, his duty is to impose the will of the state against the citizen. "

http://www.barefootsworld.net/bar1947.html



Parens Patriae, "Government As Parent",

http://www.barefootsworld.net/parensp.html


BTW nice avoiding the title of nobility part.


If you can't seem to tie all of this together then I suggest this video

The American Holocaust because 2.0 has already started.

part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO-eV...eature=related
part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH9Sw...eature=related
part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcaAD...eature=related
part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkCnH...eature=related
part 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRhDY...eature=related

[jberryhill]

Ah, now that is a fine piece of "Sovereign Citizen" militia-type legal gibberish. That kind of legal crackpottery is such a tangled mess of crap that the typical challenge is "Well, go ahead and refute it!" The problem is that it makes zero legal sense in the first place.

Let me guess... The federal income tax is unconstitutional and voluntary; there is a type of title to property which you can obtain that renders it immune to property tax; you can file a lien against your own name with the state and declare yourself immune to debt; and you think there is a some magical significance if your name appears in capital letters on a legal document. Yeah... I know this tune.

You'd love the rantings of Charles Edward Lincoln - an attorney who has been disbarred in several states and jailed twice. He's the legal clerk for birther lawyer Orly Taitz. He's a longstanding member of the nutjob "Sovereign Citizen" movement.

Just to pick at a few threads in that hairball:

Today an attorney is a sworn officer of the court, and by his own admission, as that officer, his duty is to impose the will of the state against the citizen.

No. That phrase is entirely meant in a procedural, not a substantive, sense. Attorneys are to zealously represent their clients in accordance with the rules of practice, which are authorized by the courts.

Cammer v. United States, 350 U.S. 399 (1956)

It has been stated many times that lawyers are "officers' of the court." One of the most frequently repeated statements to this effect appears in 71 U. S. 378. The Court pointed out there, however, that an attorney was not an "officer" within the ordinary meaning of that term. Certainly nothing that was said in Ex parte Garland or in any other case decided by this Court places attorneys in the same category as marshals, bailiffs, court clerks, or judges. Unlike these officials, a lawyer is engaged in a private profession, important though it be to our system of justice. In general, he makes his own decisions, follows his own best judgment, collects his own fees, and runs his own business. The word "officer" as it has always been applied to lawyers conveys quite a different meaning from the word "officer" as applied to people serving as officers within the conventional meaning of that term

Attorneys are not "officers of the court" in a substantive sense, but in a procedural sense.

There is no "Bar Treaty of 1947". There is the International Bar Association that was formed in 1947 which is a professional organization that does the following awful things:

The principal aims and objectives of the IBA are:

* To promote an exchange of information between legal associations worldwide

* To support the independence of the judiciary and the right of lawyers to practise their profession without interference

* Support of human rights for lawyers worldwide through its Human Rights Institute

The IBA works towards these objectives through three main areas of activity:

* Services for individual lawyer members through its divisions, committees and constituents

* Support for activities of bar associations and in particular, developing bars

* Support of human rights for lawyers worldwide

Which... is pretty much the opposite of what you suggest. Membership in professional organizations is not required of any lawyer. I let my ABA membership lapse when I found cheaper health insurance elsewhere. But, yes, people frequently confuse state bars (administered by the supreme court of each state - which determines requirements for admission and continued licensing), and bar associations which are entirely voluntary organizations which do various good stuff.

Aside from the retarded view of what bar associations are, and what the IBA is, I really love the Erie v. Tomkins reference:

1938 is when they usurped common law via Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins

Oy. Erie v. Tomkins was simply a decision that when a federal court has to deal with a common law issue, then the court has to apply the common law of the relevant state. The upshot is that there is no federal common law - which is a correct reading of Article III of the Constitution.

Among other things Article III empowers federal courts to decide cases and controversies (a) arising under federal law, and (b) between citizens of different states, subject to limits Congress can set on jurisdiction (the other categories are not relevant to this discussion). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.

Category (b) there - cases between citizens of different states - is called "diversity jurisdiction". Currently, if you want to go to federal court, then you have to have a claim which is based on a federal statute, or you can have a common law claim with a value of at least $75,000 to get in on diversity.

Okay, that sets the stage for Erie V. Tompkins.

Tompkins was a guy who was walking on a path next to a railroad track late at night. Something was sticking out from a passing train, operated by the Erie Railroad of New York. Whatever it was hit him, knocked him over, and his arm was run over by the train.

Tompkins sued the railroad in a New York federal court under diversity jurisdiction. He picked New York, because under New York common law of negligence, pretty much anybody hurt by a train is going to be able to hold the railroad liable. Under Pennsylvania common law of negligence, the fact that you are walking next to railroad tracks in the middle of the night is going to be contributory negligence on your part, fatal to the claim against the railroad.

The trial court didn't apply PA law or NY law, but "federal common law". It was believed by some courts that since they were federal courts, they could work out a uniform national system of common law for what are ordinarily state law claims. Without going through all the procedural twists and turns, the case eventually worked its way up to the Supreme Court which essentially said that the federal government is a government of enumerated powers, and there is no authority for "federal common law", so in a common law case in federal court on diversity jurisdiction, the court has to apply the common law of the relevant state.

That was a short-lived victory for Tompkins, since on remand the trial court decided that since the event ocurred in PA, it would apply PA common law. So he ended up without an arm and probably one sizeable legal bill.

Of relevance to domainers - Erie had some significant consequences. For one thing, federal courts had been applying "federal common law" to trademark cases, which went into a tailspin. Accordingly, under the Constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce, the Lanham Act - the federal statutory trademark law - was enacted not long thereafter to provide a uniform federal system of trademark law.

But - and here's the important point - this type of legal gibberish spouted by crackpots is such tangled up nonsense that attempting to decode just one sentence, in order to demonstrate how f-ing stupid it is, requires more effort than an entire Friday night is worth.

And, yes, this type of gibberish is precisely the sort of gibberish promoted by the heavily armed bunker types that populate vast stretches of the American Northwest. It's a pile of incoherent poop that fascinates the 1.3% of the population which suffers from schizophrenic disorder.

BTW nice avoiding the title of nobility part.

WTF is that supposed to mean?

Ooohhhh... have we gotten to the part where you call me a paid shill for the New World Order yet?

That's always my favorite part.

But, no, I decline the invitation to watch 2 hours of "The Great You-Tube Video Of Trooth".

[JMJ]

Actually no you've got me all wrong. I'm digging much deeper than "Sovereign Citizen crackpottery" as you put it. I don't care for any title or status. I want to know how the PTB are getting around the constitution with their "statutes" and the whole deception encompassed within. More or less I'm sick and tired of the lies and deception. My drive there being this

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitututionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statue leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

"Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general princples follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it ...

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded therby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enfforce it. -- Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177"




As far as the income tax I know exactly what it is. It's interest on the "debt" the U.S. government has ran up since 1933 while in bankruptcy. And that's ALL it is. Personally I could give a shit less about it being constitutional if the money was used in a productive way rather than funding a tyranical government especially when they are using it to go into other countries and enslave them the same way.

You're great at taking bits and pieces of the argument presented to make you're argument. I'm just throwing out bits and piece's of the puzzle out there to someone in the legal profession, that being you. There are loads more to this than just the Eire case and why it might have more significance than you might think. You have made me look at something in a different light I will say. That being that maybe it wasn't used in the way some of these guys thought. A similar way but not exactly the same.

I guess you can say I'm a birther of a different type. I could care less about Obama's birth certificate because the Sheppard-Towner Maternity and Infancy Act of 1921 was allowed to expire long before he was born. As you may or may not know prior to this act families kept their birth records within the family. Since the Act people thought it was something that they "had to do" so they continued it even after the act was allowed to expire. Unknown to them it has an much different significance than they might think.

You're right about one thing that's for sure. It's not easy deciphering all of this stuff especially when most of it is buried in mountains of legalese.

I don't think you're a paid shill of anyone but I do know that you're profession (not you directly) has something to hide and like many other things you and many others within it more than likely don't know about it. The OP is a great example of this. While he's not in the banking industry he is a party to it's handling of our monetary affairs and up until this point the Federal Reserve to him was something entirely different than it really is. Hell I've been posting about them here for over a year now and he's just now catching on. As well as many people in the financial sector who had/have no idea about it either because people like yourself have passed it off as "conspiracy theory" for nearly 100 years. Same goes for you in the legal profession. He is a citizen and is subject to the "statutes" being passed. And my god do we have enough of those already? When is enough enough? Shouldn't he/we have more of a say in those rather than a political figure being influenced by the very parties who will directly benefit from said statutes? Why hide behind "color of law" and legalese?

The difference between you and I is that you want more government interference in our lives. But I guess if my livelihood depended on "laws" then yes I would want more of those. I on the other hand want MUCH MUCH less. In fact I want them to go away altogether. There's not one good thing that has come out of the District of Columbia that I can think of EVER.

[jberryhill]

I'm digging much deeper than "Sovereign Citizen crackpottery" as you put it.

No, you aren't. You are copying and pasting from Alex Jones' prisonplanet forum. A virtual Wal-Mart of dumbth, whose pharmacy has run clean out of Haldol.

You're great at taking bits and pieces of the question presented to make you're argument.

I thought your question was who does Kashkari work for. Was there some other question you had?

And, true to form, and just as I said... you drop a giant hairball of fractured crap, any piece of which requires a detailed explanation to get to its crapitude, and then suggest I'm missing the "big picture".

Run that paragraph by any attorney who doesn't sleep with an automatic weapon under his bed, and he'll look at you and say "WTF?"

There are loads more to this than just the Eire case and why it might have more significance than you might think. You have made me look at something in a different light I will say. That being that maybe the it wasn't used in the way some of these guys thought. A similar way but not exactly the same.

I really have no idea what you are trying to say there, but I was using one sentence of that pile of poo as a demonstration of the crapitudinosity of the piece in general.

Oh geez... Okay...


http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/UCC.htm

The advocates of this argument also contend that the Erie RR case was the one which banished the common law and erected commercial law in its place. The problem with this contention is that Erie RR does not stand for this proposition. This was a personal injury case; Thompkins was injured while walking along some railroad tracks as a train passed. Something sticking out of the train hit Thompkins and injured him, hence his suit for damages. Please read this case of Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), which stands for the proposition that federal courts must follow the common law of the state where the injury occurred. How this case is alleged to declare the exact opposite escapes me, but in any event, Erie RR does not support the contention of the UCC advocates.

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/BAR.html

Several years ago, I encountered on the Net a man named David Gould who made the groundless assertion that the word "BAR" in reference to professional associations of lawyers meant "British Accreditation Regency". This nonsense appeared to be nothing more than disinformation promoted by wild-eyed gurus, typically associated with Wrong Way Law types who believed arguments like the missing 13th Amendment, names in CAPS, etc. Gould was reputed to be addicted to TV cartoon shows and he obtained his legal information only from the Net.

...

Those who advocate this "BAR" argument are using lies to sell garbage legal arguments like names in CAPS, missing 13th Amendment, redemption, etc. If you buy into their position, expect to be sold some trashy legal argument without substance ("make yourself an alien"). These gurus do not want you to ask a lawyer whether the legal arguments they promote have any validity. Buyer beware.

Ah... I'm SO busted... caught red-handed...

You already knew that all lawyers are in on the conspiracy!

We're going to have to increase the chemtrail flights over your area.

What I really like about including lawyers in the conspiracy to do... you know... that stuff we are doing... is that this one is self-confirming. Any lawyer will tell you this is a bunch of bunk, but the reason the lawyer will tell you that is that LAWYERS ARE PART OF THE CONSPIRACY.

Brilliant!

[JMJ]

Once again you're picking out a talking point and turning it all into a conspiracy theory. I've addressed your concerns pretty clearly I thought. As far as what I think has happened it would take some time to put it all down which I'm not going to do tonight. I will tomorrow though. Although I have given hints for your own research IE birth certificate, finance, deception, color of law, legalese, etc. In the mean time why not address my concerns of more interference in my life and how the constitution is being railroaded if you will please sir.

[500,000]

...

[jberryhill]

In the mean time why not address my concerns of more interference in my life

Who is interfering in your life, and what are they doing to you?