Federal Reserve Act Remedy

Juliard v. Greenman, Milan v. United States, Norman v. B &ORailroad, sovereign documents, Title 12 Section 411, US v. Rickman

TITLE 12 >CHAPTER 3 >SUBCHAPTER XII> § 411 § 411. Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption Federal Reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal Reserve banks through the Federal Reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and forno 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

The Federal Reserve Act written in 1913 and the remedy found therein, and how to apply it today.

It’s important to understand why a remedy had to be written into the Federal Reserve Act. To look at that, we look at the description in the title: [63rdCongress, Sess. 2; Ch. 4-6, P. 251]“An Act. To provide for the establishment of Federal Reserve banks; to furnish anelastic currency; to afford means of rediscounting commercial [debt]paper…”The important part for us to focus on is“to furnish an elastic

currency”.To understand the authority behind remedy in the United States of America, we should look back to 1789, the Judiciary Act, and read saving to suitors in all cases the right of a common-law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it.This saving to suitors clause of 1789 also allows for the exclusive original cognizance by Congress and by the United States Government of all seizures onland. i.e.“reprisal”Therefore, Congress was required to write the remedy from elastic currency into Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act:“They[Federal Reserve Notes] shall be redeemed in gold on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, or in gold or lawful money at any Federal Reserve

bank.”

However, reading Section 16 carefully, the remedy from central banking reveals that Federal Reserve Notes are for reserve banks. If you have Federal Reserve Notes in your wallet, in other words, you are considered a reserve bank. [Or holder in due course]To restate remedy, one could quit being a reserve bank by redeeming lawful money with their Federal Reserve Notes Corporate powers are defined in the Federal Reserve Act. [63rd Congress, Sess. 2; Ch. 4-6, P. 254]

“Upon filing of such certificate with the comptroller of the currency as aforesaid,the said Federal Reserve bank shall become a body corporate, and as such, and in the name designated in each organization certificate, shall have power First. To adopt and use a corporate seal Second. To have succession for a period of twenty years from its organization unless it is soon dissolved by an Act of Congress, or unless its franchise become forfeited by some violation of law.

Third. To make contracts.

Fourth. To sue and be sued, complain and defend, in any court of law or

equity.”

So, do the math. From 1913 to 1933 was twenty years. All these reserve banks they wanted to get their Federal Reserve Notes redeemed in 1933 for gold or gold certificate like United States notes (lawful money), in elastic currency Because the nature of Federal Reserve Notes is elastic currency, the Federal Reserve banks had been producing far more notes than they had gold and gold certificates redeemable in gold to return.[Sandusky Masonic Bulletin March 1933; Mason Museum Colorado Springs,Colorado]

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, formerly Governor of New York, quickly came to the bankers rescue. He declared the Bankers Holiday.

To make sense of “legal tender”versus

“lawful money”one has to understand that the Constitution of the United States of America speaks about money in two distinct places: [US Const., Art. 1, Sec. 10]“No

state shall make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts And the other power is to Congress:

[US Const., Art. 1, Sec. 8, Cl. 5]To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and

measures.”Considering these two clauses in the context intended by the Founding Fathers,the United States of America does not have fiat currency, and it didn’t have fiat currency between 1789 and 1861.That’s when there was an extraordinary occasion, according to President Lincoln. [Congressional Globe, July 4, 1861]

Here’s where I’m going to have to warn you that

I’m skipping a lot of history about emergency in America. But,on March 28, 1861, the emergency began, and

it’s still in place today.

Parts of the emergency were ended in the late 70s, 1970s, but in the stipulation at the end of this Act from Congress, we find that the Trading With the Enemy Act,Title 12, Sections 95A and so forth about the Bankers Holiday, remain in full force and effect; meaning that, under this same emergency, a Bankers Holiday can becalled at any time by the Secretary or the President.[Public Law 94-412; 90 Stat. 1225; Sept. 14, 1976]

Reserve Notes private credit in your pockets decide to redeem lawful money at the same time.That’s a bank run. Bankers Holidays are for bank runs.If you’refollowing this evidence, the remedy is still in place. Logically, you should be wondering what happened after 1933. In 1934, the wording was changed to accommodate the gold seizure of FDR. Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was codified into Title 12, Section 411, and its been there ever since. It was changed in 1933 to read“They[Federal Reserve Notes] 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.”

Now, since then, many a patriot has marched into a Federal Reserve Bank with Federal Reserve Notes demanding gold, gold or silver coin, some sort of substance, some sort of lawful money according to that patriot’s rendition of what the Constitution reads.And because of such patriots,it’s become impossible to even get into the lobby of the Federal Reserve Bank under such a demand. I think it’s important to explain clearly that due to the saving to suitors’ clause of 1789, Congress cannot takeaway remedy. Congress had to leave remedy in place.

So, we have to examine inelastic currency, United States notes:

“The amount of United States currency notes outstanding and in circulation-

(1) May not be more than $300,000,000; and

(2) May not be held or used for a

reserve.”

[31 USC 5115]

What this means is the amount of United States currency notes outstanding and in circulation is fixed. The amount of United States notes in circulation cannot be

expanded upon through fractional lending. This is the difference between elastic currency and inelastic currency.

For some insight into what the courts think of redeeming lawful money,

let’s listen to the ninth circuit court [

Milan v. United States

, 524 F.2d629]:

Although golden eagles, double eagles, and silver dollars were lovely to look at and delightful to hold, holder of $50 Federal Reserve Bank Note, although entitled to redeem his note, was not entitled to do so in precious metal. Federal Reserve Act, § 16, 12 USCA § 411; Coinage Act of 1965, § 102, 31 USCA § 392.

Would you listen to that! The justices of the ninth circuit admit that this gentleman is entitled to redeem his notes.(a) saving to suitors in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it

It’s

wise for the justices of the ninth circuit not to stand between people and the remedy by law. Sadly, by the verbiage, we can deduce that this gentleman did not know about the emergency since 1861 and did not know about the gold seizure in1933, at least he wasn’t acknowledging it in law, whereas the ninth circuit justices do know about the history of America.

For example, here’s an informed opinion from the attorney general of the State of Michigan:

the US Const., art. 1, Sec. 10 does not require the State of Michigan to pay its debts or receive payment for debts exclusively in either gold or silver coin. It is further my opinion that the State may not require payment of private debts exclusively in either gold or silver coin since Congress alone possesses and exercises

that authority. [Opinion 5934, July 15, 1981 Therefore, one should pay attention only to how Congress defines lawful money.

US v. Rickman 638 F.2d 182. In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes Are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money In a similar case, US v. Ware, 308 F.2d 400:

United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on important and interest on the public debt.

Attorneys in black robes are trained to give opinions that make it sound as though they have the authority to define lawful money. I just told you the definition By Congress and

it’s from this case, this very case.

Defendant argues that the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of the Art. 1, s. 8, United States Constitution. We Have held to the contrary. US v. Ware, 308 F. 2d 400, 402-403. We find no validity in the distinction which defendant draws between “lawful money” and legal tender

”

.

You see, you can endorsed his paychecks, and by doing so he bonded his substance behind the fractional lending or the elastic currency, and therefore the elastic currency is as good as lawful money.It’s bonded.

Now, back to the citation.

Money is a medium of exchange. Legal tender is money which law requires a creditor to receive in payment of an obligation. The aggregate powers granted to Congress by the Constitution includes broad and comprehensive authority over revenue, finance and currency.

Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

, 294US 240; 55 S. Ct. 407; 79 L. Ed. 885. In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money. Defendant received Federal Reserve Notes when he cashed his pay checks and used those notes to pay his personal expenses. He obtained and used lawful money set report from the Federal Reserve to Congress reveals the situation about gold since the late 1970s.Financial ministers around the world, in amending the Bretton Woods agreements,accepted France and America’s decision to go from the fixed exchange rate of gold US dollar domestic to US dollar foreign to a floating exchange rate, Special Drawing Rights [SDR].[Statistical Supplement to the Federal Reserve Bulletin, May 2008] SDR's are often called“paper gold and here we see that the gold in the United States, United Nations, IMF trust fund is still earmarked at $42.22 per ounce.This should peak the interest of anybody who has bought and sold gold because spot today is nearly$1,000 per ounce

This explains the frustration of so many patriots going into the bank with Federal Reserve Notes demanding lawful money for them. They walk in with the admission they’d already endorsed private credit because they’re walking in with admitted Federal Reserve Notes. It’s not lawful money.It’s not United States notes in the form of lawful money.

They’re coming in with Federal Reserve Notes, private credit, demanding Federal Reserve Notes lawful money, but they already accrued the tax liability They’ve already endorsed private credit.[Milan v. USA, 524 F. 2d 629]

Because the limitation of the exemption on the income tax for coinage is only$1,000 I’m only going to touch upon that lightly.

Coins do not say that they are Federal Reserve tokens. They say that they are coins equivalent to US dollars too. This recent asset report from the Federal Reserve to Congress

reveals the situation about gold since the late 1970s.Financial ministers around the world, in amending the Bretton Woods agreements,accepted France and America’s decision to go from the fixed exchange rate of gold

—

US dollar domestic to US dollar foreign to a floating exchange rate, Special Drawing Rights [SDR].[Statistical Supplement to the Federal Reserve Bulletin, May 2008] SDR ’s are often called“paper gold and here we see that the gold in the United States, United Nations, IMF trust fund is still earmarked at $42.22 per ounce.This should peak the interest of anybody who has bought and sold gold because spot today is nearly$1,000 per ounce.

Wouldn’t that be nice to find one window where you could buy gold at $42 and sell it at another window at about $1,000. That would crash the windows. That would crash the difference between the US dollar and the Federal Reserve Note.

However, I intend to conclude this point about coins. The same coins, four quarters for instance, divide equally into US Dollars as they divide into Federal Reserve Notes.

There’s a discrepancy in the physical metaphysics of the value of the coin.

Congress has stretched the metaphysics of the Federal Reserve Notes and United States notes to the point where if you were to tender United States notes they could be accepted at the same face value as Federal Reserve Notes, about a 20 to. 1 discrepancy.

Since 1933 when remedy was fresh on people’s minds and they threatened a bank run by threatening to redeem lawful money instead of the Federal Reserve Notes,so very few people have been redeeming lawful money in the form of United States notes that on January 21, 1971 the Treasury decided to quit putting moreUnited States notes into circulation simply because nobody was demanding lawful money instead of private credit from the Fed, Federal Reserve Notes.

[Department of the Treasury, Online FAQ]

Consider if you endorse private credit from the Fed with your paycheck by signing the back without any restrictive or non-endorsement verbiage, you’ve just accepted private credit from the Fed instead of lawful money.

[Typical Federal Tax Lien]

If you’d like to own a piece of property, you have to purchase it. You have to buy it. You have to pay for it in lawful money. You

can’t pay for it in private credit without having an obligation or a residual first lien upon that property by whoever you got the private credit from.

In finding remedy, it’s critical to understand the distinction between discharging a debt and buying something. If you buy something you own it in allodium. That Means you used lawful money to purchase it. If you discharge debt, here’s still an obligation that resides in that item.

There is a distinction between a "debt discharged” and a debt “paid”.When Discharged, the debt still exists though divested of its charter as a legal obligation during the operation of the discharge, something of the original vitality of the debt.

continues to exist, which may be transferred, even though the transferee takes itsubject to its disability incident to the discharge. [Stanek v. White, 172 Minn. 390,215 N.W. 784]

Many well intentioned patriots fall into the mental trap of thinking the Notice of Federal Tax lien is part of curing out the lien.

It’s not part of perfecting the lien at all. Its notice to third parties that the lien is already cured. The lien is already cured because the Treasury had first lien.

And don’t be fooled by a comic book designed so 10 year olds can understand fractional reserve lending. The Fed takes you and your substance bonding this increase in the elastic currency as serious as a heart attack.

The law simply states the remedy is simple.

“They Federal Reserve Notes] shall be redeemed in gold on

demand [FederalReserve Act, § 16]

Okay. So that’s all there is to it. I found a fellow on the internet doing it with this verbiage above his signature on the reverse side [of the check]. And this works rather well with tellers. They

don’t quite understand it so they quickly give you your funds, lawful money. United States notes in the form of Federal Reserve Notes.

DEPOSITED FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUNT OR EXCHANGED FOR Non-negotiable Federal RESERVE NOTES OF FACE VALUE However, many people have found this direct approach works much better.

REDEEMED IN LAWFUL MONEY PURSUANT TO 12 USC 411

John Doe d/b/a JOHN DOE

This intrepid suitor filed a libel of review in admiralty in the United States district court s using lawful money. He kept track of the bills. See, there’s the bank notary authorizing both the bills and his true name.

Congress keeping wartime provisions through the Trading with the Enemy Act fora Bankers Holiday sometime in the future may not be proof enough to convince you. Reading from

Juliard v. Greenman (Legal Tender Cases)

, 110 US 421,the backbone case of the Legal Tender Cases following the war between The States: providing

that notes of the United States issued during a War of The Rebellion,under acts of congress declaring them to be legal tender in payment of private debts, shall be reissued and kept in circulation.The important point to get is that Congress has never enacted any legislation to take United States notes out of circulation.

At the beginning I showed you Title 31 United States Code 5115 defining United States notes to be inelastic. Interestingly, in 1982 Congress made another revision to that same section.

In the section the words“United States currency notes” are substituted for“United state notes for clarity and consistency in the revised title.

Remember that the Constitution grants the power to remove United States notes from circulation only to the Congress, not to the Treasury.Let’s pretend, though,for a moment that the Treasury does have the authority. Listen to this wording,carefully:

United States notes serve no function that is not already adequately served by Federal Reserve notes. As a result, the Treasury Department stopped issuing United States notes, and none have been placed into circulation since January 21,1971. [Treasury Dept. Online FAQ]

The Treasury has not removed United States notes from circulation. Rather, for all intents and purposes, Federal Reserve Notes function adequately as in elastic currency, United States notes, when their not endorsed.

It’s

interesting to note, that as hundred, maybe even thousands of Americans Started redeeming lawful money from their paychecks, Congress escalated the frivolous filing penalty from $500 to $5,000. A Frivolous Positions memorandum was issued to all IRS agents. The memorandum itemized quite a few various frivolous positions for which the taxpayer could be penalized this new $5,000 fine items 11 and 12 come close to the redeeming lawful money issue:

(11) Federal Reserve Notes are not taxable income when paid to a taxpayer because they are not gold or silver and may not be redeemed for gold or silver.

(12) In a transaction using gold and silver coin, the value of the coins is excluded from income or the amount realized in the transaction is the face value of the coins and not their fair market value for purposes of determining

taxable…

But neither one of these are redeeming lawful money pursuant to Title 12, Section411. At the end of the memorandum, summarized, it says:

Returns or submissions that contain positions not listed above, which on their face have no basis for validity in existing law, or which have been deemed frivolous ina published opinion of the United States Tax Court or other court of competent jurisdiction, may be determined to reflect a desire to delay or impede the administration of Federal tax laws and thereby subject to the $5,000 penalty.

Well, as I’ve shown, Title 12 Section 411 is the existing law. And the ninth circuit court opinion supports that Federal Reserve Notes may be redeemed at any time lawful money.

In debating with a tax attorney in an Internet chat room, the tax attorney pointed out to me that the employee agrees to handle Federal Reserves Notes and private credit from the Fed when filling out the W-4 or the 1099 form. By providing that information

that’s

the agreement.

Okay. I agree. Our hypothetical employee is a federal reserve bank handling private credit as intended by the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. That’s what remedy is provided for.

That’s who the remedy is provided for Now, our hypothetical employee is on his way home from work, and he drops in his

boss’s bank to cash his $500 paycheck. He still has the option to redeem lawful money and get out private reserve banking.

the accounting on this non-endorsement, this redemption of lawful money. The bank attorneys become very concerned whwm they realize that they cannot fractionally lend on the funds that have been withdrawn or deposited on demand lawful money

that’s up to you, by remedy.You’re the one who makes the choice.

A woman in a small Maine bank had the bank manager demand that she strike through the restricted endorsement In Delaware DEPOSITED FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUNT OR EXCHANGED FOR NON-NEGOTIABLE FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES OF EQUAL VALUE

She was a single mom. She had to. Her demand was clear and witnessed by the notary at the bank. The following week she hand wrote a simpler demand for lawful money, and it worked fine

Got assured them that his substance and everything he owned was on first lien by the Treasury as a bond behind the extra inelastic currency.An employee paid periodically, dropping by his

boss’s bank where he does not have an account, is the simplest scenario to understand redemption of lawful money. If you can understand that scenario and your right to demand lawful money, in that it’s nobody else’s legal determination, then you can add it to signature cards and withdrawal slips, and so forth, in more complicated scenarios.

The posting member on the Restore the Republic site was speaking specifically about ordering up a certified copy of Title 12 Section 411 by calling 7195206200and asking for reception #207015932 filed February 5, 2007.

Like-minded suitors redeeming lawful money were meeting in Colorado Springs. I was at a meeting and a fellow came from Denver.He’d been redeeming lawful money on his signature card with his bank.He’d altered the signature card for the authorizing signature to redeem lawful money on every transaction.

They called him, under false pretenses, saying his wife had trouble with her account. So, he went into the bank and then found out that they were telling him, We’re closing down your accounts unless you change it back. So, he changed it back because he needed the accounts refund.This is where it’s wise to wonder, if America is shifted over to“paper gold” or Special Drawing Rights, then

isn’t it patriotic to continue paying the income tax,continue subjecting yourself to be the chattel bonding the money supply?

The comment you’re reading is found in the State Department bulletin late 1975from Undersecretary of the Treasury Katz, and what he’ is talking about is an preamble to the secret Jamaica/Rambouillet Accord between France and America,piggy-backed on the amendments of Bretton Woods agreements in 1976.

This is when we went over to Special Drawing Rights, a basket of currencies, a fictional basket of currencies between five exemplary nations, originally between 23 nations I believe, but

it’s long since been between five exemplary nations where the conditioning to endorse private credit as the only option is prevalent.

The CIA offers accurate and current information about macroeconomics all around the world. This is probably no surprise to see China at the top, nearly $400 billion Dollars in the black

construction is the American people killed JFK by supporting private credit and endorsing private credit from the Fed.

JFK, by executive order, was standing up against the Fed Before the Convention of States in 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt admits that it’s voluntary to help out.

He’s pleading to the people to enter their paychecks into these new forms, private credit of the Fed, to save the Fed past the 20 year charter expiration.

Recognize Government bonds are as safe as Government currency. They have the same credit back of them. And, therefore, if we can persuade people all through the country, when their salary checks come in, to deposit them in new accounts,which will be held in trust and kept in one of the new forms I have mentioned, we shall have made progress. [Address before the

Governor’s Conference at the White House, March 6, 1933; The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt,1928-1932]

In summary, I’d like to paint a picture of the box that you would use to paint the prosecution into a corner with on this redeeming lawful money issue. Simply put,if someone tells you that you

don’t have the right to redeem lawful money, you use Title 12 Section 411 [United States Code] and Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act.That’s your remedy.That’s the law that says so, and it’s current law.

If they tell you. you’re doing it incorrectly, then you simply say,

“Well then the burden on you is to show me how

it’sdone correctly Another box to consider is that, if they were to argue,Well,you started redeeming lawful money in the first month of 2004

”

.

Well then you’d simply say, Okay, then you admit that I do have the right to redeem lawful money and things changed when I started doing so But, whileyou’re establishing the record in a court of equity to begin with, try this,If I had in good faith known that I could have been redeeming lawful money all along, I would have done so since my first paycheck ever.

Federal Reserve Act

Section 13. Powers of Federal Reserve Banks

1. Receipt of Deposits and Collections

Any Federal reserve bank may receive from any of its member banks, or other depository institutions, and from the United States, deposits of current funds lawful Money, national-bank notes, Federal reserve notes, or checks, and drafts,payable upon presentation, or other items, and also, for collection, maturing notes and bills; or, solely for purposes of exchange or of collection, may receive form other Federal reserve banks deposits of current funds in lawful Money, national-bank notes, or checks upon other Federal reserve banks, and checks and drafts,payable upon presentation within its district, or other items, and maturing notes and bills payable within its district; or, solely for the purposes of exchange or of collection, may receive from any nonmember bank or trust company or other depository institution deposits of current funds in lawful Money, national-banknotes, Federal reserve notes, checks and drafts payable upon presentation or other items, or maturing notes and bills Provided Such nonmember bank or trust company or other depository institution maintains with the Federal reserve Bank Of its district a balance in such amount as the Board determines taking into account items in transit, services provided by the Federal Reserve Bank, and other factors as the Board may deem appropriate Provided further That nothing in this or any other section of this Act shall be construed as prohibiting a member or nonmember bank or other depository institution from making reasonable charges,to be determined and regulated by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, but in no case to exceed 10 cents per $100 or fraction thereof, based on the total of checks and drafts presented at any one time, for collection or payment of checks and drafts and remission therefore by exchange or otherwise; but no such charges shall be made against the Federal reserve banks.

[12 USC 342. As amended by act of Sept. 7, 1916 (39 Stat. 752), which completely revised this section; June 21, 1917 (40 Stat. 234); and March 31, 1980 (94 Stat.AD)

ively to producers of staple agricultural products in their raw state shall be eligible for such discount; but such definition shall not include notes, drafts, or bills covering merely investments or issued or drawn for the purpose of carrying or trading in stocks, bonds, or other investment securities,except bonds and notes of the government of the United States. Notes, drafts, and bills admitted to discount under the terms of this paragraph must have a maturity at the time of discount of not more than 90 days, exclusive of grace.

[12 USC 343. As amended by act of Sept. 7, 1916 (39 Stat. 752), which completely revised this section; and by act of March 4, 1923 (42 Stat. 1478). As used in this paragraph the phrase

“bonds and notes of Government of the United

States” includes Treasury bills or certificates of indebtedness. (See act of June 17, 1929,amending section 5 of Second Liberty Bond Act of Sept. 24, 1917). As to eligibility for discount under this paragraph of notes representing loans to finance building construction, see this act, section 24]

3. Discounts for Individuals, Partnerships, and Corporations

.

In unusual and exigent circumstances, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, by the affirmative vote of not less than five members, may authorize any Federal reserve bank, during such periods as the said board may determine, at rates established in accordance with the provisions of section 14,subdivision (d), of this Act, to discount for any participant in any program or facility with broad-based eligibility, notes, drafts, and bills of exchange when such notes, drafts, and bills of exchange are indorsed or otherwise secured to the satisfaction of the Federal Reserve bank:

Provided

, That before discounting any such note, draft, or bill of exchange, the Federal reserve bank shall obtain evidence that such participant in any program or facility with broad-base deligibility is unable to secure adequate credit accommodations from other banking institutions. All such discounts for any participant in any program or facility with broad-based eligibility shall be subject to such limitations, restrictions, and regulations as the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System may prescribe.

B.I. As soon as is practicable after the date of enactment of this subparagraph, The Board shall establish, by regulation, in consultation with the Secretary of The Treasury, the policies and procedures governing emergency lending under this paragraph. Such policies and procedures shall be designed to ensure that any emergency lending program or facility is for the purpose of providing liquidity to the financial system, and not to aid a failing financial company, and that the security for emergency loans is sufficient to protect taxpayers from losses andthat any such program is terminated in a timely and orderly fashion. The policy and procedures established by the Board shall require that a Federal reserve bank assign, consistent with sound risk management practices and to ensure protection for the taxpayer, a lendable value to all collateral for a loan executed by a Federal Reserve bank under this paragraph in determining whether the loan is secured at is factorily for purposes of this paragraph.

II. The Board shall establish procedures to prohibit borrowing from programs and facilities by borrowers that are insolvent. Such procedures may include a certification from the chief executive officer (or other authorized officer) of the borrower, at the time the borrower initially borrows under the program or facility eligibility.

IV. The Board may not establish any program or facility under this paragraph without the prior approval of the Secretary of the Treasury.

C. The Board shall provide to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representative

—

i. not later than 7 days after the Board authorizes any loan or other financial assistance under this paragraph, a report that includes

—

I. the justification for the exercise of authority to provide such assistance;

II. the identity of the recipients of such assistance;

III. the date and amount of the assistance, and form in which the assistance was provided; and

IV. the material terms of the assistance, including aa§.bB§duration bb.collateral pledged and the value thereof

§cc. all interest, fees, and other revenue or items of value to be received in exchange for the assistance;

§dd.any requirements imposed on the recipient with respect to employee compensation, distribution of dividends, or any other corporate decision in exchange for the assistance; and

§ee. The expected costs to the taxpayers of such assistance; and

ii. once every 30 days, with respect to any outstanding loan or other financial assistance under this paragraph, written updates on

—

I. the value of collateral;

II. the amount of interest, fees, and other revenue or items of value received in exchange for the assistance; and

III. the expected or final cost to the taxpayers of such assistance.

D. The information required to be submitted to Congress under subparagraph (C)related to

—

i. the identity of the participants in an emergency lending program or facility commenced under this paragraph;

ii. the amounts borrowed by each participant in any such program or facility;

iii. identifying details concerning the assets or collateral held by, under, or inconnection with such a program or facility, shall be kept confidential, upon the written request of the Chairman of the Board, in which case such information shall be made available only to the Chairpersons or Ranking Members of The Committees described in subparagraph (C).

E. If an entity to which a Federal reserve bank has provided a loan under this paragraph becomes a covered financial company, as defined in section 201 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, at any time while bills Federal Reserve banks may compute the interest to be deducted on the basis of the estimated life of each bill and adjust the discount after payment of such bills to conform to the actual life thereof.

[12 USC 344. As added by act of March 4, 1923 (42 Stat. 1479); and amended act of May 29, 1928 (45 Stat. 975).]

5. Limitation on Discount of Paper of One Borrower

such loan is outstanding, and the Federal reserve bank incurs a realized net loss on the loan, then the Federal reserve bank shall have a claim equal to the amount of the net realized loss against the covered entity, with the same priority as an obligation to the Secretary of the Treasury under section 210(b) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

[12 USC 343. As added by act of July 21, 1932 (47 Stat. 715); and amended by acts of Aug. 23, 1935 (49 Stat. 714); Dec. 19, 1991 (105 Stat. 2386); and July 21,2010 (124 Stat. 2113). As enacted by Public Law 111-203 (124. Stat. 2115),

“any reference in any provision of Federal law to the third undesignated paragraph of section 13 of the Federal Reserve Act [FRA] (12 USC 343) shall be deemed to be a reference to section 13(3) of the

FRA.”]

4. Discount or Purchase of Sight Drafts

Upon the indorsement of any of its member banks, which shall be deemed a waiver of demand, notice, and protest by such bank as to its own indorsement exclusively, and subject to regulations and limitations to be prescribed by The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, any Federal reserve bank may discount or purchase bills of exchange payable at sight or on demand which grow out of the domestic shipment or the exportation of nonperishable, readily marketable agricultural and other staples and are secured by bills of lading or other shipping documents conveying or securing title to such staples:

Provided,That all such bills of exchange shall be forwarded promptly for collection, and demand for payment shall be made with reasonable promptness after the arrival of such staples at their destination:Provided further that no such bill shall in any event be held by or for the account of a Federal reserve bank for a period in excess of ninety days. In discounting such bills Federal Reserve banks may compute the interest to be deducted on the basis of the estimated life of each bill and adjust the discount after payment of such bills to conform to the actual life thereof.

[12 USC 344. As added by act of March 4, 1923 (42 Stat. 1479); and amended by act of May 29, 1928 (45 Stat. 975).]

5. Limitation on Discount of Paper of One Borrower

The aggregate of notes, drafts, and bills upon which any person, co-partnership,association, or corporation is liable as maker, acceptor, indorser, drawer, or guarantor, rediscounted for any member bank, shall at no time exceed the amount for which such person, co-partnership, association, or corporation may lawfully become liable to a national banking association under the terms of section 5200 of the Revised Statutes, as amended:

Provided, however That nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to change the character or class of paper now eligible for rediscount by Federal Reserve banks.

[12 USC 345. As reenacted without change by act of March 3, 1915 (38 Stat. 958);and amended by act of Sept. 7, 1916 (39 Stat. 752), which completely revised this section; and by act of April 12, 1930 (46 Stat. 162).]

6. Discount of Acceptances

Any Federal reserve bank may discount acceptances of the kinds hereinafter described, which have a maturity at the time of discount of not more than 90

days’ sight, exclusive of days of grace, and which are indorsed by at least one member bank:Provided That such acceptances if drawn for an agricultural purpose and secured at the time of acceptance by warehouse receipts or other such documents conveying or securing title covering readily marketable staples may be discounted with a maturity at the time of discount of not more than six months’ sight exclusive of days of grace.

[12 USC 346. As amended by act of March 3, 1915 (38 Stat. 958); by act of Sept. 7,1916 (39 Stat. 752), which completely revised this section; and by act of March 4,1923 (42 Stat. 1479).]

7.Banker’s Acceptances

1. Any member bank and any Federal or State branch or agency of a foreign bank subject to reserve requirements under section 7 of the International Banking Act Of 1978 (hereinafter in this paragraph referred to as institutions”), may accept drafts or bills of exchange drawn upon it having not more than six

months’sight to run, exclusive of days of grace in an amount not exceeding at any time in the aggregate 200 per centum of its paid up and unimpaired capital stock and surplusor, in the case of a United States branch or agency of a foreign bank, its dollar equivalent as determined by the Board under subparagraph (H).

4. Notwithstanding subparagraph (B) and (C), with respect to any institution, the aggregate acceptances, including obligations for a participation share in such acceptances, growing out of domestic transactions shall not exceed 50 per centum of the aggregate of all acceptances, including obligations for a participation share in such acceptances, authorized for such institution under this paragraph.

5. No institution shall accept bills, or be obligated for a participation share in such bills, whether in a foreign or domestic transaction, for any one person,partnership, corporation, association or other entity in an amount equal at anytime in the aggregate to more than 10 per centum of its paid up and unimpaired capital stock and surplus, or, in the case of a United States branch or agency of a foreign bank, its dollar equivalent as determined by the Board under subparagraph(H), unless the institution is secured either by attached documents or by some other actual security growing out of the same transaction as the acceptance

6. With respect to an institution which issues an acceptance, the limitations contained in this paragraph shall not apply to that portion of an acceptance which is issued by such institution and which is covered by a participation agreement sold to another institution.

7. In order to carry out the purposes of this paragraph, the Board may define any of the terms used in this paragraph, and, with respect to institutions which do not have capital or capital stock, the Board shall define an equivalent measure to which the limitations contained in this paragraph shall apply.

8. Any limitation or restriction in this paragraph based on paid-up and unimpaired capital stock and surplus of an institution shall be deemed to refer, with respect toa United States branch or agency of a foreign bank, to the dollar equivalent of the paid-up capital stock and surplus of the foreign bank, as determined by the Board,and if the foreign bank has more than one United States branch or agency, the business transacted by all such branches and agencies shall be aggregated in determining compliance with the limitation or restriction.

[Formerly 12 USC 372, as amended by act of March 3, 1915 (38 Stat. 958); by actof Sept. 7, 1916 (39 Stat. 752), which completely revised this section; and by actsof June 21, 1917 (40 Stat. 235) and Oct. 8, 1982 (96 Stat. 1239). Omitted from theU.S. Code.]

8. Advances to Member Banks on Promissory Notes

Any Federal reserve bank may make advances for periods not exceeding fifteen days to its member banks on their promissory notes secured by the deposit or pledge of bonds, notes, certificates of indebtedness, or Treasury bills of the United States, or by the deposit or pledge of debentures or other such obligations Of Federal intermediate credit banks which are eligible for purchase by Federal Reserve banks under section 13a of this Act, or by the deposit or pledge of bonds issued under the provisions of subsection (c) of section 4 of the Home

Owners Loan Act of 1933, as amended; and any Federal reserve bank may make advances for periods not exceeding ninety days to its member banks on their promissory notes secured by such notes, drafts, bills of exchange, or bankers’ acceptances as are eligible for rediscount or for purchase by Federal reserve banks under the provisions of this Act, or secured by such obligations as are eligible for purchase under section 14(b) of this Act. All such advances shall be made at rates to been established by such Federal Reserve banks, such rates to be subject to the review and determination of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. If any member bank to which any such advance has been made shall, during the life or continuance of such advance, and despite an official warning of the reserve bank of the district or of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to the contrary, increase its outstanding loans secured by collateral in the form of stocks,bonds, debentures, or other such obligations, or loans made to members of any organized stock exchange, investment house, or dealer in securities, upon any obligation, note, or bill, secured or unsecured, for the purpose of purchasing and/or carrying stocks, bonds, or other investment securities (except obligations of the United States) such advance shall be deemed immediately due and payable,and such member bank shall be ineligible as a borrower at the reserve bank of the district under the provisions of this paragraph for such period as the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall determine:Provided That no temporary carrying or clearance loans made solely for the purpose of facilitating the purchase or delivery of securities offered for public subscription shall be included in the loans referred to in this paragraph.

[12 USC 347. As added by act of Sept. 7, 1916 (39 Stat. 753), which completely revised this section; and amended by acts of May 19, 1932 (47 Stat. 160); May 12,1933 (48 Stat. 46); June 16, 1933 (48 Stat. 180); Jan. 31, 1934 (48 Stat. 348);April 27, 1934 (48 Stat. 646); Oct. 4, 1961 (75 Stat. 773); and Sept. 21, 1968 (82Stat. 856).]

9. Aggregate Liabilities of National Banks Repealed by

10. Regulation by Board of Governors of Discounts, Purchases and Sales

The discount and rediscount and the purchase and sale by any Federal Reserve Bank of any bills receivable and of domestic and foreign bills of exchange, and of acceptances authorized by this Act, shall be subject to such restrictions,limitations, and regulations as may be imposed by the Board of Governors of The Federal Reserve System [Omitted from U.S. Code. As amended by act of Sept. 7, 1916 (39 Stat. 753), which completely revised this section.]

11. National Banks as Insurance Agents or Real Estate Loan Brokers

That in addition to the powers now vested by law in national banking associations organized under the laws of the United States any such association located and doing business in any place the population of which does not exceed five thousand inhabitants, as shown by the last preceding decennial census, may, under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the Comptroller of the Currency, actas the agent for any fire, life, or other insurance company authorized by the authorities of the State in which said bank is located to do business in said State,by soliciting and selling insurance and collecting premiums on policies issued by such company; and may receive for services so rendered such fees or commission as may be agreed upon between the said association and the insurance company for which it may act as agent; and may also act as the broker or agent for others in making or procuring loans on real estate located within one hundred miles of the place in which said bank may be located, receiving for such services a reasonable fee or commission Provided, however That no such bank shall in any case guarantee either the principal or interest of any such loans or assume or guarantee the payment of any premium on insurance policies issued through it agency by its principal And provided further That the bank shall not guarantee the truth of any statement made by an assured in filing his application for insurance.[Omitted from U.S. Code. As added by act of Sept. 7, 1916 (39 Stat. 753), which completely revised this section.]

12. Bank Acceptances to Create Dollar Exchange

Any member bank may accept drafts or bills of exchange drawn upon it having not more than three months’ sight to run, exclusive of days of grace, drawn under regulations to be prescribed by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System by banks or bankers in foreign countries or dependencies or insular possessions of the United States for the purpose of furnishing dollar exchange as required by the usages of trade in the respective countries, dependencies, or insular possessions. Such drafts or bills may be acquired by Federal Reserve banks in such amounts and subject to such regulations, restrictions, and limitations as may be prescribed by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System Provided, however that no member bank shall accept such drafts or bills of exchange referred to

1

this paragraph for any one bank to an amount exceeding in the aggregate ten percentum of the paid-up and unimpaired capital and surplus of the accepting bank unless the draft or bill of exchange is accompanied by documents conveying or securing title or by some other adequate security:

Provided further That no member bank shall accept such drafts or bills in an amount exceeding at any timet he aggregate of one-half of its paid-up and unimpaired capital and surplus.

[Formerly 12 USC 373, as added by act of Sept. 7, 1916 (39 Stat. 754), which completely revised this section. Not codified to the Federal Reserve Act. Omitted From the U.S. Code.]

13. Advances to Individuals, Partnerships, and Corporations on Obligations of United States

Subject to such limitations, restrictions and regulations as the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System may prescribe, any Federal Reserve bank may make advances to any individual, partnership or corporation on the promissory notes of such individual, partnership or corporation secured by direct obligations of The United States or by any obligation which is a direct obligation of, or fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by, any agency of the United States. Such Advances shall be made for periods not exceeding 90 days and shall bear interest at rates fixed from time to time by the Federal Reserve Bank, subject to the review and determination of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

[12 USC 347c. As added by act of March 9, 1933 (48 Stat. 7) and amended by act of Sept. 21, 1968 (82 Stat. 856).]

14. Receipt of Deposits from, Discount Paper Endorsed by, and Advances To Foreign Banks subject to such restrictions, limitations, and regulations as may be imposed bythe Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, each Federal Reserve bank may receive deposits from, discount paper endorsed by, and make advances to any branch or agency of a foreign bank in the same manner and to the same extent that it may exercise such powers with respect to a member bank if such branch or agency is maintaining reserves with such Reserve bank pursuant to section 7 of the International Banking Act of 1978. In exercising any such powers with respect to any such branch or agency, each Federal Reserve bank shall give due regard to account balances being maintained by such branch or agency with such Reserve bank and the proportion of the assets of such branch or agency being held as reserves under section 7 of the International Banking Act of 1978.For the purposes of this paragraph, the terms

“branch” “agency”and foreign bank” shall have the same meanings assigned to them in section 1 of the International Banking Act of 1978.

[12 USC 347d. As added by act of Sept. 17, 1978 (92 Stat. 621).]So in original. Probably should referred to in this paragraph.

When you sign a mortgage note it comes under UCC Article 3. After securitization, it comes under Article 8. Under US law securitization is illegal because it is fraudulent. Instruments such

as loans, credit cards and receivables, are securitized. Enron was involved in securitization and someone brought charges against them. But almost all large corporations are doing it as usual

business. However, the banking system and the government are also doing it. Jean Keating brought a Rico suit against a bank, but it was thrown out. But he would have done better better now that he knows more about it.It is all accounting, whether it is banking, civil or criminal court. I submitted the FASB regulations – FAS125 securitization accounting, FAS140 Offsetting of financial assets and liabilities, FAS133 derivatives on hedge accounts, FAS5, FAS95. These are the resource resource materials for. understanding this process. The note is not under a negotiable instrument any more,it is a security. All the banks follow these standards. They set up GAAP, generally accepted accounting principles. The banks are mandated by Title 12 USC to follow GAAP and GAAS. They have a local FASB and an international IFASB. They also cover derivatives. FAS 140 relates to UCC 3-305, 306. If you want to instruct them on how to do offsets, you have to refer them to FAS 133. If you don’t know the accounting regulations, you can’t give them the proper instructions for settling and closing. What you really want is recoupment. Recoupment – (1) The recovery or regaining of expenses Applying the setoff so you can get back what you gave and what you are entitled to. (2) The withholding for the equitable part or all of something that is due. This is all equitable action in admiralty style instruments.Blacks:IOU – a memorandum acknowledging a debt. See also a due bill.DUE BILL – See IOU SIGHT DRAFT – A draft that is due on the bearers demand; or on proper presentment to the drawer. Also termed a demand draft. A draft is an unconditional order signed by one person, the drawer directing another person, the drawee, to pay a certain sum of money on demand or at a definite time to a person, the payee, or to bearer.This is colorable. Who is holding the debt? A due bill is like a sight draft. They are not saying from which perspective it is a debt, from theirs or yours. The party receiving the IOU is the debtor, because the IOU is an asset. It is an instrument, and you are the originator. You have monetized their system with your signature. An IOU is an asset instrument, not a liability instrument. This is one of the places where you have your perspective changed Under the constitution, the government was not given authority to create money. It is a power reserved by the people. Article I, section 10 restricted the states from making gold coins. So the corporate government has to rely on the deception of people to create money. So the way

money is created is to have people sign an IOU, or promissory note. It is not a debt instrument to the one who created it; it is actually an asset. The creator can pass it on for someone else to

use. It is negotiable unless it includes terms and conditions as part of a contract. The property belongs to the creator, and the holder is merely using it and any proceeds that come from it

should be restored to the creator.That is the power we have if we realize we have the authority to do this. The intent is to

understand the regulations and to see how they are trying to deceive us to believe we are the debtor and the slave and they are the creditor at all times. This is not true We are looking for recoupment. Once we, the creator of the promissory note have signed it and others are using it, recoupment means we want our property back or have the account set off.

Recoupment in practice is a counterclaim in a civil procedure. That is how one does a recoupment. We did a counterclaim on the grounds that; with the county, you can do a setoff.

You can use the financial liability of the accounting ledger to offset the financial asset if you have the right to do that. But you have the right to do that if you are the creditor on the liability side and the bank or lending institution is the debtor on the liability side.There is a duality here. The bank is the creditor on the receivable side or their asset side that is the receivable. You are the creditor on the liability side or the accounts payable. You can use your accounts payable as an offset or counterclaim to the financial asset side that is the receivable. The bank or the court is using the receivable side of the accounting ledger. That is what they are charging you with. On the receivable side, you have to pay the debt, because that is where the charge is coming from since they are claiming to be the creditor like a bank collecting the mortgage. The mortgage side of the bank ledger is the banks asset and their receivable. But on the liability side, because they sold our gold…We have the actual gold contract where they did this. This is not my opinion, we have eleven $50 million gold bonds sold from the DeBeers Diamond Company. They sold America’s gold under contract to the Bank of China. This is not my opinion. The U.S. did not go bankrupt in 1933.What they did was sell all the gold under a gold contract to the Chinese government. So the U.S. had to give us an account payable as a cash receipt. FAS 95 tells us that when they do a credit to a transactional account, which is a liability account, on which we are the creditor, they give a cash receipt to the customer and a cash payment to the bank, because it is cash proceeds.In intermediate accounting, when you give them a promissory note.I gave a promissory note to a publisher for $1700. They accepted it because I gave them the proper accounting instructions. I did another one to another publisher for over $3000. They accepted initially, and then hired a collection attorney in one of the biggest collection agencies in the state of Ohio. They didn’t send the note back because a payment tendered and refused is the FASB said that I was correct. They are not showing the liability side of the ledger or the accounts payable because it has been moved over to someone else’s balance sheet. The IRS does the same thing when you tender them a negotiable instrument. They accept it and never return it. But don’t adjust the account. They pretend like nothing happened. They move them off the books that the collection agent is looking at. He is only looking at the accounts receivable ledger you tender a note to the bank to stop a foreclosure, and they ignore it. The agent at the bank claims she never got any payment. The agent only sees the receivable side of the books. He is being honest. It is up to us to make a claim for them to look at their other set of books. You have to learn how the system works so you can explain it to them. We need to know how to get them to produce the missing documents. They are only going to produce the documents that support their claim. The American and English litigation system is adversarial. They only have to present the evidence that supports their claim. When a strawman is charged with speeding, he is given a charging instrument. It is the same as a claim by the bank that shows that someone has failed to make mortgage payment. It is a commercial entry from a corporation showing that there is a liability on your part that is an account receivable and they are in the capacity of a creditor and making you appear in the capacity as a debtor. So the clerk has an accounting charge against the strawman but you are operating the account. It is your responsibility to bring in recoupment in behalf of the real party of interest which is you because you are the ultimate creditor if you raise that claim against the liability side of the account.People have a right to travel. So they have the right of recoupment to offset any charges agains the strawman in an attempt to restrict the right of travel of living people. Civil and criminal court procedure operates the same as the bank.What is the substantive principal involved in this that allows them to avoid fraud? The government does everything correctly. They never make a mistake. The government is involved in securitization that appears to be a fraud. There is immunity for people who understand the procedure. Only the unlearned are fooled into voluntarily entering into fraudulent contracts. It does not work if you get frustrated and angry at the fraudulent results of your own ignorance.When you sign a promissory note to create the mortgage with a bank to buy your house, a closing, they have already sold your note to the warehousing institution. The warehousing institution brought money into the bank when they bought the note. At closing, they take the money and closes out the account on one side. The bank forgot to tell you that you don’t have a liability on their receivable side any more Why do they keep taking your money? They have become the servicer for the account; they are not paying principal and interest. The payments are profit to the holder of the note. This is not stealing if we knew how to make a claim for recoupment. They are using the note to expand the money supply. Under Title 12 USC 1813(L)(1) when you deposit a promissory note, it becomes a cash

item. It becomes the equivalent of cash because I have a cash receipt. I talked to Walker Todd,one the heads of the Cleveland FRB. He has been a government witness in court cases regarding

BOE. He said that I am correct that we are the creditor on the payables side of the ledger. The bank owes you the money. No one is bringing up recoupment as a defense. You waive the

defense and they go to collection on the receivables.

Under civil rule 13, you fail to bring a mandatory counterclaim, which is based on the same transaction. Under the rules you have waived it because you were ignorant of the rules of

procedure.I just filed a motion in a court case. I took portions of Statement 95 incorporated it into a memorandum. These reports are filed on OMB forms in which the public has a right to

disclosure under the privacy act. If they shift the assets off the books, they have to report to the FRB where it went, so you can follow it. In the memorandum, it shows that they are mandated to

give a cash receipt on any deposit. It is a demand deposit account. They are required to show it on their books, but they are not doing that. They are doing an offset entry. This is not going to

trial because we are going to subpoena the auditor. Auditors keep track of where the assets went.These are special auditors.

We have asked for all this information in discovery under civil rule 36 if they don’t answer, they have admitted them. This is so powerful in this foreclosure that the banks attorney is saying that

discovery and records from auditors do not constitute admissions. Ha! Are you telling the court that the banks records kept in the due course of business are not admissions? They are hurting.

So in our motion for summary judgment I put in admissions that they admitted by non-response.So now we have them in a dilemma. The other side is scrambling. They have come out with anaffidavit of a lost note or destroyed instrument.

Under UCC 3-309 you have to show four elements to claim a lost instrument:

1) you were in possession at the time it was lost; |

2) you have the right of enforcement of the note;

3) you have to show that the obligor on the note is indemnified by you against and future claims;

4) the loss was not due to a transfer.

They are trying to maintain the allusion that they are still holding your paperwork because you

are still paying them. The allusion is that there is a debt that is due.

I’ve got the S3 registration statement. That is the form the bank filed that they sold the note that is a transfer. The attorney lied when he put in a claim that the instrument was lost.We have the 424(b)(5) prospectus. The bank we are dealing with is Bank One that is owned by JP Morgan and Chase. They sold it in 1997 right after they got our loan they sold it. They are doing a HELOC. Most banks do warehouse lending. As soon as they get the note, they borrow the money from a warehouse lender. They bank does not give you the money or credit. They get it from a warehouse lender. Then they pay off the warehouse lender with the note that they sell to them. Then they make derivatives out of this note by a bookkeeping entry.The balance sheet, a 2046, 2049, and 2099, have OMB numbers on them that are subject to

disclosure under the privacy act, Title 5 USC 552(b)(4). They have to give it to you if you ask for it. At closing and settlement, the reason they actually call it closing is because they pay off

the loan in its entirety. The debt is actually extinguished.

Patriots say they didn’t lend any money. But that doesn’t rebut the receivable. There is no money. But we loaned them the note. So we started the process, so we have to help resolved the

problem.They do the accounting appropriately, but there is two sets of books. But if you don’t ask to see the books, it is your problem. This is also what they are doing in the courtroom. The clerk has the receivable side for the corporation and the judge has the payables. The judge is holding accounts payable under HJR 192 for all the people that come before him if he has the SSN.

The judge is not required to be a witness or bring pleadings to the court. He is a referee. The receivables are the charges against the strawman. The party aware of the payables is not the same

party handling the receivables. People don’t bring in an offsetting claim under the rules of procedure.The judge does not have to do the setoff unless you raise the issue or defense. We have the right

to waive it. So the judge is the priest receiving the sacrifice for the corporation.

Securitization 2

Levy on Paycheck Employer filed Form 1096 to pay Corp income tax with employee’s salary and using accounts payable Direct Treasury Account.Use Form 1099-OID, corrected box checked, Form 1096 and 1040, for refund.Keating’s letter to bill collector law firm

Dear Mr. Doe,

I am writing regarding your recent letter in regard to your client XYZ CORP, being the alleged creditor in the amount of $1100. Your alleged client has waived their status as a creditor when

they accepted my tender of payment under UCC §§3-409(a)&(b) and UCC §3-604(a). They did not adjust their accounting ledger to reflect settlement and closure of the accounts receivable side

of the accounting ledger By way of review, I sent the woman in the credit department of the creditor, a negotiable

instrument on April 24th in the form of a commercial note draft, as an order to pay under UCC 3 104(e). This may be treated either as a promise to pay or an order to pay. Since she has not

returned the instrument to me she has obviously chosen the latter; an order to pay. Under §3-104(f) of the UCC a draft is the equivalent of a check and may be securitized or monetized by

direct deposit in a commercial checking, time, thrift or savings account under Title 12 of the United States code, Section 1813(L)(1) and when deposited it becomes the equivalent of money

as outlined under Section 1813(L)(1).The collection manager from the credit department of the creditor did, however, send me a letter

saying that she did not accept promissory notes. She is, however, precluded by public policy HJR-192 and Title 31 of the United States Code Section 5118(d)(2), and the Fair Debt Practices

Act, aka, Consumer Protection Act at 15 USC §1601 and §1693 from demanding payment in anyspecific coin or currency of the United States, even though she has not done so. Section (d)(2) of

Title 31 USC §1518 states that an obligation governed by gold coin is discharged on payment dollar for dollar, by United States coin or currency that is a legal tender at the time of payment.

The narrow view that money is limited to legal tender is rejected under Section 1-201(24) of the UCC. It is not limited to United States dollars. See official comments under section 3-104 of the

UCC under the definition of money. The woman at the creditor has failed to perform her duty as fiduciary trustee of the account. I

have done a Notorial protest against her and the account for non-acceptance and payment under sections 3-501 and 3-505(a)(b) of the UCC, which creates the evidence or presumption of a

dishonor. She is knowingly or unknowingly become the debtor and myself the creditor by operation of commercial and administrative law. Also worthy of note, if she is going to treat the

note as a liability instrument, she has to present it to me for payment, make me chargeable under 3-501 of the UCC, which she has also failed to do. To the extent that she is in dishonor for non-

acceptance and non payment by Notorial protest on the administrative side, … there has been a discharge of the debt in its entirety under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act within the 30

day time frame as mandated by law. I have been teaching and studying commercial banking law client does not understand commercial banking law, and the IASB, the FASB and GAAP

principles as they apply to commercial banking. I do a lot of trading and purchasing in commodities and securities exchange market where the use of a revocable standby letters of

credit, documentary drafts, international bills of exchange, or promissory notes are used exclusively under the UNICITRAL convention.Your client is not applying the correct accounting entries under GAAP. She is treating the account as a trade receivable through securitization as an off balance sheet financing technique.Since she has accepted the instrument that I have tendered, I have a claim or possessionary right

in the instrument and its proceeds under 3-306 of the UCC. Any defense and any claim in recoupment under section 3-305 of the UCC, which I shall exercise at my option, if she does not credit my account. The 1099-OID will identify who the principal is from, which capital and interest were taken, and who the recipient or who the payer of the funds are, and who is holding

the account in escrow and unadjusted.

Since I am solution oriented, and want to show good faith, there are two ways of resolving this matter. Since you client has already accepted my tender of payment and has not returned it, you

can instruct her to credit my account for the sum said in full for settlement and closure. Or, instruct her to return the original instrument to me, unendorsed, and I will make an alternative

form of payment. Otherwise, I will consider this matter settled and closed.

END OF LETTER

Jack’s Comments

The woman at the creditor can’t send the promissory note back because she has alreadynegotiated the instrument. No one ever gets promissory notes or BOE’s returned because a

debt tendered and refused is discharged. She kept the note, and wrote a letter saying that she doesn’t accept promissory notes. But her actions speak louder than words. She accepted it. So

it has already gone in to the corporate liability account, but it didn’t go into the corporate asset account for ledger. A debt tendered and refused is a debt paid.We sent an IBOE to a bank and they negotiated it and said they returned it. But they didn’t return

it. They deposited it and it became cash proceeds. So whenever you send them the note or BOE,they keep it in their deposit system and it becomes a cash item. They get a cash receipt for the

deposit. If you don’t understand accounting, they get away with the theft of your instrument. In reality, you gave them the instrument to settle and close the account. Your instrument is an asset

to you. It appears that you created a debt instrument, but the opposite is true. The government has no authority under the constitution to create money. So only the people can create money. So we are the originator of money, so we are the creditors. But they make you believe you are the debtor as if they are the creator of money.The only way you have an accounting of the instrument is in the bookkeeping. And they are keeping the account on the off balance sheet ledger. If they know you know what they are doing,

they won’t try to hide it. When they go to a collection agency, they are selling the account as a trade receivable from the asset side of the banks ledger. If the bank is trying to collect money, the

evidence of that debt owed on their books is on their asset ledger, accounts receivable. If you gave them a promissory note, they have to record a debt to you on their liability ledger. When The IRS has a notice of lien or levy. It is a charge or notice of interest. Don’t argue with them.You should rebut it under civil rule 13. Otherwise it stands as fact and they don’t have to prove anything. The government and their agents are here to test us. If we want to pass the test, we should have a claim for set off. We must act like creditors, not debtors. Jesus paid for all our

debts.Jean did the Notorial protest on the note. It becomes the evidence that you put in your claim.It is critical that you register the note on a UCC3, to make it a public record. Victoria used a note

to discharge her parole. However, she did not register the note on her UCC3. So it was never recognized in the public to settle and close the matter. So her charge was sold to a Hong Kong

company who requires a wanted notice maintained on her as their notice of interest.You don’t need any evidence to issue a notice of interest. IRS notices of lien or levy are just

notices of interest. You have 10 to 30 days to respond with a counterclaim. If you don’t respond,they have a claim by default. Arguing creates the IRS claim by default. We are a creditor when

we discharge the debt, but we never respond timely with a counterclaim to show we are a creditor. Since the IRS is just a debt collector, they are the best place to have a data integrity

board hearing to settle and close the matter.Arguments about the law are not counterclaims. If we don’t bring a claim, we lose. If we

discharge the debt, and they keep the note, we have a claim as a creditor. The note cannot beintroduced as evidence of the claim. If they kept the note without giving a receipt, your record is

the UCC registration of the note. Don’t put the invoice AR4V on the UCC. It is a liability not an asset. The BOE becomes a registered security under UCC article 8, which are superior to other

UCC articles. The court will not look at any security that is not registered in the public.You should register your bank mortgage note on your UCC 3, to establish a claim. The mortgage note is a security and it is never registered. The finance system is dealing in

unregistered securities. They cannot take an unregistered mortgage note into a court for foreclosure. They never produce a note in a foreclosure because it is evidence of their liability

and not cognizable in court. We are the creditor on the mortgage note, so we should register it. As soon as we register the mortgage note, we become the creditor in the foreclosure case

with the highest interest.If we tendered a BOE to settle and close a criminal case, it should be registered. The clerk never

gave us an accounting for credit. So they will ignore it because we didn’t make a rule 13counterclaim. We must register the BOE on a UCC3 and bring a UCC11 in as a counterclaim.

All other arguments do not matter because all law is an allusion. They converted everything to a commercial transaction at the beginning of the case.People have filed UCC liens listing the bank as the debtor. The debtor should be the prepaid

account at the Secretary of Treasury of Puerto Rico. The strawman should be a third party creditor because he is a bailee on another filing. The living man does not appear in their system,

so the strawman has to be the creditor. All parties on a UCC filing have to be a fiction, notliving. The SSN is the account number. The living man is responsible for all transactions.

US citizens became enemies of the state in 1933, they were not required to notify them of their assets. They are not required to notify enemies of their assets during times of war. They are

not required to return enemies of their assets. So they are kept on hidden books.When you send the collection agency the above letter it creates a fiduciary duty for them to go back to the principal to check the off balance sheet liability ledger to determine if the account has been paid and if your claim is correct.This principle applies to the IRS and the courts. They only want to discuss what you owe

them, and ignore what you pay them. The reason they tell you that your negotiable instrument is no good, is that under the Trading With the Enemy Act, they cannot allow you to create your

own negotiable instruments or use your own assets. All they have done is keep the ledgers separate. The receivables book has not been ledgered. That is why the collection agent says they

have not given you credit and you still owe the money.

The debt collector buys the account receivable in good faith without evidence of its accuracy. It is like a charging instrument. The attorney says pay up or we are coming after you. Under civil

rules of procedure, rule 13, commerce is adversarial, so they are not required to tell you the whole truth. It is mandated that the defendant return a counterclaim with facts proving that the

charge is untrue, which is an affirmative defense. A claim is an account that has matured for debt collection. You must show you are a creditor. The charge is a presumptive claim with no

evidence.A notice of lien or levy has no evidence of a claim. It is just a charge. A notice is a claim of jurisdiction. A counterclaim is not a dispute or argument. Disputes are not permitted. If the

merchant had brought a claim, it would have be a fraud, because you already paid it. So they just give you a presumptive notice. It is an unsupported charge. There is probable cause with no

evidence. You have to respond to it because it will become valid if you don’t. It is just a notice of interest. It can mature to a claim with your failure to respond. You have to accept it and return

it with your notice of interest, which is a counterclaim, within 10 days, according to admiralty rules. Failure to do a specific negative averment of the facts alleged (rule 9) constitutes an

acceptance of this fact as far as the courts are concerned. A notice of interest matures to agreement of the parties that they have a valid claim so they do not have to prove it.

An unsupported notice of interest becomes an agreed claim. They are not guilty of fraud, deceit or trickery. Your failure to respond is the problem. Our responsibility is to rebut the assumptions

and presumptions under the rules of evidence.

Jean did everything he needed to do in-law and at-law to resolve the issue. The merchant handling the books was only handling the accounts receivable books for the corporation and was

not privy to their accounts payable books, which are their liability books. The reason the corporations separate their bookkeeping is they can bring this woman in with a straight face and

no knowledge that the other books exist, swear in court that she’s been handling these books for years and the account still has an $1100 balance. You sent in an instrument that had nothing to

do with affecting the balance on the books she handles. When that corporation did a deposit of your promissory note, or BOE as a cash item receipt, that went into the other set of books

that she doesn’t see. She can use her affidavit and swear that this account is still open. Whereas if you knew the accountant on the other set of books, and subpoenaed those books, you would

find something on the ledger over there and there hasn’t been a transfer or exchange of information between the two sets of books.You need to bring the knowledge of that forward to a data integrity board hearing. “I don’t disagree with anything that this lady is saying, however, if you would go over to the corporate

liability off balance sheet ledgers, you would find that there has been a set off deposited there and if you could see both sets of books, you would see there is a set off, which is a claim under

civil rule 13, which I am timely invoking and I am asking you to look at both sets of books and do the offset balance and do the settlement and closure in this matter.

Remember, the firm hired an attorney collection firm. The collector came with the charge to Jean. How many times has Jean been charged by different entities in this case? Twice, so they

can have two or more witnesses. The first time he said to the receivables lady with the merchant,here is a promissory note. She made a determination that she is not going to accept it. But, the

note didn’t come back. So now the corporation sells the account to an attorney and the attorney writes a letter to Jean. Jean raised a rule 13 affirmative defense in his letter back. Showing by the

accounting what the problem was and describing the claim he would make in court.This attorney’s company is the second set of witnesses acting as the data integrity board trying to

find out why you haven’t paid. So you should give them your records so they can compare your records with the corporation’s records and decide whose records are correct. Let him know that,

ONE, you did not get the note back, so they are a holder, so they are liable on it. TWO, this was meant as a set off on the corporate liability books because they kept my note. They should

have given him a cash receipt for the note. The woman in receivables is only looking at the corporate asset ledger. That is an affirmative defense and a set off claim that the law can

recognize. The attorneys company can either go back to the corporation and close the case or else, if it goes

to court, this is going to be my affirmative defense and my counterclaim in court because I have an asset that the corporation is holding of mine, that they failed to give me credit for. Where they

made their mistake, is that they are likely carrying my asset on a liability ledger of balance from

their accounts receivable. What I am asking you to do, as a data integrity board is to investigate

to determine which one of us has the most sustainable evidence.

The attorney firm was put there as an opportunity for you to have a second witness to look into the matter and settle the account. They don’t usually have to investigate the information that is

sold to them by the corporation. They don’t have any probable cause to believe different. In an adversarial system, it is up to you to tell your side of the story. Every debt collector writes in his

letter that; “If you have any reason to dispute this debt, let us know.” You have to send them your claim within 10 or 30 days. Do not argue or create a dispute. Simply give them the facts

of your defense.Jean put in his note: A promise to pay, an order to pay and a notice of tender of payment and

asked them to credit it to the accounts receivable. He should also have asked for a cash receipt. It would be fraud if the corporation kept after Jean, so they sell the receivable to a third party

that doesn’t know the whole story. They are a new party. When a new party comes after you they have no standing under the UCC to do it. But if you argue, it causes a new controversy. All you do is present your claim that shows you are the creditor in the transaction. The new holde has to be the data integrity board. So he is your best opportunity to settle and close.Don’t ignore him.The IRS has a notice of lien or levy. It is a charge or notice of interest. Don’t argue with them You should rebut it under civil rule 13. Otherwise it stands as fact and they don’t have to prove

anything. The government and their agents are here to test us. If we want to pass the test, we should have a claim for set off. We must act like creditors, not debtors. Jesus paid for all our

debts. It becomes the evidence that you put in your claim.

It is critical that you register the note on a UCC3, to make it a public record. Victoria used a noteto discharge her parole. However, she did not register the note on her UCC3. So it was never

recognized in the public to settle and close the matter. So her charge was sold to a Hong Kong company who requires a wanted notice maintained on her as their notice of interest.

You don’t need any evidence to issue a notice of interest. IRS notices of lien or levy are just notices of interest. You have 10 to 30 days to respond with a counterclaim. If you don’t respond,

they have a claim by default. Arguing creates the IRS claim by default. We are a creditor when we discharge the debt, but we never respond timely with a counterclaim to show we are a

creditor. Since the IRS is just a debt collector, they are the best place to have a data integrity board hearing to settle and close the matter. Arguments about the law are not counterclaims. If we don’t bring a claim, we lose. If we discharge the debt, and they keep the note, we have a claim as a creditor. The note cannot be

introduced as evidence of the claim. If they kept the note without giving a receipt, your record is the UCC registration of the note. Don’t put the invoice AR4V on the UCC. It is a liability not an

asset. The BOE becomes a registered security under UCC article 8, which are superior to otherUCC articles. The court will not look at any security that is not registered in the public.

You should register your bank mortgage note on your UCC 3, to establish a claim. The mortgage note is a security and it is never registered. The finance system is dealing in

unregistered securities. They cannot take an unregistered mortgage note into a court for foreclosure. They never produce a note in a foreclosure because it is evidence of their liability

and not cognizable in court. We are the creditor on the mortgage note, so we should register it.As soon as we register the mortgage note, we become the creditor in the foreclosure case

with the highest interest.If we tendered a BOE to settle and close a criminal case, it should be registered. The clerk never

gave us an accounting for credit. So they will ignore it because we didn’t make a rule 13 counterclaim. We must register the BOE on a UCC3 and bring a UCC11 in as a counterclaim.All other arguments do not matter because all law is an allusion. They converted everything to a commercial transaction at the beginning of the case.People have filed UCC liens listing the bank as the debtor. The debtor should be the prepaid account at the Secretary of Treasury of Puerto Rico. The strawman should be a third party

creditor because he is a bailee on another filing. The living man does not appear in their system,so the strawman has to be the creditor. All parties on a UCC filing have to be a fiction, not

living. The SSN is the account number. The living man is responsible for all transactions.

When Jean sent his claim to the collection agency, they had the fiduciary responsibility to go back to the corporation and ask to see the off balance sheet liabilities ledger to check out

the claim. When you give them notice, they have to go to discovery under civil rule 11. He has to find out who is responsible for the accounts payable ledger and what did you do with the cash

receipt for his deposit. I want to see your 1099-OID, statement 95 cash flow statement and your balance sheet. Jean will not likely hear from these people again. Jean presented a credible

counterclaim. The note was an asset to him and a liability to the corporation and they didn’t account for it. The debt collector can’t resell the receivable now, because he has had notice. The sale would not have been in good faith. The woman in the original company was operating in ignorant good faith. She only saw half the books. You may have to go through the administrative procedure against him if he ignores your claim. After he has seen both sides of the books, he would be operating in fraud. The Enron executives that got in trouble were the ones that saw both sides

of the books. Securitization is fraud.Some companies pass the receivable on to fourth of fifth parties so they could have clean hands But no one ever told them about the second set of books. We have not given them a registered security. There is no evidence in the public record. They can carry the allusion that your

instrument is worthless, forever. If we do not understand that the collection agent only sees the receivables and not the payables, we will fail to state a claim. This puts us into commercial

dishonor, which gives them the option to take us into court to force us to pay in Federal Reserve notes. So the first court case is actually an appeal from the administrative process. One is not

allowed to introduce a new claim in an appeal. The factual hearing was with the collection agency. We are foreclosed from bringing our claim.One must raise the claim at the appropriate time, or you have not exhausted your administrativeremedies. We need to get a data integrity review hearing or a secondary hearing because we havenew evidence to be adjudicated.

The Truth-in-lending act (TILA), section 226.23, which is regulation Z, gives one the right to rescind any commercial debt contract or agreement entered into. All commercial contracts for credit or loan provides for 72 hours to do a rescission. That can be extended for three years from the date that one discovers that one did not have full disclosure. In Appendix H, it says that this regulation Z does not apply to residential mortgage transactions. However, once

foreclosure has been initiated on a mortgage, one can rescind it if;

(a) they did not disclose the right to rescind at closing under Appendix H. They never give the proper notice at closing. So one could rescind every mortgage contract at foreclosure. They give this option because one could have registered the note on a

UCC, one would be the creditor anyway, and so they can’t foreclose. Rescission completely discharges the security agreement (the mortgage deed and the mortgage

contract). One can ask for the entire amount of the mortgage note returned in the form of cash.They should have given you the cash for your note at closing and closed the whole transaction

without continuing payments. The house was paid for at closing with your negotiable instrument on one set of books. They didn’t give you credit for the note because you didn’t register the note

and show a claim. If you don’t register the note, they will not give you your property back. They can’t give you the note back because they sold it. So, they should give all your payments back.

God has given us a prepaid account so we never have to go into debt, if we are honorable. We should pay for everything with a promissory note.All homes are legally abandoned because no one has made their claim for the money that was

owed to them. One should have claimed the house at closing because the note paid it for. Thebank has no claim. There is a third party that bought the note from the bank and holds an interest

in the note.Foreclosure is damage, so they have to give notice and the right to rescind. The notice of rescission is sent by certified mail. As soon as we do that they try to claim that Reg. Z doesn’t apply to residential mortgages. In the In Re: Maxwell case, the owner repeatedly asked for disclosure. We used this case as a foundation for our case on the ground that the mortgage transaction was an unconscionable act. Whenever there is a lack of disclosure, one has an offset available. This is dangerous to the entire mortgage industry, however, a few cases is not going to cause a big problem. If most people want to be ignorant, and be slaves to the banking system,they have the right to do that. No attorney will make this type of claim because it jeopardizes the system that he works for. Nor was the attorney told what to do by the client.Regulation Z shows the form in which the bank is required to give notice of rescission. They never give you notice in that form. They awarded the owner, $475,000 in punitive and actual damages from the bank. Plus, they rescinded the contract. They said the contract was unconscionable under UCC 2-302.One also had the right to rescind if the property is on a flood plain that was not disclosed. Many new flood plains have been declared. The whole state of Ohio is surrounded by navigable waters under USC Title 33 and is a flood plain. Where the high water mark goes, one is subject to admiralty maritime law providing Federal jurisdiction. It is caused a hazard area under Title 42 USC 4012(a). FEMA defines the flood plain. There was no flood insurance on the property when the loan was originated. It is not possible to take out a loan in a flood plain area without flood insurance. That voids the contract.The claim or affirmative defense is that this is another ground for rescission. They never disclosed that the property was in a flood hazard area and there was no flood hazard insurance.That is a violation of UCC 3-407, a material alteration to the original contract.The government is trying to expand the definition of wetlands and flood plains. This is related to securitization in which they transform negotiable instruments into securities. They move them from UCC article 3 to article 8. Ohio code section 1707.01(b) a promissory note is defined as a security. So one can use rescission on it also. Under Ohio code 1707-261 one has the right to

restitution and rescission when they sell an unregistered security. As soon as the bank gets your mortgage note, they sell it. Banks register mortgage deeds, not mortgage notes Victoria gave a note to the county do discharge her criminal case. The county likely deposited it in a bank and received a cash receipt. The bank likely sold it as an unregistered security. This provides Victoria with another remedy. But she needs to register it on a UCC3 before it can be

used as a claim.

END OF SEPTEMBER 18 MEETING

Securitization 3

Banks securitize mortgages by selling them to a SPV (a special purpose vehicle, a trust). Then they create bonds of trust assets to sell to DTC. The bank cannot foreclose on the note, because they are not a holder and lack standing. However, the mortgage contract requires payments. This makes the note non-negotiable. They are foreclosing on the contract under common law, not the

note. The bank claims to be holder in due course, but that is not possible for there to be a holder in due course of a non negotiable instrument. Non-negotiable instruments are governed by common law, not the UCC.SPV- A special purpose vehicle, an organization constructed for a limited purpose and life. Frequently these SPV’s serve as conduits or pass through organizations or corporation in relationto securitization. The entity that hold the legal rights over the asset transferred by the originator.The originator of a mortgage is the living man. If he is the originator, the SPV becomes the legal

holder when the deed is signed. The bank is acting in the capacity as a servicer. When you are involved in a foreclosure case, the strawman creates an allusion. No party is real. So the real parties in interest are not involved in the court. The bank may be named as the plaintiff on the foreclosure is the servicer. The real party in interest is the SPV. Patriots usually ask the plaintiff to produce the note. The note is not a negotiable note because it has terms and conditions associated with the instrument which could lead to a question as to whether the terms and conditions have been met. A negotiable instrument can have no restrictions, terms or conditions. One, the note is non-negotiable. Two, it is never registered in the public. These instruments cannot appear in a court. If it was brought into court, the judge would see that it is not registered, and would claim he has no subject matter jurisdiction over your claim. Secondly, it is not negotiable, so it does not come under the UCC negotiable instruments act. Consequently it comes under contract obligations, so the appearance of the note is immaterial and irrelevant. Especially since it was never registered in the public.The next problem is, since the note is not registered, what standing does the plaintiff, bank, have to be there. Under the UCC, the plaintiff has no standing if he is not a holder in due course. The plaintiff is not there on the note for several reasons. It is also shows that the bank is liable and the originator is the creditor. The note is an asset to the defendant, which is a counterclaim for recoupment. It does not support the banks case.

Before closing the note goes into an SPV which now has legal title to these issues and it creates a new instrument in the place of the note. They create securities and bonds, which are registered.The plaintiff is representing the registered security and bond at closing. They are hiding the pea under several shells so you don’t know where it is. This keeps the patriots from making the proper claims

The statute says you have a right to restitution and rescission if they sell an unregistered security, Ohio statute 1707-261. Is the note an unregistered security? It is a non-negotiable instrument.When they convert it into a security, it takes it out of UCC Article 3. It could be under UCC article 4 because it is deposited in a bank. But eventually, after it has gone into the SPV, and been securitized, it is moved to UCC Article 8 and Article 9 is applicable to the remedy. They have to give you the right to rescission because it is unregistered. So, they ledger that you no longer have a liability by giving you the setoff. So they are following the law. But they are keeping the records in two different sets of books like the Mafia We are following the letter of the law and showing them what they are doing. We have a right to rescind and restitution, which is also part of recoupment. We can go to the NASD, the national association of securities dealers, they have an arbitration and resolution board located in NYC.They have tribunals in each state for hearings. You can go to arbitration and have the contract rescinded and get restitution because they are selling unregistered securities. I have examples of four recent cases from 2005 and 2006. People have purchased promissory notes and found out they were unregistered securities. There is case law on this. This is money laundering or RICO.But there is a statute protecting us. Since, as soon as they sell the unregistered security, we are entitled to setoff to settle the claim. We are raising this claim; we have not waived it. They have not addressed our claims or defenses, so we have grounds for appeal. The law requires them to do this because they have raised it. One can stop any mortgage on this basis They would be better off if the judge gave you a remedy on other grounds. We have given them several grounds for rescission. They can also allow rescission because the property is in a flood plain. Their attorney said that if what we are saying is true, it would destroy the mortgage market. We had an attorney say the same in her pleadings fifteen years ago, and then she was taken off the case. I don’t think they like attorneys saying those things in public.Federal court through out our RICO complaint initially. I brought up the FASB and IASB standards and regulations in appellate court. I corrected them from stating that the bank is the creditor. That is only true on the receivable side of the ledger. We are the creditor and they are the debtors on the liability ledger. That provides a remedy. The G7 has endorsed it. Now we are getting into international law, with the IASB standards that they have adopted. These standards say we have a right to setoff.So, like the Mafia, they always have a second set of books that are not available to the public.They only use the public books when they make a claim against us to determine how much we know about our claims available on the other side of the accounting. It is up to us to bring this and commercial claims, every time there is a clause in the instrument. They create a mortgage purchase loan (16 CFR 433.1). This whole process is not about mortgages at all, because they sold the note and received the funds and closed the account by assuming they have repaid the originator on the loan. If they already repaid the originator on the loan, the living man who signed the note, then the whole thing is closed. We got our money back.We did not receive the money or ask for the note back. So the bank transaction on the payables side shows that we brought the money in, they credited it our account so they paid it back, we don’ have a claim against the bank. It stayed in the account, because we didn’t claim it.So they assume it has been abandoned. A trustee of abandoned assets would normally invest these assets to make money on them. They are expecting rent for this property from us. We are not paying monthly payments of principal and interest, is because the loan has been paid off. We are paying rent for the asset we failed to collect. The SPV is taking all the payments as profit. It is under contract and has nothing to do with notes and contracts it ends when the original contract is finished. If you stop making payments, no one has been damaged. The only reason the banks continue to collect for 30 years is because you are a fool. We are responsible for agreeing to this contract.We don’t have a claim for fraud.We did the first funds transfer that they transferred to the receivables as an asset to the bank. When they didn’t give the note back, the bank sold it or deposited it as a cash item. UCC 1-204 says we are considered as merchants at law, who know what we are doing. We act as though we are experts at negotiable instruments. That is how they get around the defense of fraud in the inducement.To prove fraud in the inducement, one has to prove he didn’t know what they were doing, and didn’t have sufficient time to find out. But in order to prove that, you have to learn how to do it right first.They call their process de-recognition. But most of the time that is not true. If they pass the reward and the risk, a complete sale of the asset, it is de-recognition. De-recognition is defined in accounting as not recognizing it on their books any more, or removed it of the balance sheet.This means they extinguished the loan from the books. We are asking for the balance sheet in discovery. The balance sheet will show that the loan has been extinguished. They are trying to collect on a note that they have no right title or interest in.Pimpco on Bonds, using the real estate is not the mortgage loan. It is used to securitize the commodities and securities exchange. They are not using mortgages to attach property, because it only appears that they got an interest to attach the property. We have the priority. Their real intent is to create derivatives to create a security and bond market to finance all commercial and corporate activity. Tying up the land is a profitable by product, because nobody understands that they don’t have a claim for it. They are called beneficial interest holders (BIHS). Those are the organizations with an account with the DTC to buy the mortgage-backed bonds, which are the pooled assets from the HELOC or trust.

No one in the USA should have a bad credit rating because they have a prepaid account.

On Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 11:37 AM peopleofthestateof California <californiapeopleofthestateof@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Mark here is some of the research that I have done on business and how to protect your assets and how money works

we’ve been taught to see everything backwards, in terms of banking, with debits being credits, and credits being debits. Banks are being thought of as intermediaries but this is not really what's happening. ...Banks don't lend money. ...they're in the business of purchasing securities, that's it. Here's the loan contract, the offer letter, and you sign, at law its very clear, you have issued a security, namely a Promissory Note, and the bank is going to purchase that. ...The bank purchases my Promissory Note, but how do I get my money? The bank will say well you'll 'find' it in your account with us, that will be technically correct; if they say we'll 'transfer' it to your account, that's wrong, because no money is transferred, at all ...Now it also owes you money, and its record of what it owes you is what you think you are getting as money. And that's all it is. That is how the banks create the money supply. ...they simply restate – slightly incorrectly in accounting terms, what is an accounts payable liability arising from the 'loan' contract having purchased your Promissory Note.” – International Banking and Finance Professor, Richard Werner (author of the term “Quantitative Easing”) [emphasis added]

Bank Loan Contracts or lender promissory notes requiring legal money that is not true money such as: bank checks, cash, check, money orders, attorney checks, bank transfers, wire transfers, FEDERAL RESERVE PROMISSORY NOTE DOLLARS, cashier checks, and certified checks from a bank, attorney, or escrow company are illegal pursuant to Title 31 U.S.C. §5118(d)(2); 31 U.S.C.A. §463; and Public Law 97-258 (September 13, 1982).

In accordance with 31 U.S.C. §5103 and 18 USC §8, such Note instruments are “national bank currency” and thereby ‘coin or currency of the United States’ by statutory definition and can be issued by Private Bankers who are banking members of the Private Bankers National Banking Association, PBNBA, and are “THE EQUIVALENT” OF MONEY as per 12 USC §1813 (L) and must be accepted by all banks and financial institutions as payoff, set off, discharge, and full settlement of all debts and loans.

When quoting U.C.C. statutes, the courts require them to be quoted with State or Federal statute designation. U.C.C. codes are United Nations statutes, but are codified in every local jurisdiction. SOLYOM v. THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION, 53 Md. App. 280 (1982) 452 A.2d 1283.

A common misconception, taught in some economic textbooks, is that commercial banks function as “intermediaries”, lending their customers' deposits whenever the bank makes a “loan”. This deception has been exposed by money reformers advocating sovereign money issuance, supported by ample evidence, and ultimately confirmed by the administrators of the Bank of England in their first quarterly bulletin of 2014 Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money.” – Bank of England, Quarterly Bulletin, 2014, Q1

What they do when they make loans is to except promissory notes in exchange for credits.”(emphasis added) – Modern Money Mechanics, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago

Banks are thought of as deposit-taking institutions that lend money. The legal reality is banks don’t take deposits and banks don’t lend money At law, the word deposit is meaningless. The law courts and various judgements have made it very clear Banks don’t lend money. Banks again, at law, it’s very clear. They’re in the business of purchasing securities At law, it’s very clear, you have issued a security. Namely a promissory note. And the bank is going to purchase That The note becomes an Asset on the bank’s books. On the Liabilities side of the bank’s balance sheet, the bank adds an accounts payable this is based on double-entry accounting. When something is added to the Assets side, something must be added to the Liabilities side

Your promissory note is really a security purchased by the bank”, which then has an “accounts payable liability” that it pretends is a loan You are the creditor The bank is the debtor

Customers lend money to the banks, and that becomes an asset to the bank. The bank then creates an account (payable) showing how much the bank owes the customer. The account that I think is mine, is really a bookkeeping entry. It’s an accounts payable; but the bank calls it an account

the customer that created the money when the customer signed the promissory note. Federal Reserve notes represent the promised dollars of loan applicants.

customer completes a bank loan application that is really a promissory note. A note has value, since someone is promising to pay an amount in the future. The note becomes an Asset on the bank’s books. On the Liabilities side of the bank’s balance sheet, the bank adds an accounts payable

the bank does not place the funds into the customer’s existing account. The bank creates a new account and I am saying that this is really an accounts payable the accounts payable liability arising from the loan contract having purchased your promissory note – as a customer deposit. But nobody has deposited any money

They say they placed money into the account, but really it’s just a ledger entry The bank never actually pays for the promissory note. It promises to pay in the future, and the bank can prove that (in a way) by showing the accounts payable showing the bank plans to pay it at some point. the customer that created the money when the customer signed the promissory note. Federal Reserve notes represent the promised dollars of loan applicants

Banks are thought of as deposit-taking institutions that lend money. The legal reality is banks don’t take deposits and banks don’t lend money At law, the word deposit is meaningless. The law courts and various judgements have made it very clear Banks don’t lend money. Banks again, at law, it’s very clear. They’re in the business of purchasing securities At law, it’s very clear, you have issued a security. Namely a promissory note. And the bank is going to purchase That The note becomes an Asset on the bank’s books. On the Liabilities side of the bank’s balance sheet, the bank adds an accounts payable this is based on double-entry accounting. When something is added to the Assets side, something must be added to the Liabilities side

Your promissory note is really a security purchased by the bank”, which then has an “accounts payable liability” that it pretends is a loan You are the creditor The bank is the debtor

Customers lend money to the banks, and that becomes an asset to the bank. The bank then creates an account (payable) showing how much the bank owes the customer. The account that I think is mine, is really a bookkeeping entry. It’s an accounts payable; but the bank calls it an account

the customer that created the money when the customer signed the promissory note. Federal Reserve notes represent the promised dollars of loan applicants.

customer completes a bank loan application that is really a promissory note. A note has value, since someone is promising to pay an amount in the future. The note becomes an Asset on the bank’s books. On the Liabilities side of the bank’s balance sheet, the bank adds an accounts payable

the bank does not place the funds into the customer’s existing account. The bank creates a new account and I am saying that this is really an accounts payable the accounts payable liability arising from the loan contract having purchased your promissory note – as a customer deposit. But nobody has deposited any money

They say they placed money into the account, but really it’s just a ledger entry The bank never actually pays for the promissory note. It promises to pay in the future, and the bank can prove that (in a way) by showing the accounts payable showing the bank plans to pay it at some point. the customer that created the money when the customer signed the promissory note. Federal Reserve notes represent the promised dollars of loan applicants.

People who are married

You should have four bank account

1.you have your joint checking account were both of you put your checks in and that your join account pay for necessities to live

2.is a savings account were you both agree to put x amount of dollars and it takes too signature to move it

Third and fourth bank account should be both your own bank account and she can decide what comes out of the pot she can do what she wants do and doesn't have to check that the bills are payed you got a car to drive that way you can have your own life too and try to save a little money

The goal is not to say I don't want to pay taxes but to get the Internal revenue service (IRS) to contract with you the United States Constitution ArtI.S10.C1.6.1 says 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.

Meaning a state’s regulation of contracts, whether involving public or private parties, must generally be reasonably designed and appropriately tailored to achieve a legitimate public purpose.

You create a contract that would protect your private financial transaction through recoupment

Any Federal Reserve bank may make application to the local Federal Reserve agent for such amount of the Federal Reserve notes hereinbefore provided for as it may require. Such application shall be accompanied with a tender to the local Federal Reserve agent of collateral in amount equal to the sum of the Federal Reserve notes thus applied for and issued pursuant to such application. The collateral security thus offered shall be notes, drafts, bills of exchange, or acceptances acquired under section 92, 342 to 348, 349 to 352, 361, 372, or 373 of this title, or bills of exchange endorsed by a member bank of any Federal Reserve district and purchased under the provisions of sections 348a and 353 to 359 of this title, or bankers' acceptances purchased under the provisions of said sections 348a and 353 to 359 of this title, Sources for contract law and recoupment of money

Offices of assistant treasurers abolished from July 1, 1921 office shall terminate upon the discontinuance of the functions of that office by the Secretary of the Treasury.

Important to have wearhouse receipts for recoupment Recoupment case law do your own research

The goal is not to say I don't want to pay taxes but to get the Internal revenue service (IRS) to contract with you the United States Constitution ArtI.S10.C1.6.1 says 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.

Meaning a state’s regulation of contracts, whether involving public or private parties, must generally be reasonably designed and appropriately tailored to achieve a legitimate public purpose.

You create a contract that would protect your private financial transaction through recoupment

Any Federal Reserve bank may make application to the local Federal Reserve agent for such amount of the Federal Reserve notes hereinbefore provided for as it may require. Such application shall be accompanied with a tender to the local Federal Reserve agent of collateral in amount equal to the sum of the Federal Reserve notes thus applied for and issued pursuant to such application. The collateral security thus offered shall be notes, drafts, bills of exchange, or acceptances acquired under section 92, 342 to 348, 349 to 352, 361, 372, or 373 of this title, or bills of exchange endorsed by a member bank of any Federal Reserve district and purchased under the provisions of sections 348a and 353 to 359 of this title, or bankers' acceptances purchased under the provisions of said sections 348a and 353 to 359 of this title, Sources for contract law and recoupment of money

ArtI.S10.C1.6.1

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S10-C1-6-1/ALDE_00013037/['the',%20'fourth',%20'amendment']

title 12 section 411

https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-12-banks-and-banking/12-usc-sect-411/

12 title 412

https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-12-banks-and-banking/12-usc-sect-412/

INTERNAL REVENUE TAX AND AUDIT SERVICE, INC entity number look up this number 325720

https://icis.corp.delaware.gov/eCorp/EntitySearch/NameSearch.aspx

Open end credit v closed end credit

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/062915/what-difference-between-closed-end-credit-and-line-credit.asp

https://www.justice.gov/jm/civil-resource-manual-205-recoupment-and-setoff

Ucc § 7-202. Form of Warehouse Receipt

7 U.S. Code § 250 - Warehouse receipts

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/250

Subpart D—Warehouse Receipts

§ 869.300 Warehouse receipt requirements

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-VIII/subchapter-B/part-869/subpart-D/

Title 12A - Commercial Transactions

Section 12A:7-202 - Form of warehouse receipt; effect of omission.

https://casetext.com/statute/new-jersey-statutes/title-12a-commercial-transactions/chapter-12a7/section-12a7-202-form-of-warehouse-receipt-effect-of-omission

N.J. Stat. § 2A:44-190

https://casetext.com/statute/new-jersey-statutes/title-2a-administration-of-civil-and-criminal-justice/chapter-2a44/section-2a44-190-issuance-of-warehouse-receipt-bill-of-lading-or-other-document-of-title-application-of-act

Secretary of state abolished 1923

https://tinyurl.com/ye9ntwwf

Making the Benjamins

GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6850-6852 money account

https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2010/gov/6850-6852.html

Topic No. 431, Canceled Debt – Is It Taxable or Not?

https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc431

12 us code 1813(l)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/1813

18 USc 8

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/8

ArtI.S10.C1.6.1

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S10-C1-6-1/ALDE_00013037/['the',%20'fourth',%20'amendment']

title 12 section 411

https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-12-banks-and-banking/12-usc-sect-411/

12 title 412

https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-12-banks-and-banking/12-usc-sect-412/

Cases expressing that one's labor is not taxable case laws Butcher's Union vs. Crescent City, 111 US 746, 756 (1884)

Pollock vs. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co., 157 US 429, 629 (1895)

Flint vs. Stone Tracy, 220 US 107, 151 - 152 (1911)

U.S. vs. Whitridge, 231 US 144, 147 (1913)

Stratton's Independence, 231 US 399, 417 (1913)

Merchants' Loan & Trust Co. vs. Smietanka, 255 US 509, 518 - 519 (1921)

Brushaber vs. Union Pacific, 240 US 1, 12 (1916)

Stanton vs. Baltic Mining Co., 240 US 103, 112 -114 (1916)

Doyle vs. Mitchell Bros., 247 U.S. 179, 183 (1918)

Peck vs. Lowe, 247 US 165, 173 (1918)

Southern Pacific vs. Lowe, 247 US 330, 335 (1918)

Evans vs. Gore, 253 US 245, 263 (1920)

Eisner vs. Macomber, 252 US 189, 205 - 206 (1920)

Bowers vs. Kerbaugh-Empire, 271 US 170, 174 (1926)

Jerome H. Sheip Co. vs. Amos, 100 Fla. 863, 130 So. 699, 705 (1930)

redfield vs. Fisher, 135 Or. 180, 292 P. 813, 819 (Ore. 1930)

Helvering vs. Edison Brothers, 8th Cir. 133 F2d 575 (1943)

U.S. vs. Ballard, 535 F2d 400 (1976)

a.. 1818: U.S. v. Bevans, 16 U.S.336. Establishes two separate jurisdictions within the United States Of America: 1. The "federal zone" and 2. "the 50 States". The I.R.C. only has jurisdiction within the "federal zone".

Statutes 609 fair debts collection practice act

https://www.badcredit.org/how-to/609-letter/

https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/rules/fair-debt-collection-practices-act-text

12 CFR Part 1006 - Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Regulation F)

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/rules-policy/regulations/1006/2021-11-30/

11 U.S. Code § 722 - Redemption

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11/722

26 U.S. Code § 302 - Distributions in redemption of stock

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/302

31 U.S. Code § 5119 - Redemption and cancellation of currency

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5119

12 U.S. Code § 411 - Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/411

31 U.S. Code § 5120 - Obsolete, mutilated, and worn coins and currency

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5120

Uniform Commercial Code § 9-210. REQUEST FOR ACCOUNTING; REQUEST REGARDING LIST OF COLLATERAL OR STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT

https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/9/9-210

Uniform Commercial Code PART 6. DISCHARGE AND PAYMENT

https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/part_6

Unfair Billing and Collection Practices After Bankruptcy Discharges of Certain Student Loan Debts

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/23/2023-06002/bulletin-2023-01-unfair-billing-and-collection-practices-after-bankruptcy-discharges-of-certain

11 USC § 523(a)(8) —

What it Means for

Student Loans

https://www.tateesq.com/learn/523a8-student-loan

Circumstances Justifying the Dischargeability of Student Loans Under the Bankruptcy Code

https://www.cowlesthompson.com/resources/practice/bankruptcy/circumstances-justifying-the-dischargeability-of-student-loans-under-the-bankruptcy-code/

3-309. ENFORCEMENT OF LOST, DESTROYED, OR STOLEN INSTRUMENT.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-309

11 U.S. Code § 722 - Redemption

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11/722

26 U.S. Code § 302 - Distributions in redemption of stock

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/302

31 U.S. Code § 5119 - Redemption and cancellation of currency

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5119

12 U.S. Code § 411 - Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/411

31 U.S. Code § 5120 - Obsolete, mutilated, and worn coins and currency

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5120

PART 100—EXCHANGE OF PAPER CURRENCY AND COIN 31 U.S.C. 321.

Source:47 FR 32044,

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-31/subtitle-B/chapter-I/part-100

Subpart B—Request for Examination of Mutilated Currency for Possible Redemption

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-31/subtitle-B/chapter-I/part-100/subpart-B/

Federal Reserve Act section 13 and 16

https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section16.htm

26 U.S. Code § 304 - Redemption through use of related corporations

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/304

California Labor Code § 203 LC imposes a waiting time penalty on employers who willfully withhold the final paychecks from employees who are terminated or quit. The penalty is equal to the employee's daily wage for each day the final paycheck goes unpaid, up to 30 days.

https://california.public.law/codes/ca_lab_code_section_203

12 U.S. Code § 343 - Discount of obligations arising out of actual commercial transactions

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/343

Section 179 of the IRS tax code allows businesses to deduct the full purchase price of qualifying tools, equipment and software purchased or financed during that tax year.The term “equipment” in tax law is very broad.

https://www.irs.gov/publications/p946

Domestic Production Activities deduction

https://www.irs.gov/forms-pubs/about-form-8903

Deduction

Net Operating Losses (NOLs) for Individuals, Estates, and Trusts

https://www.irs.gov/publications/p536

Borrowing against your stockholding are not taxes https://www.schwab.com/learn/story/3-ways-to-borrow-against-your-assets

Foreign tax exclusion get a 120,000 tax deduction for living outside of the united States for at least 330 days

https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/foreign-earned-income-exclusion

your a secured party of record in the contract

law.cornell.edu/ucc/9/9-511

9-503.

law.cornell.edu/ucc/9/9-503

UCC 9-203

law.cornell.edu/ucc/9/9-203

Ucc 9-104

law.cornell.edu/ucc/9/9-104

UCC § 9-207

law.cornell.edu/ucc/9/9-207

Securing promissory note

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/secured-promissory-note-vs-unsecured-promissory-note

California Code

Government Code

Chapter 9. Money Of Account

GOVERNMENT CODE

SECTION 6850-6852

https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2010/gov/6850-6852.html

Tender of payment

https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-603

Control of deposit account

https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/9/9-104

Found this website called letter dash an agency who sends out cease and desist, demand, defame/slander and breach of contract it $199 but an attorney sends out a letter and the party of interest

Https://www.letterdash.com/

getting a favorable judgement from judge.California Code of Regulations Employee

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-5/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-451

Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 2, § 599.664 - Cash Awards

https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/california/2-CCR-599.664

SUPERIOR ACCOMPLISHMENT GIFT OR CASH AWARD RECOMMENDATION

https://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/DGS/FMC/PDF/std278.pdf

Title 5 Chapter I Subchapter B Part 451 Subpart § 451.101 Authority and coverage.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-5/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-451/subpart-A

HR Order DOJ1200.1: Part 2. Compensation: Chapter 2-18, Agency Awards and Quality Step Increases

https://www.justice.gov/jmd/hr-order-doj12001-part-2-compensation-chapter-2-18-agency-awards-and-quality-step-increases

California Code of Regulations - Employee Merit Award Program (CalHR Rules 599.655 - 599.664)

https://casetext.com/regulation/california-cod

Title 5 Chapter I Subchapter B Part 451

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-5/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-451

Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 2, § 599.664 - Cash Awards

https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/california/2-CCR-599.664

SUPERIOR ACCOMPLISHMENT GIFT OR CASH AWARD RECOMMENDATION

https://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/DGS/FMC/PDF/std278.pdf

Title 5 Chapter I Subchapter B Part 451 Subpart § 451.101 Authority and coverage.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-5/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-451/subpart-A

HR Order DOJ1200.1: Part 2. Compensation: Chapter 2-18, Agency Awards and Quality Step Increases

https://www.justice.gov/jmd/hr-order-doj12001-part-2-compensation-chapter-2-18-agency-awards-and-quality-step-increases

California Code of Regulations - Employee Merit Award Program (CalHR Rules 599.655 - 599.664)

https://casetext.com/regulation/california-code-of-regulations/title-2-administration/division-1-administrative-personnel/chapter-3-department-of-human-resources/subchapter-1-general-civil-service-rules/article-4-employee-merit-award-program/section-599655-definitions

Here is a PDF on 5 U.S. Code § 4501 and other laws that allow you to get a favorable judgement in regards your civil or criminal case in federal court

https://tinyurl.com/2adzrs2y

3-104. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-104

§ 3-302. HOLDER IN DUE COURSE.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-302

15 U.S. Code § 1602 definitions

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1602

15 U.S. Code § 1692a - Definitions

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1692a

11 U.S.C. § 341

https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-11-bankruptcy/chapter-3-case-administration/subchapter-iii-administration/section-341-meetings-of-creditors-and-equity-security-holders

15 USC § 1602(g)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?height=800&def_id=15-USC-1822875292-852328088&term_occur=999&term_src=

11 U.S. Code § 523 - Exceptions to discharge

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11/523

12 U.S. Code § 411 - Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/411

12 U.S.C. § 412 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 12. Banks and Banking § 412. Application for notes; collateral required

https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-12-banks-and-banking/12-usc-sect-412/

12 U.S.C. § 413 - U.S. Code

https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-12-banks-and-banking/12-usc-sect-413/

Section 13. Powers of Federal Reserve Banks

https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section13.htm

Section 13A.* Discount of agricultural paper

https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section13a.htm

Section 16. Note Issues Issuance of Federal Reserve notes; nature of obligation; where redeemable

https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section16.htm

15 U.S. Code § 1635 - Right of rescission as to certain transactions

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1635

Setoff and Recoupment in Bankruptcy -- Recoupment

https://www.justice.gov/jm/civil-resource-manual-67-setoff-and-recoupment-bankruptcy

15 U.S. Code § 1635 - Right of rescission as to certain transactions

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1635

Setoff and Recoupment in Bankruptcy -- Setoffs (cont'd), Recoupment)

https://www.justice.gov/jm/civil-resource-manual-65-setoff-and-recoupment-bankruptcy

15 U.S. Code Chapter 41 - CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/chapter-41

9-340. EFFECTIVENESS OF RIGHT OF RECOUPMENT OR SET-OFF AGAINST DEPOSIT ACCOUNT.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/9/9-340