Well, this all has to do with assets. Money is anyone's most common asset, so let's look at how money is actually created and at what cost. If the Federal Reserve wants to print 1,000 ($100) bills, their total cost for ink, paper, plates, labor, etc. would be approximately $23.00 (according to Davvy Kidd in "Why A Bankrupt America"). Now, if one does the math, the total cost of 10,000 bills would be $230.00 ($.023 x 10,000), and that equals $1,000,000! So, the Federal Reserve can "create" a million dollars, then LEND it to the U.S. Government (with interest) for a total cost of $230.00! That's not a bad deal, right?
The banking industry calls this process "seignorage." But let’s ignore the immense (unlawful) profit margin ($1,000,000 for $230) and enormous interest payments, and focus on why that leaves our government needing to STEAL the American people's money to pay-off their debts. The banks steal from the government, then the government turns around and steals from the people.
What's worse is that - now catch that breath - there's NO MORE gold left in Fort Knox! It's all gone. In other words, the gold standard that our financial system was based upon is now an illusion. We can't convert our money into gold - only other currency. The entire underlying basis for our money is now a lie - a sham. The Federal Reserve has become so arrogant that they've become a literal MONEY-MAKING MACHINE, creating currency out of thin air! So that's where the Federal Reserve (not the federal government) gets their money - they literally make it, then lend it to our government (and us) so they can make even MORE money off of the interest!
The redemption of lawful money short-circuits this unlawful error by indorsing a private debt-note into a lawful one. This actually offsets the National Debt that rises everyday with unholy speed. Below is a longer explanation that is worth the read, should one have the will to learn the truth. This money system is based upon interest bearing hypothecated debt where the seigniorage is presumed to be the property of either the government or of the banks. It is a non-sustainable system with failure engineered from the start-up.
----------
The Informer and James Montgomery did original research in the Library of Congress in an ongoing effort to discover the truth over a period of more than a decade. It will behoove the interested investigator to study their conclusions by listening to these audio files and acquiring the books they published about their discoveries.
The US Congress chose to borrow credit from a private bank of its own creation (Federal Reserve Bank) for the loan of credit to the United States which would be backed by the full faith and credit of the United States (the property within the jurisdiction of the United States and future uncollected taxes generated within the jurisdiction in the US). The jurisdiction of the United States was limited to the District of Columbia and the territories [federal states like Alaska] and the property in this limited jurisdiction.
President Roosevelt called the governors of the states to Washington and invited them to participate in this scheme and the governors agreed by pledging the faith and credit of the states for the debts of the United States. The Federal Reserve wanted every property, person, place and thing in the entire country collateralized or hypothecated in its favor and so the federal jurisdiction, or jurisdiction of the United State was extended to include the several states.
To get around the Constitutional impediment of the gold clause, New Federal States (referred to in the statutes as "this State") were created by operation of law to displace the de jure states. [those opposed were killed or sent to prison]. These de facto New Federal States arose by operation of law as resulting trusts to fill the void. There were no Constitutional restrictions on the New States. These New States and the United States doing business as a federal corporation, do business entirely in the equity of commerce and exclusively with commercial paper. They never pay for anything, they just promise to pay with someone else's collateral. [everyone with a birth certificate, a government commercial document.] The New Federal States are also designated as "THE STATE OF ALASKA., as opposed to the de jure "Alaska state." The de jure republic states still exist, they are just dormant and cannot act or do business in commerce because, having no gold or silver coinage and no apparent prospect of getting any, they are insolvent.
But now since the New States and the United States Inc. do business exclusively with "bills of credit" and other forms of commercial paper, they have put themselves under the Clearfield Doctrine and forfeited their sovereignty when conducting business in commerce with commercial paper, which is probably about 95% of their acts. These New States and the United States Inc., needing ever more collateral to finance the debt obligations of the United States, began to resort more and more to various schemes and artifices to induce the people into accepting "trust benefits" offered by the New States and further extend the jurisdiction of the United States, Inc.
Like any other corporation, the Fed has but one purpose, and that purpose is to generate a profit for the stockholders. And the board of directors of the Fed, like any other bank, is not going to make a loan to the United States unless the United States puts up a sufficient amount of collateral to cover the loan. Over time, the United States, acting in concert with the NEW STATES offered more and more inducements to the people to get them to waive their property rights and liberty and enter into the trust. Once a man was induced to accept a trust benefit, the legislature had him hooked into the jurisdiction of the resulting trust which equates with "within the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.
The benefits offered range from social security benefits, student loans, subsidized or federally insured house loans, farm programs, bank loans, ad infinitum, to the benefit of discharging one's debts with trust money of account, a.k.a., Federal Reserve Notes, instead of extinguishing debt with lawful coinage of the Republic. Once the real flesh and blood man actually accepted trust benefits, the law requires that the trustee of the resulting trust hold the legal title of the man's property in common with everyone else's property "in trust" for the benefit of all the beneficiaries to prevent one man from unjustly enriching himself in relation to the other beneficiaries.
So, since there is no money of the Republic circulating, the presumption must arise as a matter of law that everyone has donated their property to the trust STATE to be held for their own benefit and the benefit of all the other beneficiaries or the trust STATE OF ALASKA (and all others), NEW FEDERAL STATE, or this State. Thus, the beneficiaries can enjoy the use of the trust money of account and re-insure everyone else's debt in a scheme of maritime limited liability.
The Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) are money of the trust account and the PERSONS or beneficiaries do not and can never possess legal title to the FRNs; they can only acquire an equitable title to the trust funds or money of the trust account. In other words, the commercial PERSONS who are beneficiaries of the resulting trust don't own their own money. They only have the use of it. When FRNs or trust money of account is used by the commercial PERSON or beneficiary to purchase goods and services, the PERSON can only acquire an equitable title because the trust is already holding the legal title.
The trustee is the legislature of the STATE and the legislature is continually modifying the trust instrument, the color of law statutes, that controls the benefits paid out and attempts to control the conduct of the beneficiaries through the imposition of "penal" provisions written into the trust instrument, for instance the STATE penal code, which holds the real man liable for the conduct of his commercial PERSON in the ALL CAPITAL LETTER NAME, hence all crimes are commercial crimes, see: 27 CFR Part 72.11.
And, to make bad matters worse, the real man, does not even control his labor, because, if his commercial PERSON, is accepting benefits, everything produced by the labors of the real man automatically becomes trust property by operation of law, otherwise he is unjustly enriching himself. So, when the real man sends his commercial PERSON into commerce by the use of FRNs he enters into the trust by his PERSON's acceptance of benefits, or even by the presumed acceptance of benefits, real liabilities are incurred on the real man because the real man is presumed to have intended to have conveyed his legal title to his property and labor to the trust to be held in common for the benefit of all and by the new resulting relationship with his PERSON.
What does one call that theory of government where the government holds all the property in common for the common good and use of all? It's called communism! To state this another way, John Doe, the real living man was separated from his commercial person JOHN DOE at the time he was presumed to have granted his property to the res of the resulting trust, or this New Federal STATE OF ALASKA (and all others).
Thus, John Doe, the living man, is the presumed settlor of the trust res, JOHN DOE, the commercial person, is the presumed beneficiary and THE STATE OF ALASKA is the presumed name of the trust, with the legislature of this State being the trustee, all of this arising by operation of law and based on the presumed intent and actual conduct of John Doe, the real man, to create a cestui que trust and appoint this State or the STATE OF ALASKA as trustee.
Since John Doe is presumed to have had the intent to donate or grant all his property to the res of the resulting trust, this presumption arising from his use of FRNs and other conduct, he has not only separated his self from his commercial PERSON, he has also separated the legal title of the property that he thinks that he owns lock, stock and barrel from the equitable title of his property. John Doe is presumed to have donated the legal title, and in some cases, as in the matter of his "motor vehicle," or anything that has been issued a certificate of title, has in fact donated the legal title of his property to the resulting trust and is left with only the equitable title, the intent of the transfer is prima facie evident on the face of his certificate of title, and he is left with only ownership, or right of possession and use of the motor vehicle.
Since this State now holds the legal title to John's motor vehicle, this State can dictate when, where, and how fast John can operate the motor vehicle and compel John to indemnify this State from liability in case John does something stupid with this State's motor vehicle, in other words, John can be compelled to insure the car. John can be compelled to wear his seat belt. The trust instrument – the color of law traffic code demands it because if John is driving this State's car without insurance, is not wearing his seat belt and is at fault in a wreck, and for some reason cannot or will not "personally" pay for the damages, he would be shifting his liability of the damage caused by the wreck onto the other beneficiaries of the trust because "this State" is the legal owner and ultimately liable for any damages caused; in other words, this State is going to have to pick up the tab for the damages, which will in turn be passed on to the other beneficiaries through higher taxes.
John Doe the man, is presumed to have had the intent to create a cestui que trust having himself as the settlor, or donor for the benefit of the commercial person, JOHN DOE with the legislature of this State the trustee appointed by operation of law. The state congressmen and senators that are the true trustees and they are continually running for office, begging for contributions and passing favors for their campaigns. They are busy people and don't have time to ADMINISTER the trust. So being trustees, they have the power to appoint trust agents to act on their behalf. This is why all the states enacted State Bar Acts in the `30's.
Isn't it amazing that the country muddled along without having state bar associations until the 1930's! When the BAR's were created and organized, the legislators then had an immense pool of prospective trust agents which could make claims for enforcement of the trust and collect for injuries and damages caused to the trust or res of the trust.
This does not necessarily mean that every attorney is a trust agent, but every attorney, upon admission to the bar is put in the position that he is able to accept the benefit of being a trust agent. The attorney's general of the US and the "this States" are the "boss" trust agents and make policy for the control all the lesser trust agents, like the local county attorney and district attorney, the bankruptcy trustees, court appointed guardian ad litems, public defenders, etc., but they are all under the control and direction of "this State's" supreme court.
Since administrating and enforcing the trust could be a nasty business on occasion, the Bar appointed trust agents need some muscle. So, again, beginning in the mid to late `30's we had the sudden appearance of the ominous STATE POLICE who were commissioned by acts of the legislature of "this State" much like U.S. Military officers are commissioned by act of the US Congress. The STATE POLICE were "law enforcement agents." By law enforcement agents, what the legislature really means is "TRUST ENFORCEMENT AGENTS." It makes one wonder how did the country get along without the STATE POLICE from the time the first English settlers arrived in the early 17th century until the 1930's without suffering total anarchy! And over time, the constitutional "peace officer" like the local sheriffs and constables became "TRUST ENFORCEMENT AGENTS" and, by statute, were put under the authority of the "STATE POLICE."
The jurisdiction of the local sheriff, STATE POLICE or TRUST ENFORCEMENT AGENTS extends only to the beneficiaries of the trust. If one's `person' is not a beneficiary they can't legally touch that entity. In fact, if one's PERSON is not a beneficiary, one is as foreign to the TRUST ENFORCEMENT AGENTS and "this State" is foreign as the Klingon Empire is to Capt. James T. Kirk. If one is not a beneficiary of the trust and they cause injury, or even use the person's NAME, they will be liable under the law for a common law trespass, libel, or both. But beware, the presumption is that everyone is a beneficiary.
When a resulting trust is presumed to have been created, the trustee of the trust has no duties or obligations, excepting that he must return the legal title to the cestui que trust when it is demanded by the cestui que trust. And interestingly enough, it takes extraordinary evidence to prove the existence of a resulting trust. Extraordinary evidence evidently means evidence sufficient to convict in a criminal case, i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt. On the other hand, it takes very minimal evidence to put the existence of a resulting trust into question. A denial of intent to create the cestui que trust by the presumed donor of the res under oath would probably be sufficient. Likewise, a denial under oath by the beneficial PERSON of his intent to accept the benefit or of his intent to reject and waive the benefit would probably be sufficient. Now, the question is, `how does a flesh and blood man going to regain control of his commercial PERSON and reunite equitable title with the legal title?
How does one deny that the use of Federal Reserve Notes? Well, probably can't. But, the use of FRNs is a compelled benefit because there is no other money to be had. As a matter of law under the Compelled Benefits Doctrine, a man cannot be held liable for benefits that he is compelled to accept, especially if it is a compelled economic benefit. See: MAYNARD MEHL v. JOHN H. NORTON, No. 31,338, Supreme Court of Minnesota, 201 Minn. 203; 275 N.W. 843; 1937 Minn. LEXIS 851; 113A.L.R. 1055, November 5, 1937; W. H. Shearon v. Travis Henderson, Guardian, etc., SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS, 38 Tex. 245; 1873 Tex. LEXIS 241, 1873; JO ELAINE BAILEY WOODLAND, Appellant v. SHIRLEY WISDOM,Appellee, No. 06-97-00083-CV, COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, SIXTH DISTRICT, TEXARKANA, 975 S.W.2d 712; 1998 Tex. App. LEXIS 5038, Charles L. Black Aycock et al, Appellants v. F. H. Pannill,Sr., et al, Appellees COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, ELEVENTH DISTRICT, EASTLAND, 853 S.W.2d 161; 1993 Tex. App. LEXIS 989; F. M. SMITH, Appellant, v. TEXAS COMMERCE BANK - CORPUS CHRISTI, N.A., ET AL., Appellees., COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, THIRTEENTH DISTRICT, CORPUS CHRISTI, 822 S.W.2d 812; 1992 Tex. App. LEXIS 209; FRANCES JACKSON ROGERS, Appellant, v. DAVID ORMAN ROGERS,JR., Appellee, COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi, 806 S.W.2d 886; 1991 Tex. App. LEXIS 646.
The legislature can destroy the Constitution by their own acts and omissions, as well as the President can destroy it by Executive Order (and has), as well as the judiciary by [mis]interpretation of law. The people can change or abolish any form of government if it becomes destructive to these ends… and/or elect to make a political decision to not to `consent' to be `raped, pillaged, or plundered by said bankrupt de-facto quasi-governments and/or by free-will, consent by agreement to associate to create or join any other `entity' for their benefit, remedy and safety.