My Anti-Federalist (Anti-Federal Reserve) Credo


Every complaint regarding any credit-based financing or any other Federal Reserve Issue needs to address these points:

(1) 12 USC Section 1813l(1)-(5) requires monetization of promissory notes…. and defines deposit as receipt of money for CREDIT.

(2) Does this (monetization of promissory notes as credit, definition of “credit” as adequate consideration) constitute a government mandated taking of property without due process of law?

(3) Does this (monetization of promissory notes as credit, definition of “credit” as adequate consideration) constitute a government-manated interference with obligations of contract?

(4) Does this (monetization of promissory notes as credit, definition of “credit” as adequate consideration) infringe upon the reserved rights of the people to the use and protection of the common law?

(5) What I learned fighting Obama was that the positive requirements of the Constitution regarding the Federal Government are generally NOT politically enforceable.  It is for that reason that the constitutional eligibility lawsuits against Obama all failed: we citizens cannot require the enforcement of the “natural born citizen” requirement of Article II.  Likewise, the mandate that the States shall not authorize anything but gold and silver as payment of debt has not been and cannot be enforced.

(6) But the violation or infringement of any and all rights expressly enumerated FOR THE PEOPLE in the Constitution does give rise to Article III standing, and that is why we must always frame our complaints in terms of specific “Expressly Enumerated Rights” and demand “strict scrutiny” review of the same under Footnote 4 of USA v. Carolene Products, Inc.

(7) It is incumbent on each Plaintiff to allege with the greatest specificity possible the actual injuries suffered, but we must also, I think focus on the following general questions:

(8) Is the existence of a generalized right to private property under the common law guaranteed by the Constitution?

(9) Can private property exist if contractual obligations are shared and “socialized” by assignment and pooling or securitization, or do laws which permit the socialization of obligations (which was absolutely prohibited by the Common Law) not simply obliterate the essential personal obligations of contract which constitute the proprietary elements of contract under both common law and the UCC?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s