Irene Gravenhorst interview

[targa2]

I admire Irenes tenacity but lets clear a few things up here. First of all, her concepts of law are absurd and have no foundation whatsoever.  I could go on for 50 pages refuting everything she said from the opening of the show to the end but I will start from the simplest precepts first and address them one at a time in concsecutive posts.  I want to say that I admire everyone in this aspect of the battle so I am not trying to be an infiltrator or one to divide the movement.....it's already divided enough.

Let's start with one idea that Irene proposed in this file Daryl should be able to recognise as being total nonsense.  That is the idea ( which comes from the Commercial Redemption movement ) that we can create our own bills of exchange and start issuing our own commercial paper. Irene said that she woulkd issue some of this paper ( money, or whatever ) to help Daryl in his cause. She also eluded to the idea that the various debt obligations floating around in commercial La La land would equal $3,000,000 each and proposed, or at least suggested something to the effect , that we could all have $3,000,000 each, and that this would somehow be a solution to the current financial problems that the great Rothschild Octopus has created. ..........................................................?
                                                                         HEY DARYL....I LOVE YA MAN BUT WAKE UP AND SMELL THE BULLS--- !!!!

 You of all people Daryll should be able to recognise the absurdity of such a proposition.  This is tantamount to a "personal BAILOUT " of the entire population.  Lets see now......... in terms of the inflationary response to the worlds financial system, how would this $3,000,000 bailout to every Tom, Dick and Harry play itself out    This is hyperinflation extrordinaire folks and Daryl Smith of all people should be able to see this clearer than anyone.

This is the kind of nonsense I have been listening to from the Commercial Redemption movement since the Montana Freemen tried this 20 years ago. It's nonsense and all the public tantrums in front of Tax Court judges will never change that reality. The judge was right to say that her legal position has no merit because it doesn't !!!!  And I can prove it doesn't.

My goal here is to help people avoid the same mess I got into 12 years ago that I still can't climb out of and may never climb out of......and that is to avoid taking the advice of the ill- informed like Irene.  Again I want to reiterate, I admire Irene but she is dead wrong in her legal CONCLUSIONS!!!

[§N9sh2bj]

I also posted about it previously, to be careful who you spend your time with on law/legal remedies.

'Bad guests.'

Not evil people per se, or people-under-the-influence in a kind of red-devilish way; wayward, under some influence to say things which are not helpful.

Glad daryl is studying something...

Yes, people can issue commercial paper and that's basically how the rothschild system of fiat works, people shoulder the debt, however, on principal it's wrong, as issuing notes creates more debt. Unless one has the deep and well-studied financial connections and unprincipled reasoning to do so, it ain't goina happen IMHO. Very few people have done this and those people have been extremely quiet as it's on the private-side of finance.

One can construct ways to discharge debt (and I'm not on about 'the classic' A4V, either to the CEO (very old and requires enforcement) or the somewhat effective one to the IRS); the latest is something about usufruct, which I've no time to look into as I'm studying something else which it may be related to. Look it up. I think vic beck and some others are on about it. http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-44889/TS-371496.mp3 People have recommended that audio and batman's reasoning seems to make sense.


One process looks a little like older A4V or OID processes. With 'classic' OID, the reason it seems funds were snatched from the people's accounts after refund, is one cannot have the grantor in the private, receive the asset-side funds in a bankruptcy, they have to go into another non-revocable trust, to a trustee.

Eliminate debt. Do not create more of it, or try to pay debt with debt.
So there are some things to look at. I wish you success and wisdom.

[targa2]

Go to page 13 of this link and listen to " Redemption and the Straw Man " series.

http://library.georgegordon.com/audio

Even Jack Kennedy, who is a major proponent of the Redemption ideology says that it is theoretical.

I studied all of this stuff for years.Roger Elvick, Victoria Joy, Winston Shrout, Jack Kennedy, Pat Holly, Mary Croft, Russ Porisky, Vic Beck, Alex Maxwell and many more I cannot remember.  I see some minor wins but no major ones.  It's been ruled on over and over again but people keep clinging to it.  

You cannot tinker with and modify something that is flawed at its foundation and make it sound.......That's a legal Maxim by the way.

Commercial Redemption and all of it's derivations are a waste of time and could land you in prison as it has many others.

[§N9sh2bj]

I am basically supporting what you are writing above but I do not think you have figured it out.

CR, as it has historically existed in the wide-spread awareness of it, and as it has defined itself in the past, by the actions of those learning and teaching it then and some yet (you listed several, with the exception of whatever vic beck and shrout are reported to be teaching some of lately) is concerned with 'set-off' by creating more debt, which is basically unprincipled, because it never gets to extinguishing the debt - at best CR as described, deals with a public-private side within the public but not the truly private equitable substantial rights in trust -side.

Non-statutory (non-UCC, non-Law Merchant, et al) equitable trust is completely different.

I offered to send you what I have if you send your Skype info but I haven't heard anything. I can't help if you don't want to learn about it. Just don't knock it if you don't know about it.