Going off the (Federal) Reservation

Do We Have Other Options?

Mar 28, 2023

Badlands Media will always put out our content for free, but you can support us by becoming a paid subscriber to this newsletter. Help our collective of citizen journalists take back the narrative from the MSM. We are the news now.

DISCLAIMER: nothing herein shall be construed as legal advice in any way.

This article loosely follows from two previous articles on the Federal Reserve, Is the Federal Reserve a British Institution? and Do We Have a Contract With the Federal Reserve?. It is recommended to read those two articles first, however the following can stand on its own.

5G Warfare, and You

We are currently enmeshed in a 5G War, which is deeper than merely an information war—it is a war fought over the proper interpretation of information, not just the information itself.

There are differing opinions on the proper way to categorize the various generations of war, but generally speaking, most agree that 5G war is subliminal in nature—to the point where many of the “combatants” in a 5G war don’t even realize that a war is going on. The purpose of learning about the law is to gain critical situational awareness that may prove lifesaving. What can we realistically accomplish unless we possess accurate information and context for the events that surround us?

Situational awareness means that we can answer basic questions about our environment with reasonable assuredness that our answers are correct—or, at least, logically defensible. We need to be able to answer basic questions such as: how does a Federal Reserve Note come into existence? What are the obligations and rules regarding the use of said notes? And what does “jurisdiction” ultimately mean? Put in more “street” terms: how do you know where you stand?

There are many groups of Patriots who are studying the truth about American history and America law—none of us have the time or resources to figure out the entire legal system on our own. We can only win this battle by putting our heads together. The winning strategy in a 5G war comes from individuals taking it upon themselves to distribute truthful information—which involves not only researching the truth but also figuring out a way to communicate it effectively.

Think of the truth as being an enormous jigsaw puzzle with its various pieces scattered across the horizon, and our job is to dig up and find the pieces—and fit them together. By writing these articles, it is my goal to save readers potentially hundreds of hours of research time; whether I succeed in this goal may be up to debate, but that’s the goal nonetheless. In return, many astute researchers and writers—and commenters—have saved me potentially hundreds of hours’ worth of work through their contributions. This is the way it must be.

After publishing the first few articles on the Federal Reserve (and related topics), I’ve been approached by other researchers who are much further along the path than I am—consequently, I’m working on updating some of the earlier content and creating an improved outline for these articles. There’s a light at the end of the tunnel with these articles—we’re trying to get as many people as we possibly can to become conversant in matters of law, because this will give us a fighting chance at establishing a truly effective “parallel” society of free men and women.

Is that too bold of a goal? Perhaps. But what other options do we have?

With that having been said, let’s dig into some more congressional records and other pertinent sources on law, so that we can continue to make certain fundamental determinations regarding the topic of the Federal Reserve. Going right back to the beginning, we want to ask ourselves, how did a private corporation become the issuer of our nation’s “money”? And what does this mean for you and me?

Trust Law and the Federal Reserve

Charles Lindbergh (Minnesotan Senator and father of the famous aviator Charles Lindbergh) opposed the creation of the Federal Reserve when it was passed in 1913. He claimed that the creation of the Federal Reserve created “the most gigantic trust on Earth”—what did he mean by this?

Before we can answer that question, we first need to comprehend a few basics regarding trusts and trust law.

A trust is an arrangement wherein one person (trustee) takes legal ownership of the property of another (a trustor) for another person’s benefit (the beneficiary). Since we’re talking about legal arrangements, a “person” in this case could be a corporation or some other kind of entity—not necessarily a flesh and blood human being. After all, the Federal Reserve itself is not a flesh and blood human being, but a corporation.

There are four basic elements required to create a trust:

A trustor—sometimes known as a “grantor” or a “donor”, a trustor is a type of person who has the right to dispose of or distribute certain property.
A trustee—the trustee is the person who receives ownership over the property, so that he may manage it pursuant to the objects of the trust arrangement. A trust must have a beneficial purpose (“beneficial” to whom, we might ask?); the trustee is not permitted to do anything with the property not agreed upon in the arrangement.
A beneficiary—the beneficiary is the person (or people) for whom the trust is created. Though he does not receive ownership over the trust property, the beneficiary is permitted to exercise beneficial use of the property.
Property—this is self-explanatory. You can’t have a trust without some kind of property.

Recall from the article, Do We Have a Contract With the Federal Reserve?, that a “person”, in the legal sense, is roughly akin to a role that one plays from time to time. Though you are but one human being, you can play a theoretically infinite number of roles throughout the course of your life. Depending on where you are and what you’re doing, you can be a student, an employee, a husband, a pastor, a criminal, a taxpayer, and so on. Though three persons are needed to create a trust, you can play multiple roles within a trust.

For example, if you won a million dollars in the lottery, you might decide that it’s best for someone with solid financial know-how to “manage” your money on your behalf, instead of trying to manage it yourself (assuming that’s not your area of expertise). In this arrangement, you are the trustor AND the beneficiary, but NOT the trustee; whoever you appointed to manage your money is the trustee in this case. The arrangement may not itself be called a “trust”, but all the essential features of a trust are present.

“Trusts” Are Very Common

Most people create “unofficial trusts” just about every day without realizing it. Let’s say you wanted to borrow your roommate’s car to buy some groceries—in this example, your roommate is the trustor (because he, theoretically, owns the car), and you are the trustee and the beneficiary. If your roommate says, “sure, you can borrow the car, but I need it back by 8, and I’d like you to pick up some apples for me while you’re there” then this is the trust arrangement—if you came home later than 8 or didn’t buy any apples, then you’d be in violation of the agreement.

The concept of trusts is very simple and intuitive at its most fundamental level. In many ways, the litmus test of civilization itself is if one can share one’s resources with others in a way that leads to an intended benefit—if you can’t do that where you live, then you don’t have the rudiments of a civilized society. If people cannot entrust their property to be managed properly by third parties, then the economy cannot function, nor can any services function no matter how simple or basic.

In any event, we might say that the Federal Reserve is the trustee who manages our country’s credit in its entirety. We are the trustor, because it’s our credit; and we are the beneficiary because Federal Reserve Notes are ostensibly intended to service our economy. When Charles Lindbergh told us that the Federal Reserve Act created the biggest trust on Earth, he was referring to the fact that the full faith and credit of the American people was entrusted to it. Indeed, this was the biggest trust ever proposed in history at that time—only to be outdone in later years by the IMF, which will play an important role in our story later.

How to Develop Rapid Comprehension of Legal Matters

Trust law, in many ways, is the Rosetta stone of all other “types” of law. We aren’t generally used to seeing legal (or even basic social) relationships in terms of trustor, trustee, and beneficiary; nonetheless, when we adopt the habit of seeing things this way, we develop an instinct for comprehending legal matters that is powerful enough to cut through the many layers of jargon, and oftentimes outright obfuscation. Trustors, trustees, and beneficiaries have different rights, and these rights are inherent to each role—when you comprehend how roles, rights, property, and beneficial purposes are conceptually related to each other by trust structures, then you comprehend the fundamental building blocks of almost all law.

Thinking in these terms will train you to rapidly compute the balance of rights in any given situation, which is the beginning of learning how to see the fundamentals of law as they play out in real life. Trust law is so fundamental to society that even if the present system collapses completely, trust law would still become the foundation of whatever succeeds it. The ability to entrust one’s property with another for an agreed upon purpose is the very social innovation from which all legal and economic systems arise.

You Don’t Need to Call it a Trust for it Be a Trust

Always ask yourself who is involved? What are the rights or property being used? And what is the “beneficial” purpose being sought? From these data points alone, a trust can be proven to exist, even if the arrangement is called by another name.

Verl K. Speer, an obscure but brilliant scholar of law gave us the most succinct explanation for how this works that I’ve yet found. The following comes from his book The Pied Pipers of Babylon, which is the book that inspired the present series on the Federal Reserve:

“To create a trust, it is not necessary the word “trust” be used, but if the language [of an arrangement] fairly interpreted means that the one to whom the property is transferred or who is alleged to have made a declaration of trust is to be legally bound to use it for the benefit of others, a trust arises.

Trusts implied in fact are sometimes called “resulting trusts’, which are based upon an intention of the parties. This intention, however, is not expressed in words, at least not directly so, but is implied from the acts of the parties and the surrounding circumstances. In such cases, the trust arises because of an intention that it shall arise, expressed however, not in words but in acts. Indeed, in this situation “actions speak louder than words”. (Pg 168)

To put it more simply: if you behave as though you have a trust arrangement with another person or entity, then it can be presumed that you do, and therefore you can be required by “law” to fulfill your role within said trust.

Are you currently receiving any benefits to an arrangement? Now you’re a beneficiary. Are you managing something you received from someone else? Now you’re a trustee. Did you give your property to another person or entity to manage it? Now you’re a trustor. Despite the bewildering complexity of law, underneath most of it lies these relatively simple basics. (Keep in mind, these heuristics don’t necessarily translate to all legal questions and situations at a literal level—they are only meant to be conceptual aids to help you penetrate the otherwise daunting complexity of legal matters and legal systems.)

Everything is about determining the proper *balance* of rights…

Who is the True Beneficiary of the Federal Reserve?

In theory, the people of the United States are beneficiaries of the Federal Reserve (and other entities) because they use Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) to conduct transactions. Alas, what is written down on paper and what happens in real life are often two different things. How many citizens, do you wager, would agree that the Federal Reserve is providing them any benefit whatsoever if they had been properly appraised of the true facts about it?

In any event, when the Federal Reserve Act was proposed, it faced substantial and well-informed opposition. It was well known that such legislation intended to benefit the international bankers at the expense of the people. Therefore, to secure the passage of the Act, the bankers assigned a “handler” to Woodrow Wilson in the guise of an advisor, named Colonel Mandel House, who then proceeded to exert a hypnotic influence over President Woodrow Wilson in order to secure the passage of the Federal Reserve Act—something which Wilson later bitterly regretted. Evidence for this can be found in the Congressional records, where we read:

“On December 23, 1913, the Federal Reserve bill became law, and that night Colonel House wrote to his hidden master in Wall Street as follows:
‘I want to say a word of appreciation to you for the silent but no doubt effective work you have done in the interest of currency legislation and to congratulate you that the measure has finally been enacted into law. We all know that an entirely perfect bill, satisfactory to everybody, would have been an impossibility, and I feel quite certain fair men will admit that unless the President had stood as firm as he did we should likely have had no legislation at all. The bill is a good one in many respects; anyhow good enough to start with and to let experience teach us in what direction it needs perfection, which in due time we shall then get…
The foregoing letter affords striking evidence of the manner in which the predatory interests then sought to control the government of the United States by surrounding the Executive with the personality and the influence of a financial Judas. Left to itself and to the conduct of its own legislative functions without pressure from the Executive, the Congress would not have passed the Federal Reserve Act.
According to Colonel House, and since this was his report to his master, we may believe it to be true, the Federal Reserve Act was passed because Wilson stood firm. In other words because Wilson was under the guidance and control of the most ferocious usurers in New York through their hireling, House. The Federal Reserve Act became law the day before Christmas Eve in the year 1913, and shortly afterwards the German international bankers, Kuhn, Loeb & Co., sent one of their partners here to run it.” — Congressman McFadden, Congressional Record, pages 12596-12693, June 10, 1932

Conclusions For Now

We know that the Federal Reserve is a “trustee” over America’s credit. We know that the true beneficiaries of this arrangement are NOT the people, but private, international interests; however, the concept that the people are the beneficiary is vital to the “legitimacy” of this arrangement.

But what if we can make NEW arrangements? Do we have the right to do that?

It turns out that we most certainly have alternative options. The arrangement that the Federal Reserve has with the people is not absolute, and evidence for this lies in the fact that there is no law that binds any of us to pay income tax to the IRS. Yes, you read that correctly. I’ll leave it to the gentlemen in the video below to explain the details.

It appears we aren’t as “bound” to the “private credit trust” of the Federal Reserve system as we might have once thought …

Badlands Media articles and features represent the opinions of the contributing authors and do not necessarily represent the views of Badlands Media itself.

If you enjoyed this contribution to Badlands Media, please consider checking out more of my work for free at American Hypnotist.

Badlands Media