PDA

View Full Version : ATM card DEBIT vs CREDIT option



Robert Henry
01-04-14, 11:51 PM
Hello all,

While filling up at the gas station today I realized my habitual use of the CREDIT option, as opposed to the DEBIT option, when using my ATM card.

I primarily started doing this way-back-when due to the higher limit allowed on withdrawal transactions using the CREDIT option, in my case 5000 vs 500, and it just became habit.

I'd like to ask the greater minds here to offer their thoughts on the possible ramifications of this vis-a-vis claiming redemption through lawful money.

My personal take on this is that my demand on the signature card attached to this account, in addition to my NaD served on the FED, should render any assumption of private credit usage moot but as I am yet a novice with this process, and with the recent discussions of making demand on a PER TRANSACTION basis (something I see no way to do with ATM card transactions where no paper signature is required), I'd like this thread to serve as consensus on this issue.

With gratitude,

Robert Henry

David Merrill
01-05-14, 12:21 AM
Thank you Robert Henry;


It is your mind that is great!

If you think about that you might gather that making a demand for lawful money does not actually result in the tender of lawful money. The US note is not a reserve currency yet Congress has finagled things so that the value of the US note is pegged to the diminishing value of the Federal Reserve note, which is not lawful money.

From there it may seem even more incredible.

Use the debit option and you will no longer be utilizing Credit from the Fed.

These habits, I call conditioning. Most times the belief sets we hold are precious and to be defended.

Your Credit Card as a Debit Card still holds your Credit Information. That should be no problem now that you are no longer using it as a Credit Card but you might let me know about any intrusion by the Federal Reserve System presuming you are still in contract.

Today's lesson in ACIM (A Course in Miracles) included:


For to recognize fear is not enough to escape from it, although the recognition is necessary to demonstrate the need for escape. The Holy Spirit must still translate the fear into truth. If you were left with the fear, once you had recognized it, you would have taken a step away from reality, not towards it. Yet we have repeatedly emphasized the need to recognize fear and face it without disguise as a crucial step in the undoing of the ego.


And from earlier:


Do not fear the Last Judgment, but welcome it and do not wait, for the ego's time is "borrowed" from your eternity.


It is your comprehension of truth and your pure trust that will establish the remedy. When it strikes you that you have been making a mistake, like today with the Credit Option simply seek to understand better.

doug555
01-05-14, 12:33 AM
See post http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?795-Resistance-and-Refusal-by-Banks&p=12168&viewfull=1#post12168 (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?795-Resistance-and-Refusal-by-Banks&p=12168&viewfull=1#post12168)

In particular, the blue wording highlghted and underlined below:

"... I have handwritten my exact specific declaration on the FACE of every check and deposit slip I issue.... just to make it CLEAR by a PREPONDERANCE of substantive evidence under their FRE Exception to Hearsay Rule 803(6)(B) that from that date onward "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2)" applies to ALL transactions even if it is missing thereafter on transactions like direct deposits, debit/credit cards, EFTs, etc, where it is hard to make a record of one's demand. Remember, by making one's demand TRANSACTION-BASED, it does not matter what the signature card has on it or not. The account does not matter - BECAUSE YOU MADE YOUR DEMAND TRANSACTION-BASED - Please get this point! It is CRITICAL! One does NOT have to send letters to the bank, IRS, FRS, IMF, Treasury or Employer and thereby stir up needless trouble! Okay? IMHO - K.I.S.S."

David Merrill
01-05-14, 02:00 AM
Please also try to get my point.

For example, did you make Notice and Demand before you understood your point above?

The remedy is between your ears. Making the demand is meaningless to many bankers. One bank made the point (http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/808/noticeanddemandboacorre.pdf)of saying "no legal effect" several times. So I get your point.

The Lesson Plan guides people through a journey to get where you are now. Even so, the Notice and Demand in some form or another has been proven effective to stave off assumptions of endorsement. And another point is that if you make your notice and demand to the Fed Bank, through the federal court, even publish it at the county recorder and serve it on your bank it is not very likely to get to your boss or cause any grief whatsoever.

In the exploration of grand jury formation for example, we need to raise the consciousness of people in general. The Notice and Demand and Libel of Review processes are great for doing that.


Regards,

David Merrill.

doug555
01-05-14, 03:00 AM
Please also try to get my point.

For example, did you make Notice and Demand before you understood your point above?

The remedy is between your ears. Making the demand is meaningless to many bankers. One bank made the point (http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/808/noticeanddemandboacorre.pdf)of saying "no legal effect" several times. So I get your point.

The Lesson Plan guides people through a journey to get where you are now. Even so, the Notice and Demand in some form or another has been proven effective to stave off assumptions of endorsement. And another point is that if you make your notice and demand to the Fed Bank, through the federal court, even publish it at the county recorder and serve it on your bank it is not very likely to get to your boss or cause any grief whatsoever.

In the exploration of grand jury formation for example, we need to raise the consciousness of people in general. The Notice and Demand and Libel of Review processes are great for doing that.


Regards,

David Merrill.

No, I did not make a Notice and Demand before I understood the TRANSACTION-BASED REDEMPTION point above. In fact, the above point did not "congeal" in my mind until AFTER I did my 1040 the way I did it, and when it was honored, it came by way of reverse-engineering to realize that point.

But you are right, we should know WHY it works BEFORE doing it. And give NOTICE to others "to raise the consciousness of people in general", but not as a requirement because 12 USC 411 has no CFR regulation requiring that.

And despite claims that it has no legal effect, if the IRS and States honor it who cares what the bankers and their attorneys say?

Perhaps it only has LAWFUL effect... which only a Common Law Grand Jury can decide as judges of the both the law and facts.

But the record-forming that I have in this folder (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B8BdR0w2oZY_RUh4T214dEFuY28&usp=sharing) may be sufficient for a Common Law Grand Jury "court of record" to establish the date on which I truly began my lawful money demands for all transactions, as Blackstone's Commentaries, Book 3, Chapter 22, pages 4-5, refers to a record, in a "trial by record", as "a monument of so high a nature, and imports in itself such absolute verity, that if be pleaded that there is no such a record, it shall not receive any trial by witness, jury or otherwise, but only by itself".

If this position is not true today, in common law, then please correct me so I can revise my tactics and save up the money needed to pursue the LOR process.

ag maniac
01-05-14, 04:56 PM
....And despite claims that it has no legal effect, if the IRS and States honor it who cares what the bankers and their attorneys say?

Perhaps it only has LAWFUL effect... which only a Common Law Grand Jury can decide as judges of the both the law and facts.


Those two bolded above just threw some new light (to me) on the BoA response to the NaD....kinda got to read between the lines.

=======================

(Assumption --> BoA is in knee deep with the FED/gov-co)

BoA did the right thing in "agreeing with thy adversary quickly (http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=agree+with+thine+adversary&t=KJV#s=s_primary_0_1)". Both responses were within 10 business days of suitors notices -- acknowledging receipt of the NaD. They certainly didn't say it was refused.

Next, the statements "...no legal relevance, no bank action..." & "return documents" on its face may seem like a refusal....but suppose that it's a denial, typical of FED/gov-co....so as not to let the cat out of the bag.....re: David Merril's account about the IRS lady saying somebody in Colorado is doing it right & then clamming up.

They know they've got to adjust their accounting now.....they're just not going to admit it....especially on paper....to be spread far & wide by a printed sheet. That admission will never see the light of day.....they're not going to give you the ammunition that sinks their ship.

Without a doubt, that's a really big cat in that bag.

So in that instance, the suitor was good to go from June 15, the day the demand was executed & witnessed by the notary.

That's my take .....I could be wrong....

==================================

But doug555 is right here in that a NaD is not really necessary in "legalworld" (but good to go in lawfulworld) with the transaction based demands standing as the record....and as a "rock" it stands....straight & true.

David Merrill
01-05-14, 05:37 PM
Yes Ag;

Notice how the bank stressed how the demand had no legal effect? If that were true why bother writing a long letter?

Doug;

You have cleaned up process quite a bit. Thank you.

I believe that we are experiencing a dynamic and I try to be agile and flexible. There is a thread here - Exactly what does the IRS agent think? I have not been updating the Memos and Notices that the IRS agents receive. My point is that they change, like Ag pointed out - with the IRS attorney - interactions change them as well as process.

The law says we make our demand and maybe the LoR and NaD are becoming outdated? I always go for a more thorough Notice though. The NaD was developed by the LoR becoming so expensive to file. Now with this distinctive diversity of citizenship I am thinking to reevaluate the original Libel in Review (http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_AreYouLostAtSea.pdf). That remand to state court is the common law grand jury we are discussing.

Robert Henry
01-05-14, 06:55 PM
Thank you Robert Henry;

It is your mind that is great!

Thank you, you are too kind. I am merely here to "stand on the shoulders of giants", as Michael Joseph would say (MJ, oh MJ, wherefore art thou, oh MJ? And why hast thou deserted us? Your words and wisdom are sorely missed in this venue!), and learn as and what I can from those who have gone before and are willing to share their experiences.


If you think about that you might gather that making a demand for lawful money does not actually result in the tender of lawful money. The US note is not a reserve currency yet Congress has finagled things so that the value of the US note is pegged to the diminishing value of the Federal Reserve note, which is not lawful money.

From there it may seem even more incredible.

Even more incredible, indeed! What would happen were the $600 million lotto winner to redeem his/her winnings in lawful money? In fact, could not the suitors sum up our collective redemptions and permanently FORECLOSE on the entire FED SYSTEM, once the $300 million hard ceiling of US Notes is found to be breached?


...but you might let me know about any intrusion by the Federal Reserve System presuming you are still in contract.

You will be the second to know!


It is your comprehension of truth and your pure trust that will establish the remedy. When it strikes you that you have been making a mistake, like today with the Credit Option simply seek to understand better.

That is the very reason for this post!

Doug, thank you for your thoughts! Is not the appropriate non-endorsement on the back of ALL cashed or deposited checks in addition to NaD, and other formal notices, enough of a PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE to show intent of use of lawful money? Why would notice on the face, a space apparently for reserved for the use of the issuer of said instrument (and could that not, in fact, be seen as TAMPERING with said instrument?), be anything other than a redundancy?

AG, thank you for you thoughts! I whole-heartedly agree that the banks CAN NOT and WILL NOT, by tacit admission or acknowledgement, verify the veracity of redemption.

I very much look forward to hearing from others!

Thank you for your time and care,

Robert Henry

doug555
01-05-14, 07:16 PM
Yes Ag;

Notice how the bank stressed how the demand had no legal effect? If that were true why bother writing a long letter?

Doug;

You have cleaned up process quite a bit. Thank you.

I believe that we are experiencing a dynamic and I try to be agile and flexible. There is a thread here - Exactly what does the IRS agent think? I have not been updating the Memos and Notices that the IRS agents receive. My point is that they change, like Ag pointed out - with the IRS attorney - interactions change them as well as process.

The law says we make our demand and maybe the LoR and NaD are becoming outdated? I always go for a more thorough Notice though. The NaD was developed by the LoR becoming so expensive to file. Now with this distinctive diversity of citizenship I am thinking to reevaluate the original Libel in Review (http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_AreYouLostAtSea.pdf). That remand to state court is the common law grand jury we are discussing.

Great news! Thanks!!

After reading AGs and your comments again, perhaps the NaD had no legal effect because it was NOT acceptable per the Federal Rules of Evidence Exception to Hearsay Rule (FRE 803(6)(B) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803))since it was just a letter outside the normal course of business, or possibly the NaD was already trumped by some non-endorsements on instruments already on record that did fit the exception to hearsay rule... and so then truly it had no legal effect because the demand was already on record!

Hmmmm... these attorneys are so clever and yet technically truthful at times...

Anthony Joseph
01-05-14, 07:52 PM
The fourth branch of government, the grand jury, is in place for good reason; to check the actions of the other branches and determine whether or not claims brought against people have merit - at law. Legalese, of any kind, should be barred from a true grand jury hearing.

The "courts" gain jurisdiction over the "jurors" in the selection process who then become puppets for the status quo.

Everything you do, when you step out of your own domestic authority (the four walls you call home), is illegal. So, any notice stating that there is "no legal authority" or "legal basis" in response to your lawful notice or process is absolutely true. We do not seek "legal" basis or authority - we are concerned only with what is lawful.

There must be a wrong or harm committed, injury to one's property or a breach of a true contract for there to be an unlawful act. Everything else is "legalities" and those are too numerous to know and are ever changing; therefore, I do not understand and I am not a part of the legal society that claims "legalities".

Someone must come forward and verify the claim against i; a man, for there to be a case with merit. Make an immediate good faith effort to settle the matter with whoever is prosecuting the case and form the record around said efforts. Fair warning that you will require the accuser to appear, verify the claim/debt/etc. and to cross-examine the accuser must be given to show you are acting in honor.

Any venue, or "court" can become our realm of common law; we just need to learn how to flip it, move it, hold it and keep it there.

David Merrill
01-05-14, 11:30 PM
What would happen were the $600 million lotto winner to redeem his/her winnings in lawful money? In fact, could not the suitors sum up our collective redemptions and permanently FORECLOSE on the entire FED SYSTEM, once the $300 million hard ceiling of US Notes is found to be breached?

There is one suitor with a claim similar to this. I will have to look again. The judge ignored his claim that he had been injured by purchasing a $10 US note at a coin shop as its value is pegged to the diminishing value of his FRN's he used to pay for it. But that is a start. I can develop that with knowledge. That is what the brain trust is about.


Great news! Thanks!!

After reading AGs and your comments again, perhaps the NaD had no legal effect because it was NOT acceptable per the Federal Rules of Evidence Exception to Hearsay Rule (FRE 803(6)(B) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803))since it was just a letter outside the normal course of business, or possibly the NaD was already trumped by some non-endorsements on instruments already on record that did fit the exception to hearsay rule... and so then truly it had no legal effect because the demand was already on record!

Hmmmm... these attorneys are so clever and yet technically truthful at times...

Of course!! Since the bank was already on notice the subsequent NaD had no legal effect. That is very clever!

David Merrill
01-05-14, 11:34 PM
The fourth branch of government, the grand jury, is in place for good reason; to check the actions of the other branches and determine whether or not claims brought against people have merit - at law. Legalese, of any kind, should be barred from a true grand jury hearing.

The "courts" gain jurisdiction over the "jurors" in the selection process who then become puppets for the status quo.

Everything you do, when you step out of your own domestic authority (the four walls you call home), is illegal. So, any notice stating that there is "no legal authority" or "legal basis" in response to your lawful notice or process is absolutely true. We do not seek "legal" basis or authority - we are concerned only with what is lawful.

There must be a wrong or harm committed, injury to one's property or a breach of a true contract for there to be an unlawful act. Everything else is "legalities" and those are too numerous to know and are ever changing; therefore, I do not understand and I am not a part of the legal society that claims "legalities".

Someone must come forward and verify the claim against i; a man, for there to be a case with merit. Make an immediate good faith effort to settle the matter with whoever is prosecuting the case and form the record around said efforts. Fair warning that you will require the accuser to appear, verify the claim/debt/etc. and to cross-examine the accuser must be given to show you are acting in honor.

Any venue, or "court" can become our realm of common law; we just need to learn how to flip it, move it, hold it and keep it there.


Therefore Robert Henry's Demand was prophylactic? It prevented the traditional presumption that he was an endorser of private credit from the Fed. Making the demand for lawful clear stopped a crime before it happened.

froze25
01-07-14, 09:09 PM
Doug555, just to let you know your Private message capacity has been reached and No one can reply to your private messages. Basically your inbox is full.

doug555
01-07-14, 10:20 PM
Doug555, just to let you know your Private message capacity has been reached and No one can reply to your private messages. Basically your inbox is full.


Thanks, it is empty now...

Freed Gerdes
01-09-14, 02:56 AM
Doug, a check is a bill of exchange, and the demand for lawful money is not part of the bill. In fact, the bill will be purchased by the bank (second party), or executed by the bank (third party), in their preferred currency, FRN's, based on the legal tender laws (it is understood that FRN's are tendered as payment) unless you demand otherwise. Putting your demand on the front of the bill would not seem to damage it, so there appears to be nothing wrong with that approach. B or A for instance, states in their standard account agreement that they will ignore restrictive endorsements written on the back, so this may be a good approach. But for many of us, the problem is in wire and interbank transfers, for which we never see any paper to non-endorse. So the general solution is to publish your demand in an official venue (court record misc case file, County Clerk, Secretary of State?, newspaper, etc) and then serve that now in the public record notice on the bank. This covers the account, rebutting their presumption that you want to deal in FR debt securities, and thus it covers all transactions. It is a unilateral change demanded of the bank on your account agreement. If they do not deny it (and they can't actually deny it, as they are chartered under 12 USC), and do not cancel your account, then it supercedes your signature on their account card. One document one time covers all your financial transactions for all time. Keep it simple. This demand will also work for the bank account related to your stock trading account, for which you never see any paper. Served on the regional Federal Reserve Bank for your region, it also serves to take the liens off your property held in YOUR NAME at the Treasury Trust account, ie, it takes your property out of the federal bankruptcy usufructuary trust, returning legal title to YOUR NAME. In effect, this fires the Trustee and collapses the trust, thus ending your status as a 'federal employee.'

Freed

Chex
01-09-14, 02:45 PM
While filling up at the gas station today I realized my habitual use of the CREDIT option, as opposed to the DEBIT option, when using my ATM card. Robert Henry

I look at it this way, when my checks are stamped 12USC411 and deposited it doesn't matter whether if its debit or credit its all being used by the law the way I deposited it.

The only way I know how to get a refund is through the 1040 form because I don’t have yet an option to use a 1041 form (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1041.pdf).


This is a real eye-opener. When you go in to change your Signature Card specify that you want the Trust Department of your bank.

Set it up like any standard trust form.

Robert Henry
01-09-14, 07:08 PM
I look at it this way, when my checks are stamped 12USC411 and deposited it doesn't matter whether if its debit or credit its all being used by the law the way I deposited it.

The only way I know how to get a refund is through the 1040 form because I don’t have yet an option to use a 1041 form (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1041.pdf).

My thoughts exactly, Chex. My NaD, signature card demand and non-endorsement on all deposited instruments seem to make my demand clear enough for any presumptive refutation.

That 1041 form is interesting, I've not seen one before, thanks. The "Trust thing" is still well outside my understanding at this time. My current plan is to file for a return of my withholding from June of 2013, when I started redeeming, then continue to redeem all of this year's checks and then present my 2014 return to the payroll department, assuming all goes well with my returns, of course, and show that IRS agreed I have no tax liability, therefore I am now exempt from withholding.

Thanks for your thoughts.

ag maniac
01-09-14, 07:35 PM
My thoughts exactly, Chex. My NaD, signature card demand and non-endorsement on all deposited instruments seem to make my demand clear enough for any presumptive refutation.

That 1041 form is interesting, I've not seen one before, thanks. The "Trust thing" is still well outside my understanding at this time. My current plan is to file for a return of my withholding from June of 2013, when I started redeeming, then continue to redeem all of this year's checks and then present my 2014 return to the payroll department, assuming all goes well with my returns, of course, and show that IRS agreed I have no tax liability, therefore I am now exempt from withholding.

Thanks for your thoughts.


Why not just terminate witholding with a W-4T (http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Employers/w-4t.pdf)?

Chex
01-09-14, 08:03 PM
Why not just terminate witholding with a W-4T (http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Employers/w-4t.pdf)?

I think that is a famguardian.org form, would not hurt to place it or something similar like it into a NoD for the day court will come around.

In regards to the payroll department the w4 form was filled out exempt with the verbiage 12USC411on line 7 http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw4.pdf .

The payroll department accepted it but they did not want to get involved with the IRS. Someone at the IRS intercepted and changed it back to the deduction it wanted.

It would have created an epidemic of w4’s being turned into payroll, but the stamp raised eyebrows of the law and the payroll department employees, this was five years ago.

One bank teller I was told said “you have to ask for this” and a bank teller told me “why are you adding the verbiage on this check; the bank needs to make money.”

I thought to myself with the interest on mortgage loans, credit cards and fees the bank is charging their customers and the FRB charging for the use of fiat currency all these years are they not happy yet?

Personally I don’t mess with the banks signature card, my stamp is proof enough. Too many people are having a problem with it.

Although I had sent the bank I deal with inquiries about things in my account and when they replied at the bottom of the replies is written “this account is owned by the name of my bank” that threw me for a spin.

My NoD has been on file for five years now, and it’s about time it’s updated just as a reminder.

Permanently terminate withholding on non taxable income, good topic ag maniac. http://store.irszoom.com/ceofexfrwiof.html

That 1041 is of great interest to me too.

Robert Henry
01-09-14, 08:04 PM
Why not just terminate witholding with a W-4T (http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Employers/w-4t.pdf)?

As I understand it, employers tend to get prickly about it unless you can show that IRS agrees you are exempt. They don't like IRS asking if they're doing their job correctly. Better to play it safe, in my book!

Thanks.

ag maniac
01-10-14, 01:06 AM
A-yup....I agree Chex & robert henry.....I now see the fine print on the bottom --> "Public domain form".

Freed Gerdes
01-10-14, 03:41 AM
Please note that the letter I sent to B of A included a certified copy of my demand, filed with the Register of Deeds for the county, so it was not hearsay. There were no other demands already in the bank's possession. Their attempted denial of the demand is puzzling, but as someone already observed, they are not going to give us the ammo to sink their ship, so they attempt plausible deniability. Where this will become relevant, I believe, is when there is another financial crisis, and the banks decide to seize 10% of all deposits, which they can do, since these are merely unsecured loans to the bank, the way their account agreements are written. But my demand takes my account out of their loan reserve, because lawful money cannot be used for fractional reserve lending (I refuse to let them lend against my credit). Further, the lawful money in the account makes it a special deposit account, such that they must return my money in kind (money is fungible, so they don't have to return the same exact notes, just other lawful money, which, under the legal tender laws, could just be more FRN's). But, because it is a special account, it is not an unsecured loan, so should not be subject to seizure. That is, I did not loan them the money, acting as a federal reserve private bank, dealing in FR debt securities. I actually deposited some lawful money for safekeeping, so the bank is acting as bailee, and I would be a first priority creditor in a bankruptcy action. I imagine this status will have to be clarified in a lawsuit after the general seizure...

Freed

David Merrill
01-10-14, 02:07 PM
...If they do not deny it (and they can't actually deny it, as they are chartered under 12 USC), and do not cancel your account, then it supercedes your signature on their account card. One document one time covers all your financial transactions for all time. Keep it simple. This demand will also work for the bank account related to your stock trading account, for which you never see any paper. Served on the regional Federal Reserve Bank for your region, it also serves to take the liens off your property held in YOUR NAME at the Treasury Trust account, ie, it takes your property out of the federal bankruptcy usufructuary trust, returning legal title to YOUR NAME. In effect, this fires the Trustee and collapses the trust, thus ending your status as a 'federal employee.'

Freed

For time's sake I collect several posts. Freed - I am sure glad I read yours!



Why not just terminate witholding with a W-4T (http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Employers/w-4t.pdf)?

This W-4T Form does not involve the employer? - Meaning it is the IRS that informs your employer to stop withholding? The employee fills it out and sends it directly to the IRS?



As I understand it, employers tend to get prickly about it unless you can show that IRS agrees you are exempt. They don't like IRS asking if they're doing their job correctly. Better to play it safe, in my book!

Thanks.

My sentiment exactly. It would be cool if the IRS informed the employer to stop withholdings. That is the only way I would like the W-4T. Then again get the full refund through the 1040 Form. It has a flaw though that it requires you alter the Form at Line 21 by placing the stamp or writing the demand. Altered Forms attract Frivpens.



...Where this will become relevant, I believe, is when there is another financial crisis, and the banks decide to seize 10% of all deposits, which they can do, since these are merely unsecured loans to the bank, the way their account agreements are written.

Freed


Does anybody see Michael Joseph's claim to walking in Melchizedek rather than Levi relevant. Melchizedek is a foreshadowing of Yehoshuah (Jesus) the Messiah. Melchizedek accepted tithes from Abraham and as Son was not expected to tithe himself.


Those who fear will not enter the Kingdom. I wrote the IRS years ago and maintained that I am Redeemed in Christ of the Tribes of Israel a member of the Commonwealth of Israel and a priest walking in the Order of Melchizedok. I never heard back from them ever again. I am redeemed.

Isa 52:3 For thus saith the LORD, Ye have sold yourselves for nought; and ye shall be redeemed without money.


My TRUST is in my God and I rely upon His Word - it is my Life - it is my being - and I am a willing vessel for the glory of God - Here am I, send me - Yehovah use me to promote your Glory and to Glorify your Word in the Earth - which is to say Yehoshuah. I am redeemed in Yehoshuah to Yehovah within El Elyon.

Rev 21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Shalom,
Michael Joseph


Those endorsing are expected to tithe into the priestcraft of Mammon (http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/9579/templestonesmogandavid.jpg) (false balances) to save the sacrificial system (http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Masons_in_Cabinet_1933.jpg)! Thanks for that journey this fine morning.

David Merrill
01-10-14, 02:28 PM
A-yup....I agree Chex & robert henry.....I now see the fine print on the bottom --> "Public domain form".


Excellent Catch!! (http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Employers/w-4t.pdf) [Very bottom.]

Public domain form is outside the Box!

OOOPS!

I am glad somebody flagged Famguardian on that form. It is not an IRS Form! (http://www.irs.gov/uac/IRS-Accessible-PDF-Forms) That smells like trouble, selling altered forms?


Crosstalk -


I came across this on StSC. Turns out this W-4T (W-4 Withholdings Termination) is a bogus Form fabricated (http://www.irs.gov/uac/IRS-Accessible-PDF-Forms) by Famguardian. It is designed to fool employers into stopping withholdings. I bet when the IRS calls the Payroll Department though, the employee is terminated.


Look at the very bottom (http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Employers/w-4t.pdf) – outside the box. This might be a saving grace with the IRS – that the form is in the realm of lawful money and therefore cancels the contract of the W-4 Withholdings Form. So my suggestion would be to serve this on the record through a LoR on the IRS by suing the Secretary in our standard form. Then wait and see if the IRS tells the employer to stop withholding on you.

Keith Alan
01-10-14, 03:20 PM
... Served on the regional Federal Reserve Bank for your region, it also serves to take the liens off your property held in YOUR NAME at the Treasury Trust account, ie, it takes your property out of the federal bankruptcy usufructuary trust, returning legal title to YOUR NAME. In effect, this fires the Trustee and collapses the trust, thus ending your status as a 'federal employee.'

Freed
Isn't THE NAME part of the res of the trust? That in fact it is an organization in which the State has an interest?

Chex
01-10-14, 03:28 PM
Isn't THE NAME part of the res of the trust? That in fact it is an organization in which the State has an interest?

If you don't have the name what else do you go by? A number (http://www.lyricsfreak.com/b/bob+seger/feel+like+a+number_20021983.html)?

David Merrill
01-10-14, 03:43 PM
I should have attached this, in the form of a Massachusetts Trust.

There is nothing magical about a name. Being truthful though allows access to all trusts. [Or at least to keep your trust structure private.] If you know your name (True Name = First and Middle names) then you obtain the right of refusal (to be assumed the trustee responsible for settling charges for example). This is the structure of the Libel of Review (http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/9462/libelofreview52012.pdf). The objective is to acquire an evidence repository for your Refusals for Cause.

Keith Alan
01-10-14, 04:58 PM
If you don't have the name what else do you go by? A number (http://www.lyricsfreak.com/b/bob+seger/feel+like+a+number_20021983.html)?
I'm convinced that working for barter or lawful money is the only way to avoid using THE NAME, but I also understand that for many that just isn't practical.

My point was I don't think the trust becomes collapsed upon demanding lawful money. At least not the trust organization of THE NAME. It is after all, a legal fiction created by the State, and my feeling is the State will continue using it, even if the beneficiary stops using it.

amosfella
01-10-14, 05:24 PM
Does anybody see Michael Joseph's claim to walking in Melchizedek rather than Levi relevant. Melchizedek is a foreshadowing of Yehoshuah (Jesus) the Messiah. Melchizedek accepted tithes from Abraham and as Son was not expected to tithe himself.



I'm not sure I understand Malchizedek over Levi, but I do think that he's on the right track for an exit to the system.

Chex
01-10-14, 05:51 PM
My point was I don't think the trust becomes collapsed upon demanding lawful money. At least not the trust organization of THE NAME. It is after all, a legal fiction created by the State, and my feeling is the State will continue using it, even if the beneficiary stops using it.

I could not agree with you more
I don't think the trust becomes collapsed upon demanding lawful money.

I could not agree with you more
It is after all, a legal fiction created by the State and the State will continue using it

This is my question to you Keith
even if the beneficiary stops using the trust How do you know you are the beneficiary of the trust ? What made you the beneficiary of the trust ? You have a contract for that trust?

What proof do you have stating that there is an account for the trust and you are the beneficiary?

Keith Alan
01-10-14, 06:16 PM
I could not agree with you more

I could not agree with you more

This is my question to you Keith How do you know you are the beneficiary of the trust ? What made you the beneficiary of the trust ? You have a contract for that trust?

What proof do you have stating that there is an account for the trust and you are the beneficiary?That's a great question. My first inclination is to say it was the settlor's intention, in my case, my mother. But I will ponder a bit more, since it is self evident that THE NAME as it appears on the instrument is different from my given name.

Freed Gerdes
01-10-14, 06:24 PM
The IRS uses YOUR NAME as a Treasury account, to keep track of your use of FRN's, and the taxes you pay on those. They also use it to hold legal title to your estate (in trust) as a surety on the debt money you have endorsed, and to thus establish a lien on your estate, which simplifies seizures. But the trust itself, which is in and holds YOUR NAME, is a cestui que vie trust; the Trustee is holding your assets for you, because you have not appeared to take responsibility for yourself (you are incompetent or suffer civil death). When you make your demand for lawful money, you are rebutting the presumptions that you are dead, and that you choose voluntary debt servitude, loaning your credit and pledging your assets as surety (collateral) for the US govt debt. By refusing to be in contract with the Federal Reserve (a private corporation), you remove these liens on your assets, and take your estate out of the usufructuary trust. This also refutes the implied contract established by SS-5 that you choose to be a 'US citizen,' viz a debt slave employee of the US govt, subject to their jurisdiction, and thus have surrendered all your Constitutional rights. [the words of art used in SS-5 are sophistry or fraud, intended to misdirect you about the purposes of the contract, and thus count as the opposite of full disclosure, as well as being unconscionable, and thus void ab initio]. Your demand, if made ab initio, unwinds the entire relationship which was presumed for you at birth; this is what MJ was referring to when he says the man has an absolute right to change his mind and go back and change his original choice. Had he been fully informed of the consequences of his choice, he would have chosen differently. The Treasury created the trust for you using your NAME. This is because the US govt is a corporation, and can only contract with other corporations, not with real, live people. By creating this trust, they hope to prevent you the natural person from owning anything, thus escaping their jurisdiction. But when you make an appearance (a demand formally served is an appearance), you rebut the presumption that you are dead, and that you want to be a debt slave, and the trustee now has an obligation to return management of the trust to you, the rightful owner of the estate. At this juncture, you take possession of your estate, including the corporate PERSON (YOUR NAME) who owns (holds legal title to) the estate. It is your corporate identity, and you own it. Now a trust has no relevance if there are no assets in it, so this collapses the trust. You can cheerfully say, 'I have no trust in the federal government.' With no contract to make you a US citizen, you are no longer under the jurisdiction of the federal government, with all their rules, codes, and regulations; you now live under common law. The Treasury keeps your treasury account in YOUR NAME (and with your ss#) 'for tax purposes,' but if you do not use FRN's you will not have any taxable income, so the account goes dormant.
The entire 'New Deal/Great Society' move towards socialism is based on these two rocks: private debt money which creates a lien (debt cannot be paid off with debt), and your implied/presumed agreement to use this debt money and accept liability for the interest on it. When you break the rock of presumed agreement, the entire fraud scheme falls apart, and you see the US government for what it is: a bankrupt corporate front for bankers to use to rob the American public of their substance. End the Fed.

Freed

Robert Henry
01-10-14, 06:34 PM
Simply elegant and concisely to the point Freed. Thank you. The more I hear explanations like this the more it all solidifies in my mind.

Chex
01-10-14, 06:36 PM
And my mom to. I wonder about her trust and the rest of my families state created trust. What exactly happened to it and who's got it.

The NAME, everyone fears the name when used/written when we don't like it, why does it matter how it's capitalized or not?

It's just a part of identification along with other things associated with it.

People who create trusts don't they use their last name?

Declaration of Trust (http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/sample-individual-living-trust.html)

Is it Tammy Trustmaker, called the grantor or is it called Tammy, called the grantor?

As long as Trustmaker is spelled correctly I am good with it, its identifiable to establish the identity of, to ascertain the origin, nature etc.

What I am still looking for is the proof of the relationship of the trust. I want to see it in Constitutions, Statutes, and Legislative Information - By State in writing.

State Statutes by Topic. http://www.law.cornell.edu/statutes.html#state

Chex
01-10-14, 06:37 PM
Thank you Freed
The IRS uses YOUR NAME as a Treasury account, to keep track of your use of FRN's, and the taxes you pay on those. by the use of the number you supply by SS-5 (http://www.ssa.gov/online/ss-5.pdf) and applying is free - lol.

End the Fed today.

And it becomes more clearer everytime I read it.


This is because the US govt is a corporation, and can only contract with other corporations, not with real, live people.

and so is the state we reside in.

doug555
01-10-14, 07:56 PM
ONE DOLLAR - TWO IMAGES - MAKE THE RIGHT CHOICE



Those endorsing are expected to tithe into the priestcraft of Mammon (http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/9579/templestonesmogandavid.jpg) (false balances) to save the sacrificial system (http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Masons_in_Cabinet_1933.jpg)!

This is in perfect accordance with the principle set down by the Messiah when confronted about taxes.

Read Mt 22:15-21 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/passage.aspx?q=Mt+22%3A15-21&t=nas) and notice especially that it had to do with the "image" on the currency.

The One Dollar Bill (http://www.onedollarbill.org/decoding.html) has 2 images (authorization/ownership seals) on it - Federal Reserve (LEFT) and The Department of the Treasury (RIGHT).

We are choosing the image on the RIGHT when demanding lawful money for all transactions per 12 USC 411.

The DEFAULT choice is the image on the LEFT, and requires a usage fee (tax) to the god of mammon (Caesar), and rightly so per Mt 22:21 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/passage.aspx?q=Mt+22%3A21&t=nas).

Daniel 4:17 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/passage.aspx?q=Dan+4%3A17&t=nas)shows "...That the Most (http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/strongs.ashx?ll=h&t=nas&sn=05943) High (http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/strongs.ashx?ll=h&t=nas&sn=05943) is Ruler (http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/strongs.ashx?ll=h&t=nas&sn=07990) over the realm (http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/strongs.ashx?ll=h&t=nas&sn=04437) of mankind (http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/strongs.ashx?ll=h&t=nas&sn=0606)."

Consequently, I believe that the true AUTHORITY behind 12 USC 411 is the Most High - not Congress, not even the Executive Branch.

Mt 4:4 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/passage.aspx?q=Mt+4%3A4&t=nas) says we are to live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord.

Mt 22:20-21 (http://Mt 22:20-21) is THE RULE that all the host in heaven and earth must abide by now.

The Eternal has always enabled us to make a CHOICE (Deut 30:15,19 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/passage.aspx?q=Deut+30%3A15%2C19&t=nas)). Today, that choice is right in front of us on every dollar bill.

Make the "RIGHT" choice. Choose to Demand Lawful Money for all transactions.

Put your choice on the record - by substantive evidence on normal business transactions and/or by a public recorded Declaration.

I am looking forward to your new Lessons at http://www.lawfulmoneytrust.com/, David, so that many more will learn how to make this "RIGHT" choice! :)

P.S. This same choice may apply to CREDIT vs DEBIT cards??? Hmmmm...... Is DEBIT card the RIGHT choice too???

P.S. See this folder (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B8BdR0w2oZY_bXAtbTRnekkzT1k&usp=sharing) for a PDF copy to be used as a flyer/handout.

Keith Alan
01-10-14, 08:54 PM
And my mom to. I wonder about her trust and the rest of my families state created trust. What exactly happened to it and who's got it.

The NAME, everyone fears the name when used/written when we don't like it, why does it matter how it's capitalized or not?

It's just a part of identification along with other things associated with it.

People who create trusts don't they use their last name?

Declaration of Trust (http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/sample-individual-living-trust.html)

Is it Tammy Trustmaker, called the grantor or is it called Tammy, called the grantor?

As long as Trustmaker is spelled correctly I am good with it, its identifiable to establish the identity of, to ascertain the origin, nature etc.

What I am still looking for is the proof of the relationship of the trust. I want to see it in Constitutions, Statutes, and Legislative Information - By State in writing.

State Statutes by Topic. http://www.law.cornell.edu/statutes.html#state
I think the capitalization is a device used to differentiate the individual from the corporate, and that's all. We know the organization exists because the Birth Certificate declares it. The corporate organization is styled as THE NAME.

Now I was thinking about the question as to how I know I would be the beneficiary. It seems to me that I could find the Constitution for California (1849 is handy for me at the moment) and read Article 1 Section 2 to discover government's motives for creating a certificate of beneficial interest, the birth certificate. If it's creating something other than a beneficial interest, then it would be imposing an obligation or duty where no duty ought to exist, which is fraud from the beginning.

Freed Gerdes
01-10-14, 10:08 PM
You are correct, Keith. The beneficial interest the state has is to presume that you want to be part of the debt ponzi, as this allows the bankers to use your credit, and to lien your assets, to further their money printing scheme. No one can 'claim' another man. And the state is a fictional entity, so it has no power over a live human. Hence their real beneficial interest is to get you the man to take liability for the debt which is assigned to the corporate person they created. But look at the DBA rules: anyone can create a corporate person. You just file a notice with the Secretary of State that you the man intend to do business as a corporate entity; the Sec records it in the public record, and you are in business; 'you' can now contract with other corporations. Now you own that dba entity, and are also fully responsible for its actions. You are the accommodation agent for it; since the corporate person does not exist in the real world, you give it power through your actions. You earn money for it, pay its debts, sign contracts for it, etc. The state has no right to YOUR NAME; remember when grifters used to claim internet web site names, including the names of large corporations? The courts clarified the common law concept that you cannot claim another's name. The state gets around this by setting up a trust; see FDR's creation of the SS Trust: he put all the assets of the US (corporate) government into this trust. Now read Col House's description of the debt slavery scheme he conceived social security to be: we create a trust, put all the (US) citizens' assets into it, and pledge it as collateral for the govt's debts. Now the man is slave to his corporate person's debt, but he has to do this voluntarily, otherwise it is theft/slavery. So the implied contract to become a US citizen, ie a 14th Amendment citizen, with govt-granted privileges rather than Constitutional rights, volunteers you the man to be a debt slave to the YOUR NAME trust. Social Security is the cheese; debt slavery is the trap. The state cannot claim YOUR NAME; they can only claim a beneficial interest in it, because you agreed to assume liability for the US debt. Eliminate the claim by refuting the implied presumption that you choose to be a voluntary debt slave. Refuse to use their debt money: the whole scheme falls apart.

Freed

Keith Alan
01-11-14, 01:37 AM
You are correct, Keith. The beneficial interest the state has is to presume that you want to be part of the debt ponzi, as this allows the bankers to use your credit, and to lien your assets, to further their money printing scheme. No one can 'claim' another man. And the state is a fictional entity, so it has no power over a live human. Hence their real beneficial interest is to get you the man to take liability for the debt which is assigned to the corporate person they created. But look at the DBA rules: anyone can create a corporate person. You just file a notice with the Secretary of State that you the man intend to do business as a corporate entity; the Sec records it in the public record, and you are in business; 'you' can now contract with other corporations. Now you own that dba entity, and are also fully responsible for its actions. You are the accommodation agent for it; since the corporate person does not exist in the real world, you give it power through your actions. You earn money for it, pay its debts, sign contracts for it, etc. The state has no right to YOUR NAME; remember when grifters used to claim internet web site names, including the names of large corporations? The courts clarified the common law concept that you cannot claim another's name. The state gets around this by setting up a trust; see FDR's creation of the SS Trust: he put all the assets of the US (corporate) government into this trust. Now read Col House's description of the debt slavery scheme he conceived social security to be: we create a trust, put all the (US) citizens' assets into it, and pledge it as collateral for the govt's debts. Now the man is slave to his corporate person's debt, but he has to do this voluntarily, otherwise it is theft/slavery. So the implied contract to become a US citizen, ie a 14th Amendment citizen, with govt-granted privileges rather than Constitutional rights, volunteers you the man to be a debt slave to the YOUR NAME trust. Social Security is the cheese; debt slavery is the trap. The state cannot claim YOUR NAME; they can only claim a beneficial interest in it, because you agreed to assume liability for the US debt. Eliminate the claim by refuting the implied presumption that you choose to be a voluntary debt slave. Refuse to use their debt money: the whole scheme falls apart.

Freed
Very nice summary. Clean and succinct, yet entertaining to read.

Edit-- This still doesn't address other obligations imposed on THE NAME, like consenting to process of service.

Post Edit-- What if - along with making the demand - someone gives notice to his state government that he no longer consents to receive service of process from foreign entities like the corporate federal State? That would complete the separation.

Freed Gerdes
01-11-14, 02:59 AM
The corporate PERSON exists in a world of legalities, equal with all other corporate entities. Being fictional, it exists everywhere; it has no need to hide. You as accommodation agent get to give power to your corporate person, and also to protect it from contracts not to your benefit. So who wants to serve process on your corporate person? Someone in contract with you who claims that you are in dishonor? If you are not in contract, you can refuse for cause. If you are in contract, you must answer for the contracts you have entered. Your natural human person also must live in honor, so this is not just a legality, it is the basis of moral behavior. "Do all you say you will do, and do not infringe on others." This is the whole law. Live in honor and you should have no problem avoiding legalities. As MJ says, everything you do outside your estate is illegal. We do not have to be burdened with all these codes, rules, regulations, and municipal laws (administered under the UCC, Lex Mercatoria, contract law). These municipal laws (laws written by/for the corporation) only apply to the corporation's officers and employees, not to natural persons (Rodriquez v Ray Donovan, 1985). So just keep out of contract with the Federal government. The social security agreement is not a contract; SS is a welfare program and it is voluntary. The words of art used to get free men to volunteer for debt slavery is the definition of 'US citizen,' which through a series of distant and convoluted definitions, means that you have chosen to domicile your corporate person in Washington, DC, the only place in the US where the corporate federal government has exclusive jurisdiction. But the structure of the SS agreement (SS-5) falls under this SC ruling:

"Any false representation of material facts made with knowledge of falsity and with intent that it shall be acted on by another in entering into contract,
and which is so acted upon, constitutes 'fraud,' and entitles party deceived to avoid contract or recover damages."
Barnsdall Refining Corn. v. Birnam Wood Oil Co. 92 F 26 817.

Since the surrender of unalienable rights must be knowing and voluntary (UCC 1-308), this part of the SS agreement is easily voidable as unconscionable and without full disclosure. You also have a contract (implied) whereby you have accepted the presumption that you want to be a debt slave, want to deal in FR debt securities, and want to loan your credit to the FR. This presumption is rebutted by your demand for lawful money. Since lawful money discharges all debt (12 USC 95 a(2)), your demand basically redeems all prior FRN debt liens against your estate. If there are any residual debts on your account, they are the personal liability of the Trustee, the Secretary of Treasury. You have no interest in whether the Trustee sorts those out, as they do not pertain to you; you have no obligation to support the federal debt, once you sever your contract with the Federal Reserve and quit using their debt notes.

Thus if officers of the municipal court charge your PERSON with a violation of some legality (municipal code), you simply ask them to produce the contract which binds you to obey these codes. Without any such contract, you are bound only by common law, under which there must be an injured party for the basis of an action, and the state cannot be an injured party within an action adjudicated in their own court (conflict of interest, maybe?). So municipal courts have no jurisdiction over your PERSON without contract. Municipal courts never had jurisdiction over you the natural man, as the court is a corporation, thus it can only deal with other corporate entities. Only a jury of other men can have jurisdiction over you the natural man.

Freed

Freed Gerdes
01-11-14, 03:18 AM
Here is the voluntary debt servitude scheme in capsule form:

Colonel Edward Mandell House is attributed with giving a very detailed outline of the plans to be implemented to enslave the American people. He stated, in a private meeting with Woodrow Wilson (President 1913 - 1921),

Very soon, every American will be required to register their biological property (that's your children) in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a charge back for our fiat paper currency.
Every American will be forced to register or suffer being able to work and earn a living. They will be our chattels (property) and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading (Birth Certificate) to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, secured by their pledges.
They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two should figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability. After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debts to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges.
This will inevitably reap us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud, which we will call “Social Insurance.” Without realizing it, every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and we will employ the high office (presidency) of our dummy corporation(USA) to foment this plot against America. -


The pledging thing runs afoul of the Constitution and the 13th Amendment, so they had to make it voluntary, but to make sure everyone volunteered, they plied the media with rumors and misinformation, implying that one could not work without a Social Security number. Then they constructed the agreement with implied consent, guessing correctly that few Americans would study the law enough to figure out what they were doing. Since that time they have also been working hard to eliminate the common law, as it contains those nasty unalienable rights, and the sheeple are hard to manage when they believe they have rights not given to them by government. The whole purpose of this scheme (besides banker profits) was/is to get the public to believe that the government is above the people (a benevolent parent, a God substitute), whereas the Constitution was purposely written to make it clear that the people are above the government. A switcheroo in the battle for the money power.

Freed

LearnTheLaw
01-11-14, 03:33 AM
ONE DOLLAR - TWO IMAGES - MAKE THE RIGHT CHOICE



This is in perfect accordance with the principle set down by the Messiah when confronted about taxes.

Read Mt 22:15-21 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/passage.aspx?q=Mt+22%3A15-21&t=nas) and notice especially that it had to do with the "image" on the currency.

The One Dollar Bill (http://www.onedollarbill.org/decoding.html) has 2 images (authorization/ownership seals) on it - Federal Reserve (LEFT) and The Department of the Treasury (RIGHT).

We are choosing the image on the RIGHT when demanding lawful money for all transactions per 12 USC 411.

The DEFAULT choice is the image on the LEFT, and requires a usage fee (tax) to the god of mammon (Caesar), and rightly so per Mt 22:21 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/passage.aspx?q=Mt+22%3A21&t=nas).

Daniel 4:17 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/passage.aspx?q=Dan+4%3A17&t=nas)shows "...That the Most (http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/strongs.ashx?ll=h&t=nas&sn=05943) High (http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/strongs.ashx?ll=h&t=nas&sn=05943) is Ruler (http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/strongs.ashx?ll=h&t=nas&sn=07990) over the realm (http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/strongs.ashx?ll=h&t=nas&sn=04437) of mankind (http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/strongs.ashx?ll=h&t=nas&sn=0606)."

Consequently, I believe that the true AUTHORITY behind 12 USC 411 is the Most High - not Congress, not even the Executive Branch.

Mt 4:4 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/passage.aspx?q=Mt+4%3A4&t=nas) says we are to live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord.

Mt 22:20-21 (http://Mt 22:20-21) is THE RULE that all the host in heaven and earth must abide by now.

The Eternal has always enabled us to make a CHOICE (Deut 30:15,19 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/passage.aspx?q=Deut+30%3A15%2C19&t=nas)). Today, that choice is right in front of us on every dollar bill.

Make the "RIGHT" choice. Choose to Demand Lawful Money for all transactions.

Put your choice on the record - by substantive evidence on normal business transactions and/or by a public recorded Declaration.

I am looking forward to your new Lessons at http://www.lawfulmoneytrust.com/, David, so that many more will learn how to make this "RIGHT" choice! :)

P.S. This same choice may apply to CREDIT vs DEBIT cards??? Hmmmm...... Is DEBIT card the RIGHT choice too???

P.S. See this folder (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B8BdR0w2oZY_bXAtbTRnekkzT1k&usp=sharing) for a PDF copy to be used as a flyer/handout.


I was at a friend of mines coin shop today and I was looking at a 1966 100 dollar US Note and it only had 1 seal on it while the FRN had both on it.

The silver certificates also had 1 seal only on it

Keith Alan
01-11-14, 04:13 AM
The corporate PERSON exists in a world of legalities, equal with all other corporate entities. Being fictional, it exists everywhere; it has no need to hide. You as accommodation agent get to give power to your corporate person, and also to protect it from contracts not to your benefit. So who wants to serve process on your corporate person? Someone in contract with you who claims that you are in dishonor? If you are not in contract, you can refuse for cause. If you are in contract, you must answer for the contracts you have entered. Your natural human person also must live in honor, so this is not just a legality, it is the basis of moral behavior. "Do all you say you will do, and do not infringe on others." This is the whole law. Live in honor and you should have no problem avoiding legalities. As MJ says, everything you do outside your estate is illegal. We do not have to be burdened with all these codes, rules, regulations, and municipal laws (administered under the UCC, Lex Mercatoria, contract law). These municipal laws (laws written by/for the corporation) only apply to the corporation's officers and employees, not to natural persons (Rodriquez v Ray Donovan, 1985). So just keep out of contract with the Federal government. The social security agreement is not a contract; SS is a welfare program and it is voluntary. The words of art used to get free men to volunteer for debt slavery is the definition of 'US citizen,' which through a series of distant and convoluted definitions, means that you have chosen to domicile your corporate person in Washington, DC, the only place in the US where the corporate federal government has exclusive jurisdiction. But the structure of the SS agreement (SS-5) falls under this SC ruling:

"Any false representation of material facts made with knowledge of falsity and with intent that it shall be acted on by another in entering into contract,
and which is so acted upon, constitutes 'fraud,' and entitles party deceived to avoid contract or recover damages."
Barnsdall Refining Corn. v. Birnam Wood Oil Co. 92 F 26 817.

Since the surrender of unalienable rights must be knowing and voluntary (UCC 1-308), this part of the SS agreement is easily voidable as unconscionable and without full disclosure. You also have a contract (implied) whereby you have accepted the presumption that you want to be a debt slave, want to deal in FR debt securities, and want to loan your credit to the FR. This presumption is rebutted by your demand for lawful money. Since lawful money discharges all debt (12 USC 95 a(2)), your demand basically redeems all prior FRN debt liens against your estate. If there are any residual debts on your account, they are the personal liability of the Trustee, the Secretary of Treasury. You have no interest in whether the Trustee sorts those out, as they do not pertain to you; you have no obligation to support the federal debt, once you sever your contract with the Federal Reserve and quit using their debt notes.

Thus if officers of the municipal court charge your PERSON with a violation of some legality (municipal code), you simply ask them to produce the contract which binds you to obey these codes. Without any such contract, you are bound only by common law, under which there must be an injured party for the basis of an action, and the state cannot be an injured party within an action adjudicated in their own court (conflict of interest, maybe?). So municipal courts have no jurisdiction over your PERSON without contract. Municipal courts never had jurisdiction over you the natural man, as the court is a corporation, thus it can only deal with other corporate entities. Only a jury of other men can have jurisdiction over you the natural man.

Freed

I was thinking along the lines of operating an agency franchise foreign to my state, like driving. That's what the driver license is for - operators are consenting to service of process because they are entities foreign to the states.

What I - and probably everyone here - would like to see is a comprehensive program or strategy that would keep people from being harassed by contract enforcement officers.

Mark Allan
01-11-14, 05:37 PM
Freed, I surely agree with Robert Henry & others saying "Thanks". Really helped me begin to get a more useful grasp on the matter.

Chex
01-12-14, 04:43 PM
I was thinking along the lines of operating an agency franchise foreign to my state, like driving. That's what the driver license is for - operators are consenting to service of process because they are entities foreign to the states.

What I - and probably everyone here - would like to see is a comprehensive program or strategy that would keep people from being harassed by contract enforcement officers.

I think we should be keeping an eye on how this goes.


South Carolina State Rep Tom Davis is the bill’s sponsor, and in justifying his legislation he twice quoted from the Mack/Printz v. US case (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZO.html), saying that the States are not “political subdivisions of the Federal Government” and that the feds cannot “compel the states to enforce federal laws.”

Sheriffs office is not so bad after all.


Now as states wake up to their true power and responsibility, we have SC taking exemplary (http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=exemplary+&b=&fr=ie8)action to protect their citizens from an out of control federal government.
From http://cspoa.org/sheriff-macks-lawsuit-now-being-used-to-stop-obamacare/

Bill 3101 - South Carolina Legislature Online - Bill Search by Bill Number http://www.scstatehouse.gov/billsearch.php?billnumbers=3101&summary=B


Whereas, the people of the several states comprising the United States of America created the federal government to be their agent for certain enumerated purposes, and nothing more; and http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess120_2013-2014/bills/3101.htm

Moxie
02-05-14, 02:30 AM
Q: After demand for lawful money has been made, can one withdraw however much they want from their ATM now? If not, why is it that banks put daily limits on how much one can take out? What's the reason for that?

Freed Gerdes
02-05-14, 04:31 AM
The banks are for-profit corporations. They set up their rules for their convenience. ATM's are convenient for you, less convenient for them if you come by and remove all the currency; the next customer will complain that their services are inadequate, and the bank will have to increase their servicing of the machines and increase the charges for their use. If you want moar currency, you have to go to a branch service counter. Since lawful money trades at parity with FRN's in the paper note form, the demand is not very relevant to the use of paper currency. Its value is in refusing to endorse credit, the use of which the IRS will want to charge a tax on. No tax attaches to the use of paper currency. But if you deposit cash with the bank, they will report it as income and the IRS will want to tax it. And if you withdraw over $10,000, the bank has to file paperwork with the Fed, who will report you to the NSA as a suspected drug dealer, and they will tip off the local cops who will try to confiscate it...

Freed

Freed Gerdes
02-05-14, 05:21 AM
Allow me to clear up some errors in the segment Keith quoted me on above. The SC quote from Rodriguez v Donovan is suspect, and I have not been able to find the original ruling. Also, The Social Security # is evidence of your voluntary acceptance of socialist/debt slave status. If you have a SS#, then you have a NAME. The NAME is not a trust, it is a limited liability corporation, chartered inside the SS trust. It is owned by the state/federal government jointly. The status of the NAME is that of a slave or serf; it has only the right of naked use of assets within the SS trust. And it has surrendered all Constitutional rights. So if you are using the NAME, you are assumed to be a slave, without Constitutional rights, and you will have to defend your rights quickly and correctly, or you will be railroaded fast in a kangaroo court. The acceptance of a drivers license will be one of the most obvious contracts you will have to defend, as it is issued in your NAME, and the state demanded proof that you were a US citizen before they issued it, so you stand a much better chance of beating an alleged 'violation' of municipal law if you don't have a drivers license. But there are lots of adhesion contracts that must be rebutted, and the process is convoluted and pervasive. The interested reader is directed to these web sites: http://www.state-citizen.org/page2.html (check out Mercier's Invisible Contracts); http://www.supremelaw.org/library/alabama_v_kemp/index.html (there are several days worth of material here which will help you understand how the corporate government has tried to eliminate the Constitution).

As to my previous statement that the demand for lawful money redeems your estate out of the SS usufruct trust, the demand by itself does not accomplish that. Assets held in the NAME are owned by the government. Buying assets with lawful money and putting them into the NAME still makes them a gift to the government. But serving your demand on the bank takes your income out of the jurisdiction of Title 26, so eliminates the obligation to file a tax return. This is a two-part issue: by being a slave, property of the government, you use the NAME to set up your employment agreement (your 'employer' pays you under the NAME). And you filed a W-4 stating that you are a US citizen. The NAME, SS#, and W-4 all confirm that you want the government to tax your income, you agree that you are a 'taxpayer' (voluntary) under Title 26, and you authorize your 'employer' to withhold income taxes. You are obligated to file a return. When you make a demand for lawful money and serve it on the bank, you have not changed your taxpayer status, you have just elected to deal only in non-taxable money. Thus your 'reportable income' goes to zero, and you do not meet the requirement of a minimum income for which a return must be filed. But this bank account will work against you in traffic court, as it confirms that you are still owned by the government (voluntarily, of course). The presumption that you are a US citizen is pervasive. You have to stop using the NAME and the SS# everywhere, start identifying yourself as a non-resident alien, an American Citizen (We, the People). You have American Citizenship by birth and parentage, and citizenship is a First Amendment right, so you can start being a Citizen whenever you want to. The corporation that runs the Federal government does not want any slaves slipping off the plantation, so they use multiple adhesion contracts. For example, the IRS claims that if you receive mail at an address that includes a ZIP (Zone Improvement Program) code, this is proof that you are a resident of a federal zone. The federal zone is now an accepted term in the courts, and describes that overlay of legal jurisdiction which the corporate government claims now extends over the entire land mass of America. For tax purposes, the IRS now claims that that jurisdiction extends over the entire physical world, that US citizens are taxable everywhere on the planet. Once you start down this rabbit hole, you will see that the bankers intend to enslave the entire world with their trusts, contracts, and debt. Their mission is to eliminate individual rights, Constitutions, and republic forms of government, thus ending the concept that 'the People' are sovereign. Greed gone wild. This will not end well...

Freed

Keith Alan
02-05-14, 06:06 AM
Over the last two weeks I've experienced a major realization: I really don't care what the people who operate the various governments think about THE NAME. I know how to "turn it off," so to speak. I understand that sometimes people want me to use it with the number, and if it's advantageous , I do it. Same with citizenship - if I need it, I use it.

At the end of the day, I see the issue as a mental health problem; my neighbors are deluded. There's also the possibility that I am too.

So far I've refrained from turning off the legal person, because there are people in my life depending on me, and I'm not sure I can operate efficiently without disrupting their lives in a negative way.

I want to say 'thank you' to David Merril for showing me the difference between the True Name and THE LEGAL NAME. I am holding a driver's license that shows THE LEGAL NAME being operated by a man with a True Name.

Since I took that step, the true nature of my relationship between my neighbors and I keeps becoming more clear in my mind. I now know with certainty that if needed, I can completely sever all ties with them very easily, and emerge quite unscathed from suffering the brunt of their delusions.

I agree with you, Freed, the bankers' end game is evil and despotic. But the greater crime is the fear and anxiety that our neighbors are enduring on a daily basis. It's criminal because they're doing it to themselves. I know this is true because it was true - and still is, to a lesser degree - in my personal experience.

But you made the comment that, "this won't end well. " I think it does end well. All of this is necessary in order for people to discover their true worth.