PDA

View Full Version : Remedy - lawful money solution



NONOFED
02-14-15, 03:12 PM
Greetings,

After coming across your REMEDY video on youtube, reviewing your site, this comes to mind.

For there seems to be quite a bit of concealment on this matter and obviously things are not let to light, this allows others to take advantage of that situation and you. Consider this solution to the problem and provide feedback.

Utmost, money should not be stored in the bank. The bank cannot fractionalize using your money if they don't have your money. The idea is remedy right? Confusion this, confusion that, lets make a two headed bill, it could be a FederalReserveNote or USBANKNOTE, which is which nobody knows, its all the same, at least this is what they want you to believe as long as your using the federal reserve system. Who knows what shady bookkeeping is done if you leave money in the bank, as they may or may not classify it as such and such and whatever; its a game they keep you caught in. You shouldn't care, nor take notice.

Quite frankly if it has FRS wordage on it, dismiss it as poison. So much can be done by simply not keeping money in the account, this is best. Remember we are voting to keep this FRS alive since it was set to expire how long ago? Why does it persist, not necessarily by endorsing a check in FRN, but by participating in their system albeit FRN's or the digital network they posses is what allows it to survive.

Depositing your assets into their digital vaults allows the bank to fractionalize using it. But by taking the money out of the bank no matter whether it is in FRN form or lawful money makes little difference when removing the banks ability to replicate debt like a virus, though the appropriate thing to do is to convert to the right type of currency, not involving yourself in the Federal Reserve System scam.

Now there seems to be a few things granted by law, like having ability to convert FRN to Lawful money; of which is these US BANK NOTES. What was it 300 million in US bank notes supposed to be in circulation, but then there was no demand for it so according to someone and it was shelved(how convenient), though, it is still law, and its waiting for you to demand it back into circulation.

Either there is a check or FRN, essentially its of the FRS. Don't play the FRN\USBN note game, regardless, remember its poison and since you don't want to poison yourself or anyone else with it anymore so you must redeem FRN's for LAWFUL MONEY. How? By not involving yourself in the Federal Reserve System. The law DID state that you can redeem a FRN(specifically it stated FRN) into lawful money. Well then what lawful money can be acquired at the bank? Its not going to be a USBN(at least not for now)since there is no demand. Your current options only seem to be coinage US MINTED(FR can limit this coinage but its according to DEMAND as well), the wrong option is the SCHIZOPHRENIC FRN\"WHATEVER YOU WANT TO BELIEVE NOTES" and you know better than to get involved in that.

Picture this, go to bank, CHECK to COIN, or CASH to COIN. Congratulations you've just turned FRN into lawful money of the good kind and you have removed banks ability to fractionalize using it since it is no longer in their possession. GREAT! This is conducive to what is wanted but lets go along with this idea for a moment.

The FRN bank has an OBLIGATION to comply with this request by law. Now you have a pile or several boxes, maybe a small mountain of US mint coins. You get paid in legit money of the right type with no question as to who you are supporting, the US Government, and not the FED, which is what we want. But what happens when MANY PEOPLE DEMAND this REMEDY and take funds out of the hands of these corrupt banks, this will cause a problem for the bank to function. Woe to the banks, they have lost the ability to fractionalize and now the bank has to comply with peoples demand to take back their instruments of enslavement and control.

Since there is now demand for lawful money of the right type, it is going to be inconvenient to carry around boxes of coins, eventually there is going to be a need for larger denomination to be issued from the US Treasury, these US bank notes are of 100$ denomination, and now will be placed back into circulation maybe smaller bills will be generated. Its all about demand. The FRS has lost its ability to fractionalize, some banks will close, a transfer from corrupt debt currency(FRN) to revenue generating lawful (coin) currency will take place, and creates a source of income for the government by using US coins which the fed purchases from the US Mint at face value, thus reducing national debt and removing reliance on the FED. Its so easy and has been waiting for our use for so long. Most have no idea how important coin is to US.

However much US coin you have in your possession is how much debt you have reversed from the FED and national debt, its now revenue you have generated for the US Government, on the other hand, however much Federal Reserve Notes you have in you possession is how much debt you created for the nation. The FED has ordered $188 Billion more worth of notes for 2015! Use coin in your everyday business wherever possible. Wean yourself off of the FED.

Your money is yours, keep it in your possession, store it in a safe box, as long as its not in their ledgers, being akin to a torrent network, decentralized, its your assets, your power. LIBERATEyourselves, help each other, become your own banks. Remember this all started with keeping gold in their vaults and them issuing slips. Stealing gold, going off gold standard.

itsmymoney
02-15-15, 12:47 AM
But what happens when MANY PEOPLE DEMAND this REMEDY and take funds out of the hands of these corrupt banks, this will cause a problem for the bank to function. Woe to the banks, they have lost the ability to fractionalize and now the bank has to comply with peoples demand to take back their instruments of enslavement and control. There will be a shortage of coins. Perhaps a bank run(I WANT MY LAWFUL MONEY!), who knows.

Interesting concept. However, I'm thinking that, per branch (thousands across the country), how many depositors per branch are demanding lawful money at said individual branch? My bank is a local-yocal variety (8 branches in the state - no national presence per my research), thus how many depositors across all of their 8 branches (besides me) are demanding lawful money and denying said branches the ability to fractionalize my/our accounts? Probably not enough to frighten them into closing me/us down. I'm probably one of a few at my bank (if there are any others) that are demanding lawful money.

Just my opinion, but until this gets widespread (such as with the CTC returns via Mr. Hendrickson), I think the non-coinage redemption method (simply FRN's redeemed as lawful money in US Notes) may be 'safe' from illegitimate denial of the demand or worse actions on the part of the banks and/or Govco.

NONOFED
02-16-15, 01:14 AM
----------

Michael Joseph
02-16-15, 03:49 AM
yes. bring a wheelbarrow. I have seen folks go in and request coin. Just be prepared to wait. This of course is totally unnecessary. There are two seals on the note. Fish out of the right side of the boat. Demand lawful money and do not endorse credit.

NONOFED
02-16-15, 04:03 AM
Very good. What if they say no and we don't have that much coin? Are there other non fed type currencies that they can issue? I'm under the impression that the FRNs can serve a dual purpose though not sure i'm too interested in that, plus coin at least has some intrinsic value. What is "Fish out of the right side of the boat"?

ag maniac
02-16-15, 04:40 AM
Very good. What if they say no and we don't have that much coin? Are there other non fed type currencies that they can issue? I'm under the impression that the FRNs can serve a dual purpose though not sure i'm too interested in that, plus coin at least has some intrinsic value. What is "Fish out of the right side of the boat"?


Michael Joseph -- There are two seals on the note.


See the green seal on the right of the note? "The Department of the Treasury 1789"

http://onedollarbill.info/one_$1_dollar_bill.jpg

JohnnyCash
02-16-15, 04:41 AM
Hi NONOFED,
I shall not be responding because I've heard folks are taking umbrage at my posts.
Mark 4:11

NONOFED
02-16-15, 04:47 AM
Hi NONOFED,
I shall not be responding because I've heard folks are taking umbrage at my posts.
Mark 4:11

Why would you let that limit your expression, id appreciate your input even if i didn't agree with it. Speak your mind.

NONOFED
02-16-15, 04:49 AM
See the green seal on the right of the note? "The Department of the Treasury 1789"

http://onedollarbill.info/one_$1_dollar_bill.jpg

I'm familiar with the two seals. And now I get the "Fish out of right side of boat" which i'm assuming is a reference to John 21:16

Michael Joseph
02-16-15, 06:25 AM
I'm familiar with the two seals. And now I get the "Fish out of right side of boat" which i'm assuming is a reference to John 21:16

Look carefully at Washington. He is the first therefore he is Alpha. Look carefully do you see he is bounded by omega? Now look at his head do you see the alter?

Do you suppose this to be a coincidence? Look at the N in ONE. See the two trumpets? Who is all and all the ONE? Christ!

Fish out of the right. Crucify your vain reasonings on the alter and the upper room shall open into you. I suppose many cannot hear the foregoing. But some will.

Shalom
MJ

NONOFED
02-16-15, 07:03 AM
Look carefully at Washington. He is the first therefore he is Alpha. Look carefully do you see he is bounded by omega? Now look at his head do you see the alter?

Do you suppose this to be a coincidence? Look at the N in ONE. See the two trumpets? Who is all and all the ONE? Christ!

Fish out of the right. Crucify your vain reasonings on the alter and the upper room shall open into you. I suppose many cannot hear the foregoing. But some will.

Shalom
MJ

How far the rabbit hole goes. Does it seem interesting that coins have LIBERTY on them while FRNs do not?

Michael Joseph
02-16-15, 07:10 AM
How far the rabbit hole goes. Does it seem interesting that coins have liberty on them while FRNs do not.

A dual capacity note. With a trustee to sign for each capacity. Give your order upon which trustee? Are you your brothers keeper or do you even care? That alter is there for a reason.


If you order up new credit then you place debt on me too. a choice life and death (debt).

Cain and Abel. Can you see it? Some come for the teaching others come for the free fish sandwich.

Shalom
MJ

David Merrill
02-16-15, 09:34 AM
Joh 21:4 But when the morning was now come, Jesus stood on the shore: but the disciples knew not that it was Jesus.
Joh 21:5 Then Jesus saith unto them, Children, have ye any meat? They answered him, No.
Joh 21:6 And he said unto them, Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes.
Joh 21:7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea.
Joh 21:8 And the other disciples came in a little ship; (for they were not far from land, but as it were two hundred cubits,) dragging the net with fishes.
Joh 21:9 As soon then as they were come to land, they saw a fire of coals there, and fish laid thereon, and bread.
Joh 21:10 Jesus saith unto them, Bring of the fish which ye have now caught.
Joh 21:11 Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, an hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken.


As the run on the Fed becomes obvious we are in the 153rd year of government fiat. LINCOLN's Proclamation was on April 15, 1861.

NONOFED
02-16-15, 10:56 AM
----------

Michael Joseph
02-16-15, 12:40 PM
I don't want to endorse this private credit anymore, i didn't know there were two forms of currency and i'm sure not many know this and they really should. I saw older frn bills that say they can be redeemed for lawful money which now is no longer stated on new bills. I'm looking to try going to take a check to issuing bank and try the non endorsement and I would like to ask for coin. Seemingly I should be able to get coin. There shouldn't be a problem I would hope. What if they say no and we don't have that much coin?

Then go to another bank. Again coin is not necessary; however, if that's what you want so be it. Just be confident. I have won many a day just because I looked like I belonged. I look and speak life with head up. This behavior gives the clerk permission to do what I need.

If you ask permission then most likely the clerk will say no. Confidence in yourself wins most every time. This activity is lawful and there is no need to worry. If you can't find a girl to dance with you then ask another girl.

We asked quite a few times before this became so common for us it is now business as usual. When you succeed share your story won't you?

Shalom
MJ

David Merrill
02-16-15, 02:14 PM
Depending on character and experience it might be beneficial to handle coins for a bit; as a training tool. This 1984 Article (http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/convincing.html) is oriented around coins being lawful money. Mentally substitute in US notes in the form of Federal Reserve notes and then you will be functional...

But that is just the start of the journey!

doug555
02-16-15, 03:30 PM
Depending on character and experience it might be beneficial to handle coins for a bit; as a training tool. This 1984 Article (http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/convincing.html) is oriented around coins being lawful money. Mentally substitute in US notes in the form of Federal Reserve notes and then you will be functional...

But that is just the start of the journey!

Yes, exactly... It is your mental choice (http://lawfulmoney.blogspot.com/p/one-dollar-two-images.html) which seal on the FRNs is controlling for your transactions.

Michael Joseph
02-16-15, 04:59 PM
Yes, exactly... It is your mental choice (http://lawfulmoney.blogspot.com/p/one-dollar-two-images.html) which seal on the FRNs is controlling for your transactions.

You know it is not called Left-teous; rather Right-teous. The body is ONE in Trust. Therefore the laity demands lawful money so that the Trustees might perform as per their oath and office. Nevertheless 12USC95a2 is also in effect. A charity.

It is only those who claim against the Will that have the problems. These by their own deed as Maker create their own liability. Perhaps that is too deep for this simple subject and that is JUST MAKE YOUR DEMAND - Keep it simple. A copy of the check is plenty of evidence to support your non-endorsement of a 3rd party.

I myself keep it simple the Code says by demand therefore I have a stamp which says : "Demand is made for Lawful Money per 12 U.S.C. 411 by:"

I guess I am a simple man. Notice the Present Tense. I am making a judgment for all law is in the future - Judgment brings it into the present tense. Therefore DEMAND IS MADE. Is all time PRESENT. Keep it simple. The administration over the Use may want to make demand upon the trustee for an accounting [return] - therefore in good faith - I must prove my Right-teousness. And this is only fair and just. Else a presumption arises in liability that must be cured by its Maker.

If you are not tracking - the Maker of the liability would be the one who endorsed the FRS. Thus the obligation of benefit [banking] and its liabilities fall upon the shoulders of the Maker of that liability - he who places a "naked endorsement" on back of check absent claim for lawful money.

I mean think about it, how are you going to hold the officials to an oath when you yourself give them permission to treat you as a customer? Why would they need an oath if you yourself are undermining the Trust - taking against the Will?

allodial
02-16-15, 08:07 PM
AFAIK The rightmost seal is likely the 'highest' underwriter. On the dollar bill, technically its the U.S. Great Seal (working your way from front to back).

2269

The dollar bill was designed that way in 1935. The FR system is underwritten by the other three seals. This perspective is per heraldry and plain ol' bill endorsement analysis. All of the other bills might have the White House or the US Capital Building on the back. Perhaps the FRN is on the front and the US Note is on the back? Could the pyramid represent the territorial governmental system and the Great seal represent the organic Federal government established under the Articles of Confederation?

NONOFED
02-16-15, 11:22 PM
AFAIK The rightmost seal is likely the 'highest' underwriter. On the dollar bill, technically its the U.S. Great Seal (working your way from front to back).

2269

The dollar bill was designed that way in 1935. The FR system is underwritten by the other three seals. This perspective is per heraldry and plain ol' bill endorsement analysis. All of the other bills might have the White House or the US Capital Building on the back. Perhaps the FRN is on the front and the US Note is on the back? Could the pyramid represent the territorial governmental system and the Great seal represent the organic Federal government established under the Articles of Confederation?

Im under the impression that the pyramid has to do with the NWO which is the FED is associated with.

NONOFED
02-16-15, 11:36 PM
I would like to thank itsmymoney, Michael Joseph, ag maniac, JohnnyCash, doug555, David Merrill, and allodial for the information and support that you have provided.

Michael Joseph
02-17-15, 12:53 AM
Im under the impression that the pyramid has to do with the NWO which is the FED is associated with.

Look carefully at the seal to the left. I see Genesis Chapter 1. There were five foolish and five wise virgins - / +.

allodial
02-17-15, 05:09 AM
Im under the impression that the pyramid has to do with the NWO which is the FED is associated with.

As for "New" World Order...nothing new about ziggurats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziggurat) or step pyramids.

Chex
02-17-15, 02:54 PM
Look carefully at the seal to the left. I see Genesis Chapter 1. There were five foolish and five wise virgins - / +.

And Matthew 25:2


This high quality documentary proves the following points about the two Seals on the back of the One Dollar Bill with clarity and precision: (https://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2010/08/16/eye-of-the-phoenix-secrets-of-the-dollar-bill-the-luciferian-666-attack-on-america/)

Symbolism on the One Dollar Bill (http://www.philadelphiafed.org/education/teachers/publications/symbols-on-american-money/)

"ANNUIT COEPTIS," meaning "He (God) favors our undertaking." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_one-dollar_bill)

Symbols on the Dollar Bill and the Secret Beliefs of America's Founding Fathers (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFtrz9a5YXY)

Australia’s Federal Reserve Banking System (http://thriveonnews.com/2013/09/29/end-the-federal-reserve-banking-system/)

NONOFED
02-17-15, 09:25 PM
----------

NONOFED
02-18-15, 01:58 PM
For clarification, please respond.

Can someone take a check to its bank of issue and actually get coins?

For instance, a $1000 check be redeemed in coin. Are they obligated to pay it in coin if that is what is demanded?

After further research there seems to be no restrictions on acquiring large quantities of coin. Also I cashed check at drawers bank, and was paid in coin. Using coin in daily purchases now. Am converting all FRN to coin.

itsmymoney
02-18-15, 11:45 PM
NONOFED,

Why did you delete your #25 post today at 9:31 am? If anyone does not remember, NONOFED basically stated (NONOFED, correct me if I'm wrong) that if FRN's are also considered "lawful money", then how does the IRS/Fed know that we are demanding NON-Federal-Reserve "lawful money"? In other words, demanding our pay be redeemed by U.S. Treasury's funds outside any private credit being extended by the Fed either to the Treasury or to the suitors making the demand.

Here is an interesting notation about lawful money from the FRS website. Most of us know that the true definition of "lawful money" means the U.S Note/coinage variety, i.e. NON-FRN's. This website appears to stretch the true definition of "lawful money", and other than Milam, I don't know what other court cases state that FRN's are "lawful money" as such (meaning, NOT the true definition that we the suitors know it to be)... http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_15197.htm

My point is: Why are 'we' not being more explicit in our demand? For example, perhaps something like the following...

"Lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions explicitly with the U.S. Treasury, per 12 USC 411 and 95a(2)". Or the simpler...
"Demand in lawful money explicitly with the U.S. Treasury per 12 USC 411".

D555 (and others) have stated that we should not leave anything to chance, especially with these 'people'. So I'm curious why our current demand methods are not more explicit as to NOT wanting anything to do with the so-called "lawful money" of the Fed. My original demand letter to the Treasury back in 2013 states as such, the excerpt here...

"This demand is made for the express purpose of exercising my remedy under the law and to rebut the false and presumptive notion that I voluntarily endorse the private credit of the Federal Reserve. I expressly do not endorse private Federal Reserve credit in any form."

Perhaps I'm missing something here. I'm just surprised that we are not a little more emphatic in our novations.

Michael Joseph
02-19-15, 12:11 AM
The cestui que use is the IRS acting as agent for those who created the Use. The CQT is you acting as Trustee. You received the estate as Grantee and now the IRS wants a return which is basically an accounting of the Estate. Fair enough.

Now the presumption is that you were engaged in false balances. And it is always the duty of the trustee to prove his/her innocence. Don't make this too difficult with the crap about persons and who you are and all this other stuff. Keep it simple.

Now they are presuming that you were about credit systems understanding by signature endorsement the FRS. Which is to say a 3rd party to the Constitution by appointment. Since you received the benefit of the estate you have the obligation to file a return if a good faith request is made upon you or if you have a liability.

But is is ALWAYS presumed you have the liability because 99.999999999 percent of folks use false balances - out of the left side of the boat. Therefore you must prove your innocence. This is easily done by ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS. And your Admin Remedy is achieved by making a written demand on the back of your check - on the signature card - and on any commercial instrument touched. Copies of this record are kept to support your obligations to the CQU.

One will say I AIN'T GOT NO OBLIGATION - wrong friend - you as Trustee are assumed to be guilty. And you will go to jail if you don't rebut that assumption. It does not matter one hill of beans what is given to you or me. I went to a closing one time where I was trustee and we were selling an easement to a local government. The county attorney upon looking at our deed asked concerning 12USC411 - he said we can't pay you cash - I just laughed realizing that he knew what we were up to - I said we have fulfilled the law [ever hear that one in church] by making our demand - what you give us is of little concern. We will slap a demand on that too.

Chew on this bone until you are ready but it really is not that difficult. In fact it is too easy. So easy that most if not all just cannot and will not believe. So what is new under the sun? Nothing.

For you Scripture students who realize what you are looking at:

Heb_10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.


FRN's can't extinguish a debt. Consider and perhaps you will see why it is so important to fish out of the Right side of the boat.


Regards,
MJ

P.S. The solution is between your ears with knowledge and understanding not in some magical words that you utter and place on a document. Know Thyself and what Thou doest and the rest will fall into place. Else you might stand before a Judge he ask "Woman who gave thee those words?" Can you answer to what is lawful to use and what is lawful money? If not, you had best sit on the sideline a bit longer.

NONOFED
02-19-15, 02:04 PM
NONOFED,

Why did you delete your #25 post today at 9:31 am? If anyone does not remember, NONOFED basically stated (NONOFED, correct me if I'm wrong) that if FRN's are also considered "lawful money", then how does the IRS/Fed know that we are demanding NON-Federal-Reserve "lawful money"? In other words, demanding our pay be redeemed by U.S. Treasury's funds outside any private credit being extended by the Fed either to the Treasury or to the suitors making the demand.

Here is an interesting notation about lawful money from the FRS website. Most of us know that the true definition of "lawful money" means the U.S Note/coinage variety, i.e. NON-FRN's. This website appears to stretch the true definition of "lawful money", and other than Milam, I don't know what other court cases state that FRN's are "lawful money" as such (meaning, NOT the true definition that we the suitors know it to be)... http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_15197.htm

My point is: Why are 'we' not being more explicit in our demand? For example, perhaps something like the following...

"Lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions explicitly with the U.S. Treasury, per 12 USC 411 and 95a(2)". Or the simpler...
"Demand in lawful money explicitly with the U.S. Treasury per 12 USC 411".

D555 (and others) have stated that we should not leave anything to chance, especially with these 'people'. So I'm curious why our current demand methods are not more explicit as to NOT wanting anything to do with the so-called "lawful money" of the Fed. My original demand letter to the Treasury back in 2013 states as such, the excerpt here...

"This demand is made for the express purpose of exercising my remedy under the law and to rebut the false and presumptive notion that I voluntarily endorse the private credit of the Federal Reserve. I expressly do not endorse private Federal Reserve credit in any form."

Perhaps I'm missing something here. I'm just surprised that we are not a little more emphatic in our novations.

I removed post because there wasn't a response to my questions and figured that I had most information I needed to proceed. I concluded that FRNs are FRNs regardless as there is no distinction between it, its printed by the FED, its source issuing authority is corrupt, is already in circulation, you cant change its nature, the deed is done. I want nothing to do with FRNs. Coin is considered lawful money, and the process i'm using to redeem is taking all cash and converting it to coin. In so doing I am redeeming for non-debt currency as coin, it has no association with the FED and is of the US Treasury. The banks can keep their FRN notes and I only do business in coin. Thus putting coin in circulation, creating a "demand", and not supporting FRN currency period. The FED has to purchase coin at face value from the treasury and is obligated to put it into circulation. Thus generating revenue for US Treasury and reversing debt incurred from the FED.

Chex
02-19-15, 02:29 PM
The cestui que use is the IRS acting as agent for those who created the Use. The CQT is you acting as Trustee. You received the estate as Grantee and now the IRS wants a return which is basically an accounting of the Estate. Fair enough. Keep it simple. .


Uploaded on Dec 14, 2010


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQ0Y_jjlCTQ

Martha A. Crocker (http://judgepedia.org/Martha_A._Crocker)

judge Crocker New Hampshire CQV Cestui Que Vie Trust (http://www.bing.com/search?q=judge%20crocker%20new%20hampshire%20CQV%2 0Cestui%20Que%20Vie%20Trust%20&qs=n&form=QBRE&pq=judge%20crocker%20new%20hampshire%20cqv%20cestu i%20que%20vie%20trust%20&sc=0-27&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=3ad8ccf1df76446ab24b066edbe2677e)

walter
02-19-15, 06:06 PM
Uploaded on Dec 14, 2010


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQ0Y_jjlCTQ

Martha A. Crocker (http://judgepedia.org/Martha_A._Crocker)

judge Crocker New Hampshire CQV Cestui Que Vie Trust (http://www.bing.com/search?q=judge%20crocker%20new%20hampshire%20CQV%2 0Cestui%20Que%20Vie%20Trust%20&qs=n&form=QBRE&pq=judge%20crocker%20new%20hampshire%20cqv%20cestu i%20que%20vie%20trust%20&sc=0-27&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=3ad8ccf1df76446ab24b066edbe2677e)


A beneficiary can't collapse a trust. No standing to do so.

Chex
02-19-15, 07:08 PM
walter, Trusts are not my forte yet. What I want is a 12USC411 trust that can protect my family that I have in my estate where no judge can overturn my wishes.

All law is Ecclesiastical Law. This law allows “Constructive Trusts” to be created. http://wizardforums.com/Thread-Collapse-the-trusts-Spread-this-like-fire

Most of us are familiar with the idea of a “trust fund”, where an inheritance or insurance settlement is kept “in trust” for a beneficiary. http://www.justice-law.com/Articles/grantor-trusts/

Now this is by far the best way of putting things that I read since David pointed out 12USC411,


The county attorney upon looking at our deed asked concerning 12USC411 - he said we can't pay you cash - I just laughed realizing that he knew what we were up to - I said we have fulfilled the law [ever hear that one in church] by making our demand - what you give us is of little concern. We will slap a demand on that too.

Thank you MJ for that.

itsmymoney
02-20-15, 12:03 AM
I removed post because there wasn't a response to my questions and figured that I had most information I needed to proceed. I concluded that FRNs are FRNs regardless as there is no distinction between it, its printed by the FED, its source issuing authority is corrupt, is already in circulation, you cant change its nature, the deed is done. I want nothing to do with FRNs. Coin is considered lawful money, and the process i'm using to redeem is taking all cash and converting it to coin. In so doing I am redeeming for non-debt currency as coin, it has no association with the FED and is of the US Treasury. The banks can keep their FRN notes and I only do business in coin. Thus putting coin in circulation, creating a "demand", and not supporting FRN currency period. The FED has to purchase coin at face value from the treasury and is obligated to put it into circulation. Thus generating revenue for US Treasury and reversing debt incurred from the FED.

Touche to you, sir or madam! It would appear your method is the 'ultimate demand' in lawful money. However, suitors have been breaking free of the FRS perils come April-time via refunds against said FRN's. No private endorsement, no further obligation. Granted, nothing is foolproof when it comes to these 'people' but this is the best we can do with what is presented. Until 'they' start pushing back, redeeming in virtual U.S. Notes appears to be doing what it is intended to do - deal with the Treasury only, by law.

Regardless, I applaud your method of redeeming lawful money in coinage.

NONOFED
02-20-15, 06:30 AM
However, suitors have been breaking free of the FRS perils come April-time via refunds against said FRN's.

How? Have you?

itsmymoney
02-20-15, 10:09 PM
How? Have you?

Look at all the testimonials on this site, and the methods used therein. Check/deposit-slip novation, public record of your demand. I thought you had already acknowledged this?

shikamaru
02-21-15, 10:32 AM
Could lawful money on one side with private credit on the other be titled, "The Two Ledgers" or "The Two Books" doctrine?

NONOFED
02-21-15, 02:12 PM
I haven't looked into this IRS return thing, or rather, haven't found good standing for it yet, though if it has merit I would like to integrate it with coin, personally. If there is some actual consequence by endorsing a check on the back with 12 U.S. Code § 411 I would use it but I haven't got the "aha!" idea of it. A check transfers money from one place to another, typically from a person to person. Generally my understanding is that endorsement on back of check with signature is to prevent fraud, sets terms of deposit and is most applicable when check is used at different institutions. By putting 12 U.S. Code § 411 on a check and demanding lawful money is like saying I want FRNs which is lawful money and doesn't convert it physically or virtually within a digital account. I take that statute at face value, to redeem for treasury backed currency. FRN is obligation of US Government to Federal Reserve you cannot word this away, coin is obligation of US Government, essentially credit and on good faith. I'm supposed to believe by placing on a check or stamping 12 U.S. Code § 411 on a FRN reverses the liability of that note' existence to the treasury and myself, says who and where? Do you really think the NO AUDIT FED is going to even recognize that? I see using 12 U.S. Code § 411 on a check or note is trying to do what coin already is and does; comes from US treasury, is not produced by FED, reverses government liability to FED. Otherwise seems like its a lazy way of not using coin, trying to have large denomination paper money and trying to keep money in a bank account, but these benefits are not available because the FED is in power by demand "use" of its currency. Why keep money in the thieves house? Desist! I looked around a bit on this forum, I don't get it, most others don't either. All I get is stop participating for the FED, redeem FED notes for treasury coin, don't keep your money in the bank, the end. Use bank to coin a check and redeem FRN for Coin. $1 coins are as good as it gets...for now.

NONOFED
02-21-15, 03:16 PM
FRNs are promissory notes to pay you in US COINs.
In a promissory note there are only two parties – the maker (debtor) and the payee (creditor).
2282
The liability of the maker of a promissory note is primary and absolute.
Banks stored your gold and gave you a slip, there were many slips, not enough gold, and bank runs.
There used to be Gold coins, there is no gold coins, since the banks stole it, and your silver, you now get coins containing mostly copper.
Since that is now the case, take your FRN notes to the bank and see how many coins you can get before the bank runs out of "coins". I bet a bank run.
There used to be the law of redemption on the notes but no longer yet is still law.
2281
Look familiar, 12 U.S. Code § 411 and
Federal Reserve Act Section 16
1. Issuance of Federal Reserve notes; nature of obligation; where redeemable Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are hereby authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.

So they have you using their promissory notes as money! Why are you using them?

Its like a mining operation, slaves do the work unknowingly; you bring it gold, then silver, then copper. then eventually your are no longer needed. Wicked.

shikamaru
02-21-15, 03:52 PM
FRNs are promissory notes to pay you in US COINs.

Denomination differs from redemption, obligation, or warranty.
FRNs can be denominated in US coin.



In a promissory note there are only two parties – the maker (debtor) and the payee (creditor).
The liability of the maker of a promissory note is primary and absolute.

Do note in the word promissory is the word promise.
A promissory note is a promise.

The parties can be the promisor and promissee.

Brian
02-21-15, 07:01 PM
"So they have you using their promissory notes as money! Why are you using them?" EXACTLY!

This is the basis for the 1st income tax of 3 now in effect. The other two being the Corporate income tax and the 16th amendment income tax.

Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 U.S. 533 (1869)
"It cannot be doubted that under the Constitution the power to provide a circulation of coin is given to Congress. And it is settled by the uniform practice of the government and by repeated decisions, that Congress may constitutionally authorize the emission of bills of credit. ... Having thus, in the exercise of undisputed constitutional powers, undertaken to provide a currency for the whole country, it cannot be questioned that Congress may, constitutionally, secure the benefit of it to the people by appropriate legislation. To this end, Congress has denied the quality of legal tender to foreign coins, and has provided by law against the imposition of counterfeit and base coin on the community. To the same end, Congress may restrain (TAX), by suitable enactments, the circulation as money of any notes not issued under its own authority. Without this power, indeed, its attempts to secure a sound and uniform currency for the country must be futile."

The "Springer" income tax finds its authority from the Veazie case. Part of the Springer case came back as "Pollock" which then was sealed off by the 16th amendment. "Springer" was a two part case. Part of it was fine initially. The part dealing with what the Veazie Bank case settled. The other part dealing with income severed (derived) from any property (any source whatever) (think "rent seeking") was decided by "Pollock" and then reversed by the 16th amendment.

The Corporate income tax is on doing business in a via the incorporation privilege.

The primary income tax (Springer) on money not issued directly by congress also has "special" income taxes added onto it. Those add on taxes are Social Security, Medicare, and now Obamacare. These all hinge on the use of money substitutes not directly issued by congress. Hence they can be regulated (taxed) by congress. This is how they gain access to our lives and micromanage it by forcing us to buy shit we don't want (healthcare)......next up will be the affordable housing act or the affordable food act....etc..etc...

itsmymoney
02-21-15, 08:43 PM
FRNs are promissory notes to pay you in US COINs.
In a promissory note there are only two parties – the maker (debtor) and the payee (creditor).
2282
The liability of the maker of a promissory note is primary and absolute.
Banks stored your gold and gave you a slip, there were many slips, not enough gold, and bank runs.
There used to be Gold coins, there is no gold coins, since the banks stole it, and your silver, you now get coins containing mostly copper.
Since that is now the case, take your FRN notes to the bank and see how many coins you can get before the bank runs out of "coins". I bet a bank run.
There used to be the law of redemption on the notes but no longer yet is still law.
2281
Look familiar, 12 U.S. Code § 411 and
Federal Reserve Act Section 16
1. Issuance of Federal Reserve notes; nature of obligation; where redeemable Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are hereby authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.

So they have you using their promissory notes as money! Why are you using them?

Its like a mining operation, slaves do the work unknowingly; you bring it gold, then silver, then copper. then eventually your are no longer needed. Wicked.

So if you disagree with the current non-coinage methods that have been successful here (receiving partial or full refunds based on those methods), then you are implying that the IRS is ignoring these methods at the moment, but could very well pull a 'Pete Hendrickson' mandate to come down on these filings at some future time. As I have said in the past, it would not surprise me if that ever occurred. However, if that were true, I would think it would have started to occur already (IRS/Treasury push-back). Otherwise maybe the volume of RILM is so low that it is not a concern to them at this time. But again, why wouldn't they start hammering these filings regardless? If there is money to steal then they surely will do so. It is a bit of a mystery at this point. Perhaps the current methods are acceptable to the IRS in the overall intent and true spirit of "lawful money", as we know it to be intended (U.S. Notes/coinage).

Something else to ponder relative to your notation, "Look familiar..." i.e. the pseduo-USC-411-language you reference on the actual bill ("THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER...AND IS REDEEMABLE IN LAWFUL MONEY OR AT ANY FEDERAL RESERVE BANK")...

So the note is legal tender and not 'money' until redeemed. Thus we are given a choice according to that note's language, no?

"REDEEMABLE IN LAWFUL MONEY" ...

"AT THE UNITED STATES TREASURY" (their/your 'money' - no further obligation on the redemption directly from the Treasury)

OR

"AT ANY FEDERAL RESERVE BANK" (their 'money' - an obligation on the person redeeming their instrument of private credit; to
pay a 'fee' ('income' tax) for the privilege of using their 'money' via that instrument and thru the Treasury as 'middle man').

So yes, you have an argument/point that "lawful money" could be interpreted as 'FRS money', but we DO have a choice in how we redeem (see above). So far, it appears that the IRS/Treasury are honoring our check/deposit-slip redemption language relative to choice number one above (directly/solely with/from the Treasury). Why would one need to be specific about stating the 12 USC 411 redemption language on the instruments? BECAUSE the default redemption choice is thru the FRS, the notes bearing their stated instrument (FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE) at the top of the bill. Thus, it is the OTHER choice we are making with that specific language ("AT THE UNITED STATES TREASURY"). If the law was written to mean redeeming your pay literally "AT THE UNITED STATES TREASURY" in D.C, then perhaps we should all open accounts at the Treasury if that is even possible. However, I highly doubt that a restriction so severe was the intent when the law was written, to avoid using FRS money.

This is how I am seeing it. Just my observations.

P.S. addendum: this discussion is why I am contemplating using language such as: "Lawful money demanded solely with the U.S. Treasury per 12 USC 411 & full discharge demanded for all transactions per 95a(2)". I'm not sure I can be more specific as to the entity-choices designated in the USC 411 language (corresponding to the choices on the FRN's themselves) without adding "do not endorse private credit of the FRS".

allodial
02-22-15, 02:46 AM
The principles of law and equity underlying the non-taxability with respect to non-endorsement are sound across the spectrum. The principles underlying taxation in most every 'country' in the 'world' is that trees/capital goes untaxed...fruit is taxed. Principal => untaxed. Interest -> taxed.

On a related note: when you draw a check on a bank, its the fact that they accept the check that causes you to owe them ==that is why===> they take money out of your account. The idea of the check being a charge to your private account is misleading, the check is a charge on the bank the drawer (customer) makes --when they honor the check the drawer is indebted to the bank which in turns taps the drawer's account to balance things out. That is why it would be possible to overdraw an account. The honoring of the check isn't against the account but against the bank. The bank charges your account to satisfy your obligation to the bank.

On 'personal checks', the bank's logo tends to be in the 'drawee' position. But on payroll checks, things might be a bit different.

Related:
Re: Notes of Debt Are Not Income (http://freedom-school.com/money/nod.htm)
Notes of Debt Are Not Income (http://jstout4.com/notesofdebt.html)

Chex
02-22-15, 03:39 PM
I haven't looked into this IRS return thing, or rather, haven't found good standing for it yet, though if it has merit I would like to integrate it with coin, personally.

Start here to integrate coins.

Coins
The Board's role in coin operations is more limited
than its role in cash operations,
as the United States Mint is the issuing authority for coins.

Reserve Banks distribute new and circulated coin to depository institutions to meet the public's demand, and take as deposits coin that exceeds the public's needs. http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12626.htm

06/20/14 Tom Jurkowsky, director of the U.S. Mint's Office of Corporate Communications, said via email June 18 that

"the statutory authority for us to produce gold Kennedy half dollars is 31 U.S.C. § 5112(i)(4)(C)."

The United States Code citation reads: "(C) The Secretary may continue to mint and issue coins in accordance with the specifications contained in paragraphs (7), (8), (9), and (10) of subsection (a) and paragraph

(1)(A) of this subsection at the same time the Secretary is minting and issuing other bullion and proof gold coins under this subsection in accordance with such program procedures and coin specifications, designs, varieties, quantities, denominations, and inscriptions as the Secretary, in the Secretary’s discretion, may prescribe from time to time."

31 U.S.C. § 5112 can be found here (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5112).

NONOFED
02-22-15, 10:39 PM
By using Federal Reserve Notes you are devaluing the USD. Coins used to be made of more valuable metals but since the money is devalued so much they replace it with cheaper metals, for instance all coins would become zinc. However if you abandon Federal Reserve Notes and use Coins you will make the dollar more valuable, reverse national debt, and will eventually lead to more valuable metals consisting in the coins, your essentially reversing the process that has been playing out for the past 100 years.

Banks started by storing your valuable coins in the bank, they would give you a note to redeem for your coins, they then figured they can issue many slips and then eventually they didn't have enough coins to pay you and this would constitute a bank run and bankruptcy. Today they still do the same thing, they give Federal Reserve Notes which are to be redeemed in coin. Take your notes to the bank and redeem them for what is yours, stop passing around I Owe You notes. Go to a bank with few tens of thousands, maybe even a few thousand, and redeem for coins, this would capsize many banks branches; they can't support it.

Rally people together and demand what is yours. Make a statement to these banks, publicize it.

Do not keep your money in the bank except within a safe box or in your own safe box at home. Stop using Fed note IOUs and get paid what is yours in coin and use those on a daily basis.

Brian
02-23-15, 01:35 AM
By using Federal Reserve Notes you are devaluing the USD. Coins used to be made of more valuable metals but since the money is devalued so much they replace it with cheaper metals, for instance all coins would become zinc. However if you abandon Federal Reserve Notes and use Coins you will make the dollar more valuable, reverse national debt, and will eventually lead to more valuable metals consisting in the coins, your essentially reversing the process that has been playing out for the past 100 years.

Banks started by storing your valuable coins in the bank, they would give you a note to redeem for your coins, they then figured they can issue many slips and then eventually they didn't have enough coins to pay you and this would constitute a bank run and bankruptcy. Today they still do the same thing, they give Federal Reserve Notes which are to be redeemed in coin. Take your notes to the bank and redeem them for what is yours, stop passing around I Owe You notes. A few tens of thousands, if that, would capsize many banks branches.

Do not keep your money in the bank except within a safe box or in your own safe box at home. Stop using Fed note IOUs and get paid what is yours in coin and use those on a daily basis.

Gather people together and demand what is yours. Make a statement to these banks.

Yes! Exactly! We cannot go back to gold and silver unless we #1 Do what NOFED is saying and walk back the debt in slow and methodical way like he suggests. Just like how we lost gold and silver in coins over 100 years. Gold being the first casualty and silver the next. It took 20 years to kill off gold coin and another 30 years to kill off silver coins. It will take a similar time to reverse the process. OR we can #2: default on the debt and revalue everything and reintroduce gold and silver coin and start the process again as we will have learned nothing! The bankers will play the same game plan again. and again...and again....

NONOFED
02-23-15, 12:58 PM
It took 20 years to kill off gold coin and another 30 years to kill off silver coins. Do you have more detailed information on this specifically? As for the gold, I am under impression gold was really just "stolen" (may it exist) and was not affected by devaluation.

Goldi
02-23-15, 04:49 PM
What is the remedy if the IRS does not honor a lawful money 1040 and instead penalizes you with a $5,000 civil penalty?

Michael Joseph
02-23-15, 06:00 PM
What is the remedy if the IRS does not honor a lawful money 1040 and instead penalizes you with a $5,000 civil penalty?

Prove your innocence - a presumption exists. They think you are Grantee/Trustee with obligations you must set the record straight. Most people just cower in their fear. This is a known response - fear stagnates a man/woman. If the presumption is not defeated the assumption stands. How do I know these things - well dear reader I have myself been down this path.

Therefore do you know what you are doing - or are you just following a leader. Is it your process or are you just following the process of another? It is just a computer recognizing something that looks like what is thought to be frivolous. Again, I have had many conversations with ignorant clerks - but there is no reason to yell or even complain. My paperwork does my talking. I am holding my own court.

A demand for Lawful Money is a CLAIM in which relief may be granted IF someone wants to push this to the next level - then fine - I will issue my counter claim and prosecute upon my counter claim. BUT first I will allow for the matter to be settled in private as the Scriptures require.

The challenge is where most folks wilt like a hot house lily. A $5k fee, in my opinion, nothing more than a proposal to charge the estate. If no response to rebut presumptuous facts in error, then the assumption stands.

Let me say that David had to go down into that valley to face Goliath. All the other men of war who thought themselves to be somewhat were found to be full of hot air. A bunch of big talkers but when the "rubber hit the road" they wilt. You must face you. This is a spiritual battle - you vs. you. When this came to my door - I actually prayed that it would - I had to check my emotion. I asked for it so that I might be refined and the dross in me might be removed from me. Notice again the "men of war" should be used to conflict and yet when Goliath shows up they quake. Has the IRS or the UN become Goliath?

A friendly letter or five might be needed. Perhaps a couple of friendly conversations. Nevertheless the clerks are ignorant and so I treat them like they are 95 year old granny with care and respect. They tried to penalize me with 10k against the estate. I hope this gives you hope.

Shalom,
MJ

Chex
02-23-15, 06:49 PM
Do you have more detailed information on this specifically? As for the gold, I am under impression gold was really just "stolen" (may it exist) and was not affected by devaluation.


2288

From (http://www.silverbearcafe.com/)

The Paper Hangers Thomas Jefferson said, “Commerce and industry cannot be secure when suspended on the Daedalian wings of paper money” (http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/charlessavoie/paperhangers.html)

McDonald was the ONLY member of a 36 member American delegation heading for South Korea for the 30th anniversary of the U.S. Korea Mutual Defense Pact flying on a separate airliner; the State Department played an overriding role in screening and travel arrangements. Pilgrims Society member George P. Shultz, Treasury Secretary, 1972-1974, who played a role in precious metals price suppression, was Secretary of State, 1982-1989 and a Trilateralist . http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?49453-The-Last-Will-and-Testament-of-Cecil-Rhodes-THE-SILVER-STEALERS/page4

Charles Savoie wrote this extremely long essay (77,000+ words), "The Silver Stealers", about the Pilgrims Society and their past attacks on gold and silver money and ownership. He gives a partial list of specific identified Pilgrims Society members involved over the years, acting to suppress gold and silver as money and against the commodity prices of each, and acting against citizen ownership of both. http://gaiancorps.com/study/money-banking/the-silver-stealers

NONOFED
02-23-15, 09:46 PM
2288

From (http://www.silverbearcafe.com/)

The Paper Hangers Thomas Jefferson said, “Commerce and industry cannot be secure when suspended on the Daedalian wings of paper money” (http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/charlessavoie/paperhangers.html)

McDonald was the ONLY member of a 36 member American delegation heading for South Korea for the 30th anniversary of the U.S. Korea Mutual Defense Pact flying on a separate airliner; the State Department played an overriding role in screening and travel arrangements. Pilgrims Society member George P. Shultz, Treasury Secretary, 1972-1974, who played a role in precious metals price suppression, was Secretary of State, 1982-1989 and a Trilateralist . http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?49453-The-Last-Will-and-Testament-of-Cecil-Rhodes-THE-SILVER-STEALERS/page4

Charles Savoie wrote this extremely long essay (77,000+ words), "The Silver Stealers", about the Pilgrims Society and their past attacks on gold and silver money and ownership. He gives a partial list of specific identified Pilgrims Society members involved over the years, acting to suppress gold and silver as money and against the commodity prices of each, and acting against citizen ownership of both. http://gaiancorps.com/study/money-banking/the-silver-stealers

OK, just having those damned notes again screws everything over.

NONOFED
02-23-15, 09:51 PM
Most people I talk with on this matter initially I get these responses; "I don't think about it much", "I don't want to think about it", "Its scary", "I'm afraid". Even without going into much context or just starting a conversation.

Michael Joseph
02-23-15, 09:56 PM
Most people I talk with on this matter initially I get these responses; "I don't think about it much", "I don't want to think about it", "Its scary", "I'm afraid". Even without going into much context or just starting a conversation.

Well they need to figure it out or they might end up Livin in a van down by the river.. (http://www.hulu.com/watch/4183)

itsmymoney
02-24-15, 01:54 PM
What is the remedy if the IRS does not honor a lawful money 1040 and instead penalizes you with a $5,000 civil penalty?


Prove your innocence - a presumption exists. They think you are Grantee/Trustee with obligations you must set the record straight. Most people just cower in their fear. This is a known response - fear stagnates a man/woman. If the presumption is not defeated the assumption stands. How do I know these things - well dear reader I have myself been down this path.

Therefore do you know what you are doing - or are you just following a leader. Is it your process or are you just following the process of another? It is just a computer recognizing something that looks like what is thought to be frivolous. Again, I have had many conversations with ignorant clerks - but there is no reason to yell or even complain. My paperwork does my talking. I am holding my own court.

A demand for Lawful Money is a CLAIM in which relief may be granted IF someone wants to push this to the next level - then fine - I will issue my counter claim and prosecute upon my counter claim. BUT first I will allow for the matter to be settled in private as the Scriptures require.

The challenge is where most folks wilt like a hot house lily. A $5k fee, in my opinion, nothing more than a proposal to charge the estate. If no response to rebut presumptuous facts in error, then the assumption stands.

Let me say that David had to go down into that valley to face Goliath. All the other men of war who thought themselves to be somewhat were found to be full of hot air. A bunch of big talkers but when the "rubber hit the road" they wilt. You must face you. This is a spiritual battle - you vs. you. When this came to my door - I actually prayed that it would - I had to check my emotion. I asked for it so that I might be refined and the dross in me might be removed from me. Notice again the "men of war" should be used to conflict and yet when Goliath shows up they quake. Has the IRS or the UN become Goliath?

A friendly letter or five might be needed. Perhaps a couple of friendly conversations. Nevertheless the clerks are ignorant and so I treat them like they are 95 year old granny with care and respect. They tried to penalize me with 10k against the estate. I hope this gives you hope.

Shalom,
MJ

Johnny Cash has made a salient point that redeeming in lawful money is not listed on the 'frivolous positions' held by the IRS. However, if the IRS has determined that you are simply confirming the 'FRS version' of lawful money by your novation language then perhaps this is why 5K penalties do not seem to be getting exacted on lawful money returns - but the conflict is that the IRS is honoring your TRUE lawful money declaration and non-endorseent of FRS private credit by returning your property.

Chex
02-24-15, 02:07 PM
redeeming in lawful money is not listed on the 'frivolous positions' held by the IRS.

That’s what Gary Rickman did. Stillness in the Storm : Federal Reserve Act Remedy - No Lawful Money, Redemption Account (http://sitsshow.blogspot.com/2013/08/federal-reserve-act-remedy-no-lawful.html)

xparte
02-24-15, 02:35 PM
clerk appoints judge as the NAMED TRUST its YOU that gets ALL the benefits only two ways to Appear in court as a living Man and remedy he seeks,RE PRESENTING A MAN AS A person ONLY THEN ARE en=titled PERSONS SUBJECT TO benefit the judge warrants.NOTHING WITHOUT A CLAIM AND THAT CLERK OR JUDGE CANT SALVAGE A MAN pardon the shouting a laptop with keys appearing to have trust.

Michael Joseph
02-24-15, 06:56 PM
Johnny Cash has made a salient point that redeeming in lawful money is not listed on the 'frivolous positions' held by the IRS. However, if the IRS has determined that you are simply confirming the 'FRS version' of lawful money by your novation language then perhaps this is why 5K penalties do not seem to be getting exacted on lawful money returns - but the conflict is that the IRS is honoring your TRUE lawful money declaration and non-endorseent of FRS private credit by returning your property.

Do you all actually think a man and woman scans those returns? I have learned in my experience that it may be a year before a man or woman actually gets involved. And most times because I had to force the concern to demanding an audience. You want to throw the clerk at the IRS for a spin - tell her you are seeking a sit down meeting to resolve what has clearly been a computer error. NO FEAR.

Know you are on solid ground. Those in Sodom and Gomorrah = life in the city of the Carnal Mind - naturally assume everyone is a thief. And that my friends is a double-edged sword that swings both ways.

BTW: Ownership, Property, Estate and Interest don't mean the same thing. Loose lips sink ships.

Luk 11:54 Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him.

Shalom,
MJ

NONOFED
02-24-15, 10:43 PM
I have seen several different examples of redeeming a check for lawful money. Ones using 411, others saying redeem for lawful money, some for deposit only, some for non-federal reserve notes. Some have signatures, others do not. Some write it out, or stamp it. Some have signatures, others don't. Can we clarify this? Can someone give examples for depositing or "cashing" (i choose coin) "at your bank"(different institution) and also for use at a bank for which the check was drawn?

Michael Joseph
02-24-15, 11:07 PM
I have seen several different examples of redeeming a check for lawful money. Ones using 411, others saying redeem for lawful money, some for deposit only, some for non-federal reserve notes. Some have signatures, others do not. Some write it out, or stamp it. Some have signatures, others don't. Can we clarify this? Can someone give examples for depositing or "cashing" (i choose coin) "at your bank"(different institution) and also for use at a bank for which the check was drawn?

What do you think should be done? I can read and I think it says "they shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand" But that is just me bring crazy. So I write "demand is made for Lawful Money per 12USC411." But again that is what I think and I would not wish to trespass upon your liability. You might think something else. My hand gets tired so sometimes I seek the MAGIC of the GENIE STAMP to place those same word groupings - thank you GENIE STAMP for expressing my thoughts and my intents - you are a good servant - you always do my will. I appreciate your most gracious help.

We each have liability for what we create. I am reminded at once of a wonderful poem. I know I enjoy it. It is fun to explore. (http://www.sofinesjoyfulmoments.com/quotes/Haven%27t_Been_Done.htm)


Faith laughs and slips and giggles
and strong Hallelujahs roll
Narcotics cannot still the tooth
that nibbles at the soul.


So you tell me NONOFED what do you think? Please do share your experience as you start out for unchartered waters. I have my ship - and all my flags are a flying - many a bread crumb has been left - but nobody can do it for you. The Mountain of delight must be climbed alone - but now you must perceive I am no longer talking about money - and its vile lusts thereof.

We await the confirmation from NONOFED land. Until then feel free to study the writings of those brave souls that have struck out for shores unchartered upon their own liability - claiming freedom and willing to sacrifice for her spoils.

I hope you find what you seek. We all get exactly what we deserve in the end - no getting around that one.

Deposit: Demand is made for Lawful Money per 12USC411 by Name: Signature
Withdrawal: Demand is made for Lawful Money per 12USC411 by Name: Signature

"Ma'am, would you mind if I get that in coin? I prefer pennies, please. No you don't have that many pennies, how about nickles, no? How about quarters? No, how about dollar coins? Yes I brought a wheelbarrow - Geez I am not sure how much 2000 coins will weigh. It's okay I have a strong back. Thank you ma'am, I appreciate your willingness to work with me."

My response: "I'll take those in $100 dollar increments - Cash will do. Thank you." But that is just me being crazy again. I can be that way sometimes.

I think I will take upon myself the liability for my choice to use the word groupings that I think are suitable to express my will in writing. I am a creator.

Shalom,
MJ

NONOFED
02-24-15, 11:38 PM
Well i'm going to place a non endorsement on a check and give it a go. I would like to get this 207015932 from Colorado I guess, or what is this document? Someone have a scan? Can I record my own? What is this evidence repository? Just to share though about my demand for coin. All banks I've gone to seem to follow a script. I go to teller and say I would like to get some coin. They are always "OK" and then "What would you like" I say I would like the highest denomination possible, dollar coins or halves. They always are like oh well I don't have any of those or I only have 5 dollar coins or no dollar coin or no halves and every time they are like "now what", one bank only gave me 50$ in quarters. I haven't gone all statues on them yet, though i feel better about it now. But after persisting, they magically come up with the coins. Walked into bank other day slapped down FRNs and they are like No 1$ coins, no halves; im like quarters? and then teller turns around walks 5 feet opens a cupboard and pulls out bag of dollar coins. They really don't want you using coins. hahaha. Ill take my money thank you!

NONOFED
02-25-15, 09:54 PM
When I take a check to the financial institution for which it was drawn, the teller likes to put my Driver License Number in my endorsement area. Does this have some effect on endorsement and shouldn't they be writing in their area instead?

Chex
02-25-15, 10:08 PM
Weird never heard of that, thumb prints maybe? But you can always ask. (http://www.bankingquestions.com/email/askabanker.php)

NONOFED
02-25-15, 10:24 PM
Some responses from BOL for lawful money

http://www.bankersonline.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1695080
http://www.bankersonline.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1930563

comments?

Michael Joseph
02-25-15, 11:22 PM
Some responses from BOL for lawful money

http://www.bankersonline.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1695080
http://www.bankersonline.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1930563

comments?

Well, my friend, I just happen to have direct experience with arrogant fools such as these. Three of them lost their job when the bean counter showed up.

It just goes to show that OJT in no way teaches people how to think. Not true of everyone but most clerks are no better than trained monkeys. Monkey see monkey do.

It is a waste of time to try to teach a 15 dollar per hour clerk $100/hr stuff. This is above their pay grade. They chose banking not me. The only question I have for a clerk is do you have plenty of $100's today?


This is precious. Thanks for sharing. This is like ignorant children making fun of grown ups. Too funny.


"I tell ya son, ya gotta keep your eye on the ball. Get it? Eyeball?" - Foghorn Leghorn

Regards
MJ

NONOFED
02-26-15, 01:57 AM
Well, my friend, I just happen to have direct experience with arrogant fools such as these. Three of them lost their job when the bean counter showed up.

It just goes to show that OJT in no way teaches people how to think. Not true of everyone but most clerks are no better than trained monkeys. Monkey see monkey do.

It is a waste of time to try to teach a 15 dollar per hour clerk $100/hr stuff. This is above their pay grade. They chose banking not me. The only question I have for a clerk is do you have plenty of $100's today?


This is precious. Thanks for sharing. This is like ignorant children making fun of grown ups. Too funny.


"I tell ya son, ya gotta keep your eye on the ball. Get it? Eyeball?" - Foghorn Leghorn

Regards
MJ
Do you have specific information regarding the job losses?

ag maniac
02-26-15, 03:52 PM
When I take a check to the financial institution for which it was drawn....

Just a friendly reminder, as "allodial" has mentioned several times in this particular scenario, you are "presenting a draft for payment"....not cashing a check.


the teller likes to put my Driver License Number in my endorsement area. Does this have some effect on endorsement and shouldn't they be writing in their area instead?

....are you sure about whose number that is?? Be careful what you lay claim to --> surety-ship applies !

NONOFED
02-26-15, 05:17 PM
Just a friendly reminder, as "allodial" has mentioned several times in this particular scenario, you are "presenting a draft for payment"....not cashing a check.



....are you sure about whose number that is?? Be careful what you lay claim to --> surety-ship applies !

so the mere fact i'm who i say i am should suffice.. even with presentment of id.. then i shouldn't say who i am as i shouldn't be who they claim me to be.. then no checks, no payments.. money is wrong.. property is wrong.. possession is wrong. Either way your participator with the money and jobs, the daily business. For what, where does it end.

Michael Joseph
02-26-15, 06:21 PM
Do you have specific information regarding the job losses?

I could tell you anything and you would argue - it is your nature NONOFED. Proof - what's that? Especially in this venue. You seek that which is impossible and thus you shall always be at war - within and without yourself.

Let me be as blunt as I possibly can be - Everything you read at this site is HEARSAY - every bit of it. That was a very hard lesson for me to learn so I will say it like this: Don't trust this man or any other man - do your own work. Hearsay is not admissible in my court. Thus experience replaced hearsay.

We all look forward to hearing from you and your adventures - until then - the proof you seek will elude you. You keep your own court.

What most people do not realize is that the IRS is convening a common law court when they send you all of those notices. In total blindness one will argue - as they always do in their ignorance - but that is exactly what is happening. A scared animal is very predictable and that is what most men are - scared. So it is not to difficult to understand the psychology of the response of most men once they receive a proposal from the IRS or for that matter any member of the so called "system". Fact is most men think all the rides are free and it is a shock to their system when their hand gets smacked - why Johnny police officer back in the 1st grade said "if you are in trouble you can call 911" - and now you are in trouble and it is Johnny that is hunting you.

A measured response is understood and so the "fear programming" is inserted time and again with sustained results. Who can deny these FACTS?

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.


Seems the fearful is number one - for good reason. Something about that Societal Womb. (http://www.hourofthetime.com/1-LF/BAPHfullaudiobook.mp3)



Regards,
MJ

allodial
02-26-15, 09:42 PM
If you are presenting a demand against a bank for payment then their check cashing policies should go out the window. One can threaten to call the State AG, regulators or the like if necessary. They are supposed to honor drafts drawn against them. IF YOU SAY YOU ARE CASHING THE CHECK EVEN THOUGH ITS DRAWN ON THAT VERY SAME BANK THEY WILL LIKELY GO INTO THE MODE OF PROVIDING THE SPECIAL SERVICE OF "CHECK CASHING" AND TREAT YOU LIKE YOU ARE PRESENTING A DRAFT DRAWN ON A FOREIGN BANK (I.E. THEY WILL PLAY AS DUMB AS YOU WANT DUMB TO BE BECAUSE IN THEIR VIEW YOU ASKED FOR IT)! WHEN ONE STOPS WITH THE SELF-INFLICTED WOUNDS THE LESSER THE BLOOD LOSS AND THE GREATER THE STRENGTH.

If you have the maker of a check made out to "{name} or bearer" it can make your life easier (but beware of keeping the check securely because its much like cash).

I recall posting a technique whereby the person issuing the check and verify the signature of the payee by signing under the non-endorsement/endorsement on the back and writing something like "Signature OK". But seems the Googlenetweb has been SANITIZED of all other references to such even textbooks. The point is that it was a method useful in case one lost one's ID.

NONOFED
02-27-15, 11:01 AM
If you are presenting a demand against a bank for payment then their check cashing policies should go out the window. One can threaten to call the State AG, regulators or the like if necessary. They are supposed to honor drafts drawn against them. IF YOU SAY YOU ARE CASHING THE CHECK EVEN THOUGH ITS DRAWN ON THAT VERY SAME BANK THEY WILL LIKELY GO INTO THE MODE OF PROVIDING THE SPECIAL SERVICE OF "CHECK CASHING" AND TREAT YOU LIKE YOU ARE PRESENTING A DRAFT DRAWN ON A FOREIGN BANK (I.E. THEY WILL PLAY AS DUMB AS YOU WANT DUMB TO BE BECAUSE IN THEIR VIEW YOU ASKED FOR IT)! WHEN ONE STOPS WITH THE SELF-INFLICTED WOUNDS THE LESSER THE BLOOD LOSS AND THE GREATER THE STRENGTH.

If you have the maker of a check made out to "{name} or bearer" it can make your life easier (but beware of keeping the check securely because its much like cash).

I recall posting a technique whereby the person issuing the check and verify the signature of the payee by signing under the non-endorsement/endorsement on the back and writing something like "Signature OK". But seems the Googlenetweb has been SANITIZED of all other references to such even textbooks. The point is that it was a method useful in case one lost one's ID.

When I yield a check I say "I would like this paid in coin". Haven't used statues or what not on check yet cause not in position to play games as money is needed and this declaration is apparently a grey area. Recently check was brought to same bank as drawn and I signed. Teller took ID# and wrote in my endorsement area, also took right index fingerprint on face of check. Teller acted like only had quarters so I took them, but seems like they refer to themselves not having larger denomination coins, but i'm thinking next time I will be more specific about what I want and refer to the bank instead of the teller and if there is a problem I will ask for manager.

Also does the following from HJR192 mean I cant ask for specific denominations of coin and even entitled to get coins? Or is it referring to gold and silver? Legalese is, well difficult to understand.

"every provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the obligee a right to require payments in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby, is declared to be against public policy; and no such provision shall be contained in or made with respect to any obligation hereafter incurred."

NONOFED
02-27-15, 08:54 PM
When I yield a check I say "I would like this paid in coin". Haven't used statues or what not on check yet cause not in position to play games as money is needed and this declaration is apparently a grey area. Recently check was brought to same bank as drawn and I signed. Teller took ID# and wrote in my endorsement area, also took right index fingerprint on face of check. Teller acted like only had quarters so I took them, but seems like they refer to themselves not having larger denomination coins, but i'm thinking next time I will be more specific about what I want and refer to the bank instead of the teller and if there is a problem I will ask for manager.

Also does the following from HJR192 mean I cant ask for specific denominations of coin and even entitled to get coins? Or is it referring to gold and silver? Legalese is, well difficult to understand.

"every provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the obligee a right to require payments in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby, is declared to be against public policy; and no such provision shall be contained in or made with respect to any obligation hereafter incurred."

Are they just referring to silver and gold certificates and gold standard clause?

shikamaru
02-27-15, 10:04 PM
Are we aware that house joint resolutions have no force of law?

NONOFED
02-27-15, 10:46 PM
Not aware. How is that?

shikamaru
02-28-15, 02:22 AM
Not aware. How is that?

If you look up the term 'resolution' in Black's Law Dictionary, it states that a resolution is an opinion. It even gives two paragraphs on the distinction between a resolution and a law.

If you are talking about the confiscation of gold in 1933, you are talking about government's power of eminent domain, seizure, and condemnation. I'll have to fish out my write up on this from another forum if interested.

Here is a little bit from this forum with a court case that is tangent to the seizure of gold in 1933, eminent domain (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?494-Campbell-v-Chase-National-Bank-of-New-York-%281933%29&highlight=eminent+domain).

allodial
02-28-15, 02:23 AM
In the United States, such Resolutions could have greater weight than any Opinion of the U.S. Attorney General. It might be that opinions affect the conduct, suggestions or advice of counsel/attorneys to their clients (governmental or otherwise). Laws would effect conduct of the executive. Whereas opinions might effect the conduct or counsel or advice attorneys, bar members or judges might have. For example a District Attorney would throw a case out of the window on the basis of interpretation through the lens of such Resolutions. It might be worth noting that a lot of FBI agents and Federal agents are said to be trained attorneys.

David Merrill
02-28-15, 10:56 AM
You make me wonder how when an opinion has widespread effect, is it not law?

NONOFED
02-28-15, 10:59 AM
All information is good, i'm taking it in and I appreciate it. Thank you all.

shikamaru
02-28-15, 12:00 PM
All information is good, i'm taking it in and I appreciate it. Thank you all.

I will add more later as I sift through.

From Default of the Fourth Liberty Bond (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Bonds#Default_of_the_Fourth_Liberty_Bond):



The legal basis for the refusal of the US Treasury to redeem in gold was House Joint Resolution 192, dated June 5, 1933.[18] This resolution was later held to be unconstitutional and thrown out by the U.S. Supreme Court.[19] Chief Justice Hughes writing for the majority elaborated the precedent that Congress may not legally nullify its own contracts:

We conclude that the Joint Resolution of June 5, 1933, insofar as it attempted to override the obligation created by the bond in suit, went beyond the congressional power.
—Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, Perry v United States, 294 US 330 (1935) (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/294/330/case.html), Page 294 U. S. 354

Due to the significant restrictions placed on gold trading by Roosevelt's reforms, the Court ruled that the bond-holders' loss was unquantifiable, and that to repay them in dollars according to the 1918 standard of value would be an "unjustified enrichment".[17] The ruling therefore had little practical effect.

It seems allodial wasn't just "whistlin' Dixie through a strawhat" with his statement about opinions having weight ....

shikamaru
02-28-15, 12:03 PM
More coming ....



Executive Order 6102 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102)



Executive Order 6102 required all persons to deliver on or before May 1, 1933, all but a small amount of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates owned by them to the Federal Reserve, in exchange for $20.67 (equivalent to $371.10 today[3]) per troy ounce. Under the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917, as amended by the recently passed Emergency Banking Act of March 9, 1933, violation of the order was punishable by fine up to $10,000 (equivalent to $180 thousand today[3]) or up to ten years in prison, or both.

So, the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 was amended by the Emergency Banking Act of March 9, 1933 leading up to EO 6102.
Thus, WAR POWERS were used to condemn and confiscate gold from private owners.

There was a problem with EO 6102 and later its modification EO 6111. It was ruled void by a federal district court.
Allow me to clarify, the EO was ruled void but the power of government to confiscate/seize/condemn property .... ANY PROPERTY ... was upheld.

Only one person was ever prosecuted under the act, a New York attorney by the name of Frederick Barber Campbell.

This court case will clear up many misconceptions most people have concerning this period in American history: Campbell v. Chase National Bank (1933) (http://174.123.24.242/leagle/xmlResult.aspx?page=8&xmldoc=19331615FSupp156_1125.xml&docbase=CSLWAR1-1950-1985&SizeDisp=7)

HJR-192, EO 6102 & 6111, the Emergency Banking Relief Act of 1933 ..... all chicken feed.

The real power concerning the confiscation of gold coin during this period was EMINENT DOMAIN.

EMINENT DOMAIN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain) is a SOVEREIGN PREROGATIVE. You should eventually find this out in your study of Common Law.

I find it interesting that the term eminent domain or dominium eminenss (L. supreme lordship) was taken from a treatise written by the Dutch jurist, Hugo Grotius, concerning the law of war; conquest; and dominion titled De Jure Belli Ac Pacis (On the Law of War and Peace).

I say dominium eminens has its roots in war powers.
It isn't classed as such in the modern era, but it has its roots in the right of the conqueror to take what he pleased without limitation.
Today, the steel glove's appearance is covered in velvet in an attempt to obscure its roots .....

So-called private property is subject to the sovereign's interests at least in the opinion of the courts.
Gold and silver coin issued by the sovereign is considered the sovereign's.

This is one of the reasons I don't recommend anyone new to law study statutes out the chute. One needs to study history, politics, political economy, and sociology before studying law and ultimately statutes.

Law and statutes are absolute garbage without the history and the political exigencies, intentions, and motivations of the law makers.

allodial
02-28-15, 12:14 PM
It seems allodial wasn't just "whistlin' Dixie through a strawhat" with his statement about opinions having weight ....

Not known for talking sh.....smack.


You make me wonder how when an opinion has widespread effect, is it not law?

Bench legislation. The House is a curia or sub-curia (curia as in 'court'). Administrative / omnibus "supersedeas (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supersedeas)" (i.e. stay of proceedings; "equity follows the law"). Off the top related it seems are 'interpleaders' (seems related) [afaik the bond of an interpleader can operate in the manner of supersedeas]. Perpetual forgiveness of debt smells like an interpleader to me (you forgive us we forgive you in perpetuity). HJR 192 should or could still operate as an extraordinary writ (certiorari, mandamus, prohibition all combined) or as a bundle of extraordinary writs. IMHO its an error to think its something for nothing but the accounting (and the metaphysics though 'wild') seems kosher to me especially from the view of a resulting trust or constructive trust arising out of the mistake or misfeasance or errors of a trustee or even out of outright theft.

Re: courts and legislatures


.. the common conception of law in which it is legislatures that primarily create the 1aw and courts that primarily apply it. This conception has eclectic affinities with legal positivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vomiting), and although it may have been a helpful intellectual tool in the past, it now increasingly generates more problems than it solves. For this reason, the author argues, legal philosophers are better off abandoning it.

It might be that what is taught in American high schools (and even law schools) about the distinctions between legislatures and courts comes down to being quite defective (if not outright deceptive). Legislatures and courts have the same roots--at least in the English or Norman traditions.


2306
Bills and Resolutions
A proposed law may be introduced into either chamber of the Congress as a bill or a joint resolution. When a bill or a resolution is introduced, it is ordered to be printed and referred to one or more committees for review. Multiple versions of the same bill are not uncommon since each time a bill is successfully amended, or when it is introduced into the other house after passage in the first, a new version of the bill is required to be printed.

The sequential numbering of bills for each session of the Congress began in the House with the 15th Congress (1817) and in the Senate with the 30th Congress (1847). For these bills, the researcher may consult the bill's number in the index of the appropriate Journal (House or Senate) to determine the ultimate fate of the proposed legislation.

Resolutions are also legislation, but unlike bills they may be limited in effect to the Congress or one of its chambers. Simple resolutions relate to the operations of a single chamber or express the collective opinion of that chamber on public policy issues. Concurrent resolutions relate to the operations of Congress, including both chambers, or express the collective opinion of both chambers on public policy issues. Unlike simple and concurrent resolutions, joint resolutions are considered to have the same effect as bills and require the approval of the President. However, only joint resolutions may be used to propose amendments to the Constitution, and in this instance do not require the approval of the President. Thus, the Bill of Rights was introduced as a joint resolution in the 1st Congress and did not require the approval of the President, while the legislation annexing Texas and granting it statehood was introduced as a joint resolution but did require presidential approval. (Source: Library of Congress (http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwhbsb.html))

This might be best viewed in the light of U.S. Congress having plenary power over its territories (Territorial Government, licensed banks, the Federal Reserved banks, trust companies, clearing houses, financial institutions, investment companies, etc.). Why sales licenses or vendor's licenses are pretty much mandatory in many situations should become obvious with a bit of meditation on the facts.

It might also be worth noting:


All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Related: Shared Authority: Courts and Legislatures in Legal Theory (Law and Practical Reason) (http://www.amazon.com/Shared-Authority-Courts-Legislatures-Practical/dp/1849463891) (Amazon.com link) [That is a newer book though my views are derived primarily from pre-1900s texts.]

freeman beam
02-28-15, 12:59 PM
See the green seal on the right of the note? "The Department of the Treasury 1789"

http://onedollarbill.info/one_$1_dollar_bill.jpg

I made a rubber stamp which I use across the Treasury seal on the right side "Redeemed for:o:o Lawful Money as per 12USC411". It is now, permanently a USN. Nobody takes notice.

BLBereans
02-28-15, 03:07 PM
Eminent Domain:

"... The property of subjects is under the eminent domain of the state, so that the state or he who acts for it may use and even alienate and destroy such property, not only in the case of extreme necessity, in which even private persons have a right over the property of others, but for ends of public utility, to which ends those who founded civil society must be supposed to have intended that private ends should give way. But it is to be added that when this is done the state is bound to make good the loss to those who lose their property."

"When it came time to draft the United States Constitution, differing views on eminent domain were voiced. Thomas Jefferson favored eliminating all remnants of feudalism, and pushed for allodial ownership."

Extreme necessity warrants right over property, however, that phrase must be specifically defined as a real and existential threat of harm or death against a man, woman or child.

Any other "seizure" of property falls under 'war powers' over a conquered nation whereby the end of hostilities or peace has not been officially declared. The continuance of "Presidential Executive Orders" is evidence that the "emergency" or war has not yet ended; said war beginning during the "Lincoln Administration".

allodial
02-28-15, 05:28 PM
Any other "seizure" of property falls under 'war powers' over a conquered nation whereby the end of hostilities or peace has not been officially declared. The continuance of "Presidential Executive Orders" is evidence that the "emergency" or war has not yet ended; said war beginning during the "Lincoln Administration".

I had also in mind to put out there the idea of HJR 192 affecting the Lieber Code or being as an addenda or modifications on the conduct of the soldier in the field.

pumpkin
02-28-15, 07:17 PM
Just wanted to say this about eminent domain. The people are entitled to a trial by jury concerning their property and the states ability to take it. I have read the code of my state concerning eminent domain and it conflicts with the rules of court, and by state law, are therefore without force or effect (this is part of Indiana code itself, the rules of court control the courts, not the legislature). These preceedings are in equity, as it would take equity, not law to force the sale of a property. Equity jurisdiction is pathetically weak. The code on eminent domain even specifically employs the use of 'an appearance notice' (same as a traffic ticket). Appearance tickets DO NOT ESTABLISH IN PERSONAM JURISDICITON. That is only accomplished (per the rules of court) by a summons. The code also narrows the allowable pleadings (just as a traffic ticket does) against the rules of court, which I have already stated, is by code, therefore without force or effect.

allodial
02-28-15, 07:21 PM
Pumpkin:

It might be important to consider the distinction of being lost at sea vs. being on land. The typical State ID and Driver Licenses might have one "underwater". The typical traffic court is most likely not a court of criminal court jurisdiction just might be enforcing contracts in Admiralty (maybe even Navy Regulations on land--think: roads as rivers of tar, VINs as vessel numbers). The right to trial by jury and etc. might not apply in a military tribunal to members of the "Land Merchant Marine".

pumpkin
02-28-15, 07:24 PM
"The typical State ID and Driver Licenses might have you "underwater"."

Maybe. But Prima Facie only. I agree, it most certainly must be considered and rebutted. The driver license makes absolutely no difference concerning a traffic ticket (I know this for a fact-- I did rebut those presumptions however).

BLBereans
02-28-15, 07:58 PM
Just wanted to say this about eminent domain. The people are entitled to a trial by jury concerning their property and the states ability to take it. I have read the code of my state concerning eminent domain and it conflicts with the rules of court, and by state law, are therefore without force or effect (this is part of Indiana code itself, the rules of court control the courts, not the legislature). These preceedings are in equity, as it would take equity, not law to force the sale of a property. Equity jurisdiction is pathetically weak. The code on eminent domain even specifically employs the use of 'an appearance notice' (same as a traffic ticket). Appearance tickets DO NOT ESTABLISH IN PERSONAM JURISDICITON. That is only accomplished (per the rules of court) by a summons. The code also narrows the allowable pleadings (just as a traffic ticket does) against the rules of court, which I have already stated, is by code, therefore without force or effect.

People (man) have a right to trial by jury, however, that must be clearly evoked when one chooses to hold court by witness in the public arena.

U.S. Citizens are entitled to Jury Trials whereby the Jurors are instructed as to the "Law" by the Court Administrator (Judge).

Material possession of physical property by people is quite different than legal possession or Title Interest in property. "The State's ability to take property" should be defined as to whether or not one is referring to Legal Title and its conversion value in commerce or physical/material possession and enjoyment.

If the "war" is still extant by virtue of the continuance of Presidential Executive Orders, then Legal Title has already been "taken"; the Jury Trial is a mere formality, an internal administrative event in order to reveal hostiles on conquered land who refuse to cease making claims against "seized" booty.

pumpkin
02-28-15, 08:18 PM
"People (man) have a right to trial by jury, however, that must be clearly evoked when one chooses to hold court by witness in the public arena.

U.S. Citizens are entitled to Jury Trials whereby the Jurors are instructed as to the "Law" by the Court Administrator (Judge)."

I agree. Best to escape jurisdiction if you are the defendant. That is not too difficult if you have not caused an injury. Everyone should know that in nearly every state, the rules of court rule the court. Do not search for any answers in code, if the answer is in the rules of court. You will only get confused.

And if you do go to court, you had better claim to be one of the people (important to reserve all rights). Juries for equitable causes (nearly all causes can be equitable now) are only advisory. If you go to court and want a jury, you have better demand a common law jury. If you're the plaintiff, sue in dollars in lawful money. Not $. Peaceful possession is a very important component concerning property. Anyone who has a better claim should have made the better claim. When they do, ask for title. They won't have it either. Your possession without title wins over non possession without title. This is also an equitable win, as equity will keep that status quo of you having possession.

allodial
03-01-15, 12:15 AM
Rebutting presumptions especially as pertains to status as an accommodation party.


"The typical State ID and Driver Licenses might have you "underwater"."

Maybe. But Prima Facie only. I agree, it most certainly must be considered and rebutted. The driver license makes absolutely no difference concerning a traffic ticket (I know this for a fact-- I did rebut those presumptions however).

The application for the license might be the contract that ties into the State revenue stream. If the Plaintiff's presumptions remain unrebutted, the driver license might make a big difference. "prima facie" as in gives rise to presumptions based on appearances or on extant defendants' or intervenors' exercise of rights or failure to do so. It might help seeing attorneys as 'evidence police'. That said, HJR 192 might be restatement of the evidence of the intent of the original grantors, et. al. under the Declaration of Independence, etc. -- reducing of their Posterity to chattel/peonage wasn't part of the deal. Also AFAIK, it is against the duties of a conservator of the peace to undermine the prosperity of those he serves--kings, sheriffs and attorneys general have the duty to promote and/or to safeguard prosperity of the posterity it is outside their official duties to do otherwise. Laws against treason, embezzlement, etc. seem to echo such notions.

allodial
03-01-15, 02:29 AM
The legal positivists (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vomiting) maintain that eminent domain is “a peculiarly American branch of law” because of the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, but the roots of this law go back, as does much of American law, to England (Stoebuck 1977, 4, 7–9).2 Indeed, eminent domain reflects the feudal underpinnings of English property law (Paul 1988, 8–9).

Before I forget, eminent domain is to knowledge feudal in nature. Aristotelian, atheists oligarchs might have wet dreams over eminent domain. The relation of lawful money to property rights...deep stuff, eh?

Related:
The Evolution of Eminent Domain by Bruce L. Benson (http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_12_03_04_benson.pdf);
Standing on the Land (John Joseph, Randy Lee, and Richard Anthony) (http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/land.html)

P.S. Seems "legal positivists" like to make s.... things up.

pumpkin
03-01-15, 01:32 PM
If the Plaintiff's presumptions remain unrebutted, the driver license might make a big difference.

This is true, but IMO, the presumption is employment by the state, not a 'contract'. The state can tell its employees what they can and cannot do.

Presumptions are a dangerous thing. They can remain hidden and still control a case. It is best to eliminate any and all possible presumptions that could effect the case. 'No contract' is certainly at the top of the list. Not acting in a representative or within a fiduciary capacity is another. I would also add, not being a debtor. Any of those things could mean equity, and that usually doesn't end well.

allodial
03-03-15, 09:58 PM
This is true, but IMO, the presumption is employment by the state, not a 'contract'. The state can tell its employees what they can and cannot do.

Presumptions are a dangerous thing. They can remain hidden and still control a case. It is best to eliminate any and all possible presumptions that could effect the case. 'No contract' is certainly at the top of the list. Not acting in a representative or within a fiduciary capacity is another. I would also add, not being a debtor. Any of those things could mean equity, and that usually doesn't end well.

Enlistment in the "Land Merchant Marine" by applying ~= contract (terms of enrollment is statute or code). However, if your intent is not to form a contract then there wouldn't be a contract only a presumed one. One can act as a representative without being an accommodation party. Equity isn't necessarily 'bad'. When equity doesn't follow the law, its not equity.

NONOFED
03-04-15, 12:23 AM
What about land patents and imminent domain?

shikamaru
03-04-15, 10:27 PM
What about land patents and imminent domain?

Land patents were dissolved procedurally in Common Law with a writ of scire facias.

Land patents themselves were writs typically issued by a king.
Land patents were also known as letters patent as opposed to letters close.

Chex
03-04-15, 11:32 PM
Congress as passed in 1875 for the distribution of public lands.


2311

Chex
03-17-15, 02:42 PM
FRNs are promissory notes to pay you in US COINs.
In a promissory note there are only two parties – the maker (debtor) and the payee (creditor).
2282
The liability of the maker of a promissory note is primary and absolute.
Banks stored your gold and gave you a slip, there were many slips, not enough gold, and bank runs.
There used to be Gold coins, there is no gold coins, since the banks stole it, and your silver, you now get coins containing mostly copper.
Since that is now the case, take your FRN notes to the bank and see how many coins you can get before the bank runs out of "coins". I bet a bank run.
There used to be the law of redemption on the notes but no longer yet is still law.
2281
Look familiar, 12 U.S. Code § 411 and
Federal Reserve Act Section 16
1. Issuance of Federal Reserve notes; nature of obligation; where redeemable Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are hereby authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.

So they have you using their promissory notes as money! Why are you using them?

Its like a mining operation, slaves do the work unknowingly; you bring it gold, then silver, then copper. then eventually your are no longer needed. Wicked.

Ernest Seyd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Seyd)= "I went to America in the winter of 1872-73, authorized to secure, if I could, the passage of a bill demonetizing silver. It was in the interest of those I represented - the governors of the Bank of England - to have it done. By 1873, gold coins were the only form of coin money."

International Bankers = "On Sept 1st, 1894, we will not renew our loans under any consideration. On Sept 1st we will demand our money. We will foreclose and become mortgagees in possession. We can take two-thirds of the farms west of the Mississippi, and thousands of them east of the Mississippi as well, at our own price... Then the farmers will become tenants as in England..."

Federal Reserve Headquarters in Wash. D.C.
It is not Federal and it has no reserves. The name is a deception designed to give this private bank the appearance of a Government Agency, in fact it is run solely to gain private profit for its select stock holders.

Slickest moves in financial history
On 23rd December 1913 the house of representatives had past the Federal Reserve Act, but it was still having difficulty getting it out of the senate. Most members of congress had gone home for the holidays, but unfortunately the senate had not adjourned, so they were technically still in session. There were only three members still present. Lead by Congressmen Nelson Aldrich (Grandfather of the Rockefellers) On a unanimous consent voice vote the 1913 Federal Reserve Act was passed. No objection was made, because there was no one there to object.

pumpkin
03-17-15, 07:02 PM
I have always wondered, wasn't a quorum required?

Michael Joseph
03-17-15, 08:49 PM
Take a look at this very strange note. Look carefully.

2369

Shalom,
MJ

stoneFree
03-17-15, 09:45 PM
REDEEMABLE IN LAWFUL MONEY OF
THE UNITED STATES AT UNITED STATES
TREASURER OR THE BANK OF ISSUE

Recall that federal tax was due based on the issuance of previous NATIONAL CURRENCY.
see Act of July 13, 1866 and Veazie Bank v. Fenno

Michael Joseph
03-17-15, 10:10 PM
REDEEMABLE IN LAWFUL MONEY OF
UNITED STATES AT UNITED STATES
TREASURER OR THE BANK OF ISSUE

Recall that federal tax was due based on the issuance of previous NATIONAL CURRENCY.
see Act of July 13, 1866 and Veazie Bank v. Fenno

Look just under the National Currency : Secured with United States bonds. Now these bonds were deposited with the Treasurer of The United States of America. So I ask what underwrites the note? Isn't it the bond? And a bond is an obligation for a payment of money.

Money is a legal tender; however, some legal tender is not money. While the FRN and the USN serve the same purpose in utility, the former is only a legal tender; however the latter is both legal tender and lawful money.

As to USE - both are lawful to use as a legal tender within the Law Boundary of the United States.

Agent has always been able to bind principal. Yet these days we see the COMPANY STORE, as bank.

Shalom,
MJ

Chex
03-18-15, 05:43 PM
Look just under the National Currency : Secured with United States bonds. Now these bonds were deposited with the Treasurer of The United States of America. So I ask what underwrites the note? Isn't it the bond? And a bond is an obligation for a payment of money. Money is a legal tender; however, some legal tender is not money. While the FRN and the USN serve the same purpose in utility, the former is only a legal tender; however the latter is both legal tender and lawful money. As to USE - both are lawful to use as a legal tender within the Law Boundary of the United States. Agent has always been able to bind principal. Yet these days we see the COMPANY STORE, as bank. Shalom, MJ


Subsidiary coin? What is the definition of SUBSIDIARY COIN

Congress has specified that a Federal Reserve Bank must hold collateral equal in value to the Federal Reserve notes that the Bank receives. This collateral is chiefly gold certificates and United States securities. This provides backing for the note issue. The idea was that if the Congress dissolved the Federal Reserve System, the United States would take over the notes (liabilities). This would meet the requirements of Section 411, but the government would also take over the assets, which would be of equal value. Federal Reserve notes represent a first lien on all the assets of the Federal Reserve Banks, and on the collateral specifically held against them. http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx

DEFINITION of 'Bond'
A bond is a debt investment in which an investor loans money to an entity (typically corporate or governmental) which borrows the funds for a defined period of time at a variable or fixed interest rate. Bonds are used by companies, municipalities, states and sovereign governments to raise money and finance a variety of projects and activities. Owners of bonds are debtholders, or creditors, of the issuer. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bond.asp

DEFINITION of 'Creditor'
An entity ([I]person or institution) that extends credit by giving another entity permission to borrow money if it is paid back at a later date. Creditors can be classified as either "personal" or "real." Those people who loan money to friends or family are personal creditors. Real creditors (i.e. a bank or finance company) have legal contracts with the borrower granting the lender the right to claim any of the debtor's real assets (e.g. real estate or car) if he or she fails to pay back the loan. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/creditor.asp

In finance, a bond is an instrument of indebtedness of the bond issuer to the holders. It is a debt security, under which the issuer owes the holders a debt and, Bonds and stocks are both securities, but the major difference between the two is that (capital (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capital.asp)) stockholders have an equity stake in the company (i.e. they are investors), whereas bondholders have a creditor stake in the company (i.e. they are lenders). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_(finance)

A promissory note is a legal instrument (more particularly, a financial instrument), in which one party (the maker or issuer) promises in writing to pay a determinate sum of money to the other (the payee), either at a fixed or determinable future time or on demand of the payee, under specific terms. If the promissory note is unconditional and readily salable, it is called a negotiable instrument.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promissory_note

An Act to Provide a National Currency, Secured by a Pledge of United States Bonds, and to Provide for the Circulation and Redemption Thereof. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/scribd/?title_id=1113&filepath=/docs/historical/congressional/national-bank-act-1864.pdf#scribd-open

Full Title: 1878 TREAS DEPT Receipt for Bonds to Secure Redemption of Circulating Notes
A receipt dated 1878 sent by The Treasury Department, Office of Comptroller of The Currency for $100,000 United States 4 % Bonds held by The Treasurer to secure the redemption of circulating notes. This is some of the interesting correspondence between The Treasury Department and a National Bank regarding the circulation, redemption and destruction of their National Bank notes. In this case The Northfield National Bank in Northfield, Vermont. http://coins.bidstart.com/1878-TREAS-DEPT-Receipt-for-Bonds-to-Secure-Redemption-of-/55923636/a.html

In 1870, when the return to specie payments finally seemed to have been postponed indefinitely, an act was passed authorizing the establishment of gold banks, issuing notes redeemable in gold coin, and secured by the deposit of "United States bonds bearing interest payable in gold" with the treasurer of the United States.

The notes were not to exceed eighty per cent of the value of the bonds, and were not to be subject to those provisions of law which then limited the aggregate circulation of bank-notes.

Several gold banks were organized, chiefly in the Pacific States; but after the return to specie payments, the distinction between the gold banks and others ceasing to be of importance, provision was made by the act of 1880 for their conversion into national banks of the usual type, and there are now no national gold banks in existence. 21 Statutes at Large, 66. Comptroller's Report, 1890, P. 53. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0548584117?ie=UTF8&tag=theultimatlearna&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0548584117

A system of banks thus guarded and under the charge of the government itself could hardly be treated by Congress as unworthy of being entrusted with the public funds, as the State banks had been under the Independent Treasury Act of 1846, and provision was therefore made for designating banks as depositories of public money when occasion should require, and for their employment as financial agents of the government, upon their giving satisfactory security, by the deposit of United States bonds and otherwise, for the faithful discharge of these functions.

The framers of the measure no doubt looked forward at one time to a more consolidated system of banks (http://1040relief.blogspot.com/p/federal-reserve-act.html), and to a closer intimacy with the government than was in fact established; but their action as it stands marks an extraordinary change of policy, made under the pressure of war, by a government which, hardly more than two years before, trusted no agency whatever with the custody of its funds, recognized no medium of payment except specie, and carefully disclaimed all connection with, or responsibility for, any possible system of banks.

These provisions have secured for the notes a uniform value and give to those of every bank an unimpeded circulation in every part of the Union.

If, indeed, the law, as in the act of 1863, still made no further provision for redemption than to require every bank to redeem its own notes when presented at its own counter, the return of notes for payment would rarely take place and their substantial convertibility would be nearly destroyed. (Run on the FED)

But the law of 1864 made provision for redemption by all banks at agencies in the principal cities, and this arrangement continued in force until June, 1874, when the present system was adopted, making the Treasury of the United States the sole redeeming agency for all of the national banks, and requiring every bank to maintain in the Treasury, to be used in redemption of its notes, a reserve equal to five per cent of its circulation.
The chief effect of this system of redemption, except in the case of insolvent banks or of banks reducing their issues, has been the easy removal from circulation of notes which are worn, soiled, or otherwise unfit for use.

For the establishment of a system which should test effectively and continuously the power of every bank to convert its notes into specie on demand, it would probably be necessary to require that no national bank should pay out any notes except its own.

For the general purpose however of maintaining the convertibility of the aggregate note-issue of the banks, the present arrangement is well devised.

NONOFED
04-03-15, 12:57 AM
Been continuing to convert FED NOTES to U.S Coin. Recently exchanged for $4,000 worth of coins. Got 4 cases of Halves and 2 bags of IKES(about 200 pounds). Note: went to a bank to "coin" a check at which it was drawn, teller proceeded to pay in notes, I told wanted payed in coins, I wanted dollar coins, shes like 'I' only got 30$ in those and asked if it was ok. I responded NO, 'she' told me that it would have to take a week for 'her' to get more of them. I'm "So your telling me 'this bank' has no dollar coins?" and im can you find me which branch can handle my request, shes "Hold on a moment" she walks two teller windows down and then comes back and says that the other teller can handle my entire request, and I walked out with what I wanted.

David Merrill
04-03-15, 04:23 AM
As though each teller is a separate bank?

NONOFED
04-03-15, 05:46 AM
As though each teller is a separate bank?

Con artists, they all play this game referring to themselves, seen it enough to be wise of it. They use "I" and "I'M", all of them do it, this is done on purpose, not like when I say something or Im referring to as myself. Its some designation for limitation they use on purpose. Then I started referring to the "bank" instead. Press them enough and they always come up with it some how. Its like policy to play me when dealing coin.

ag maniac
04-03-15, 04:13 PM
Been continuing to convert FED NOTES to U.S Coin. Recently exchanged for $4,000 worth of coins. Got 4 cases of Halves and 2 bags of IKES(about 200 pounds). Note: went to a bank to "coin" a check at which it was drawn, teller proceeded to pay in notes, I told wanted payed in coins, I wanted dollar coins, shes like 'I' only got 30$ in those and asked if it was ok. I responded NO, 'she' told me that it would have to take a week for 'her' to get more of them. I'm "So your telling me 'this bank' has no dollar coins?" and im can you find me which branch can handle my request, shes "Hold on a moment" she walks two teller windows down and then comes back and says that the other teller can handle my entire request, and I walked out with what I wanted.


Find any 40% [halves] or 90% in that cache [/pun] ?? ....there's a community available (http://www.realcent.org/)for that [ad]venture

NONOFED
04-04-15, 03:30 AM
Find any 40% [halves] or 90% in that cache [/pun] ?? ....there's a community available (http://www.realcent.org/)for that [ad]venture

Didn't entirely go through it, looks clean mostly, found a 90% ike though.

ag maniac
04-04-15, 01:45 PM
I am not aware any 90% Ikes were ever struck by the San Fran mint --> 40% definitely

See here (http://blog.gainesvillecoins.com/2013/09/05/tricky-ikes-the-story-of-the-silver-eisenhower-dollar/) and here (http://coinauctionshelp.com/HowToTellTheDifferenceBetweenCladVs.SilverCoins.ht ml).


Nonetheless, you might need a bit of help tidying up all those loose large coins, so here's a link to the proper sized wrappers (http://www.wizardcoinsupply.com/flat-coin-wrappers/).

Happy silver hunting & lets us know how it goes spending them back into circulation.

As an aside, when receiving change, ask for it in nickels....there's usually plenty in the merchants cash drawers. The metal composition value (http://www.coinflation.com/coin_calculators.html) recently dipped below face value of the nickel, but was as high as 9.5 cents a few years ago.

NONOFED
04-05-15, 04:21 AM
I am not aware any 90% Ikes were ever struck by the San Fran mint --> 40% definitely

See here (http://blog.gainesvillecoins.com/2013/09/05/tricky-ikes-the-story-of-the-silver-eisenhower-dollar/) and here (http://coinauctionshelp.com/HowToTellTheDifferenceBetweenCladVs.SilverCoins.ht ml).


Nonetheless, you might need a bit of help tidying up all those loose large coins, so here's a link to the proper sized wrappers (http://www.wizardcoinsupply.com/flat-coin-wrappers/).

Happy silver hunting & lets us know how it goes spending them back into circulation.

As an aside, when receiving change, ask for it in nickels....there's usually plenty in the merchants cash drawers. The metal composition value (http://www.coinflation.com/coin_calculators.html) recently dipped below face value of the nickel, but was as high as 9.5 cents a few years ago.

It seems odd, there is no mint mark on it and its not a blue or a brown its a 71' and looks like a regular ike(front and back) but i'm told its definitely silver. Placed order for wrappers on Ebay choose closest possible seller but its been almost 3 weeks, had to open case, bad choice i guess.

Been using coin to pay for everything for about two months now with no issues. Dont keep anything in the bank, my savings is in coins, and in my possession. Not going to pursue Presidentials, Susan's or Sacajawea's since I come to realize im just getting cheated on metal content but would still prefer to FED notes any day which can stay with the bank. If I owe banks money, I give them whatever fed notes I have and try to limit giving them coin. Whereas if im dealing with a bank(checks, incoming funds) I only extract coin from a it. Interesting that dimes, quarters, halves and IKEs are about equal weight to dollar amount. The smaller dollar coins are a rip off though.

Brian
04-05-15, 07:16 AM
It seems odd, there is no mint mark on it and its not a blue or a brown its a 71' and looks like a regular ike(front and back) but i'm told its definitely silver. Placed order for wrappers on Ebay choose closest possible seller but its been almost 3 weeks, had to open case, bad choice i guess.

Been using coin to pay for everything for about two months now with no issues. Dont keep anything in the bank, my savings is in coins, and in my possession. Not going to pursue Presidentials, Susan's or Sacajawea's since I come to realize im just getting cheated on metal content but would still prefer to FED notes any day which can stay with the bank. If I owe banks money, I give them whatever fed notes I have and try to limit giving them coin. Whereas if im dealing with a bank(checks, incoming funds) I only extract coin from a it. Interesting that dimes, quarters, halves and IKEs are about equal weight to dollar amount. The smaller dollar coins are a rip off though.

Coin is coin in my view. Ike's can be hard to get and I'll take golden's or SBA's in place of Ikes. The whole idea of this is to get dollars issued directly from the treasury(mint) and NOT a bank(fed). The best bang for your buck in metal content is the nickle, Cu pennies are actually better but require a lot of sorting and returns. Whereas all the nickles are the same except the silver ones. http://www.coinflation.com/

Mark Allan
04-08-15, 02:45 AM
Coin is coin in my view. Ike's can be hard to get and I'll take golden's or SBA's in place of Ikes. The whole idea of this is to get dollars issued directly from the treasury(mint) and NOT a bank(fed). The best bang for your buck in metal content is the nickle, Cu pennies are actually better but require a lot of sorting and returns. Whereas all the nickles are the same except the silver ones. http://www.coinflation.com/

It's weird, sort of irritating, whenever I go & convert a 20 FRN for 10 rolls of nickels, they, (tellers) always
ask me what I want them for? And, I often struggle and have "bite my tongue" before
I inappropriately chastise, "What business is it of yours...?"
So, my more reasonable reply, is typically made with eyebrows raised, "Why do you ask?"

ag maniac
04-08-15, 03:36 AM
It's weird, sort of irritating, whenever I go & convert a 20 FRN for 10 rolls of nickels, they, (tellers) always
ask me what I want them for? And, I often struggle and have "bite my tongue" before
I inappropriately chastise, "What business is it of yours...?"
So, my more reasonable reply, is typically made with eyebrows raised, "Why do you ask?"

A very genteel reply.....ball's in their court now !!


http://www.animateit.net/data/media/201/spock.gif

NONOFED
04-13-15, 07:31 AM
It's weird, sort of irritating, whenever I go & convert a 20 FRN for 10 rolls of nickels, they, (tellers) always
ask me what I want them for? And, I often struggle and have "bite my tongue" before
I inappropriately chastise, "What business is it of yours...?"
So, my more reasonable reply, is typically made with eyebrows raised, "Why do you ask?"

I told them that I prefer to use coin for my daily transactions, which is true. But they are trying to classify you, trying to determine if your a collector or what not.

NONOFED
04-13-15, 07:33 AM
Coin is coin in my view. Ike's can be hard to get and I'll take golden's or SBA's in place of Ikes. The whole idea of this is to get dollars issued directly from the treasury(mint) and NOT a bank(fed). The best bang for your buck in metal content is the nickle, Cu pennies are actually better but require a lot of sorting and returns. Whereas all the nickles are the same except the silver ones. http://www.coinflation.com/

Like I said, I would still prefer to FED Notes any day. Also the main idea is to remove the FED, turn in your promissory notes and redeem for coin from the treasury, supporting the FED by using its NOTES in public is not okay. You can place order with banks for coin, you have to purchase in larger amounts but comes from FEDServices along with the banks order of coins and notes. Leave the notes with the banks and only extract coins. I would suggest stockpiling a large amount of coin, then move to storing precious metals. Turn that paper garbage into something worthwhile. Stop supporting the FED by keeping your money in the bank and stop circulating their notes.

Keeping your money in the bank typically allows the bank to consider those funds as theirs and they can use that amount to lend to unwitting people, consequently making them debt slaves, this is one of the reasons not to keep your money in the bank.

Furthermore avoid large corporations, support the small people in your community, whether its food, gas, or other goods. Go to farmers markets, choose to pay your neighbors instead of large conglomerates that extract and funnel your money away, keep it local support your community and don't poison them with empty pieces of paper. During my daily transactions i find that most people purchase the IKEs and halves out of the registers, sometimes they exchange more notes, i then redeem those notes for more coin. Rather them have the coins then the notes, i'll deal with the conversion.


2513

itsmymoney
04-15-15, 09:54 PM
Wanted to report that I received my lawful money demand refund for tax year 2014. The demand was a LM deduction (net pay only) via 1040 return. It was processed in less than 4 weeks, which is pretty amazing. Yes, I will need to wait the 3 years for the ASED to expire and longer for any other nefarious things these so-called 'people' can or might drum up, but for now I have been 'redeemed'.

Specifically thanking David Merrill, Doug555, johnny, ag maniac, among others.

Thank you and God Bless.

Sincerely,

imm

ag maniac
04-16-15, 12:27 AM
Gee, I had to go search out "ASED" (https://www.bragertaxlaw.com/what-is-the-ased.html).

I trust you are demanding lawful money on all transactions for TY2015 & that you will receive all of the FITW next spring.

Feelin' good, eh? Then spread the news to family & friends !!

As an aside, during the past month or so, every time on my way past the checkout @ Chinamart, I'll pass the Jackson-Hewitt booth set up....& I think to myself "Gee, I'll bet they don't know about Lawful Money"

itsmymoney
04-16-15, 12:57 AM
I trust you are demanding lawful money on all transactions for TY2015 & that you will receive all of the FITW next spring.

ag maniac,

You are correct. Kudos to Doug555 for demonstrating the 'all transactions' method. Started that method with first paycheck this year.

I have mentioned lawful money to many. An old friend of mine is interested but wanted me to be the 'test pilot'. So I'll give him the news soon.

Jackson-Hewitt - yeah, and H&R Block, etc. I wonder if they actually do know but don't want to put their name on it. Does not matter, right? We know. ;)

Thanks again.
imm

doug555
04-17-15, 10:24 PM
ag maniac,

You are correct. Kudos to Doug555 for demonstrating the 'all transactions' method. Started that method with first paycheck this year.

I have mentioned lawful money to many. An old friend of mine is interested but wanted me to be the 'test pilot'. So I'll give him the news soon.

Jackson-Hewitt - yeah, and H&R Block, etc. I wonder if they actually do know but don't want to put their name on it. Does not matter, right? We know. ;)

Thanks again.
imm

Great job imm!

The Lawful Money Demand, just like the Operation of Law, is TRANSACTION-BASED (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?870-Supporting-Schedule-for-the-1040-Form&p=15713&viewfull=1#post15713)!

So what exactly are "ALL" of the LMD Transactions?

1. Gross Income - Primary transaction (including both W-2 and 1099 payments) NOTE: 1099 will require one to pay SSA contributions, as is appropriate.

2. Withholdings - Secondary, Derivative transactions

3. Net Pay - Resulting transaction


Looking at it this way, one can see why just demanding LM for only the "Net Pay" transaction is not consistent, logical, nor defensible.

I am glad you started 2015 correctly!

itsmymoney
04-18-15, 03:20 AM
Great job imm!

The Lawful Money Demand, just like the Operation of Law, is TRANSACTION-BASED (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?870-Supporting-Schedule-for-the-1040-Form&p=15713&viewfull=1#post15713)!

So what exactly are "ALL" of the LMD Transactions?

1. Gross Income - Primary transaction (including both W-2 and 1099 payments) NOTE: 1099 will require one to pay SSA contributions, as is appropriate.

2. Withholdings - Secondary, Derivative transactions

3. Net Pay - Resulting transaction


Looking at it this way, one can see why just demanding LM for only the "Net Pay" transaction is not consistent, logical, nor defensible.

I am glad you started 2015 correctly!


Thank you for the lesson plan refresher.

However, awhile back you seemed to have agreed that only taking a LM Net Pay deduction was being honored - as is the case with my 2014 demand. Now perhaps because I pointed IRS to my court-recorded original demand and the actual LM evidence (checks/slips) then perhaps I will not get any backlash. I am under the belief that taking the net pay deduction is defensible in that one is waiving the other transactions due to them being somewhat 'unavailable to you' in the form of electronic recording of gross pay and deductions. I recognize ALL of them may be demanded as you have shown, however I still feel utilizing net-pay-only is viable. Hopefully I will never have to defend that tact in a court of law.

Suffice to say I will be requesting/demanding all FITW for tax year 2015.

imm

doug555
04-18-15, 04:58 PM
Thank you for the lesson plan refresher.

However, awhile back you seemed to have agreed that only taking a LM Net Pay deduction was being honored - as is the case with my 2014 demand. Now perhaps because I pointed IRS to my court-recorded original demand and the actual LM evidence (checks/slips) then perhaps I will not get any backlash. I am under the belief that taking the net pay deduction is defensible in that one is waiving the other transactions due to them being somewhat 'unavailable to you' in the form of electronic recording of gross pay and deductions. I recognize ALL of them may be demanded as you have shown, however I still feel utilizing net-pay-only is viable. Hopefully I will never have to defend that tact in a court of law.

Suffice to say I will be requesting/demanding all FITW for tax year 2015.

imm

Yes, there is one effective defense -- MIS-TAKE (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mistake_of_fact).

The mistake (http://defensewiki.ibj.org/index.php/Mistake_of_Law) being that you did not understand LMD was TRANSACTION-BASED (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?870-Supporting-Schedule-for-the-1040-Form&p=15713&viewfull=1#post15713)!

So you do have a defense for past conduct. But now that you know the facts, you cannot claim the Mistake defense from this point on.

itsmymoney
04-18-15, 05:25 PM
Yes, there is one effective defense -- MIS-TAKE (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mistake_of_fact).

The mistake (http://defensewiki.ibj.org/index.php/Mistake_of_Law) being that you did not understand LMD was TRANSACTION-BASED (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?870-Supporting-Schedule-for-the-1040-Form&p=15713&viewfull=1#post15713)!



So you do have a defense for past conduct. But now that you know the facts, you cannot claim the Mistake defense from this point on.

Thank you for this insight. I do not plan to take any 'net pay' deduction going forward since I have court-recorded a demand for all transactions. However, I discussed (via emails) LM with someone fighting for others who are fighting the IRS in non-lawful-money situations. He is well versed in law, but this person did not even know about LM. However, he stated that as long as you earn "wages" (statutory via the coercion of signing a W-4) AND you state a 0-FITW liability that they will 'most certainly come after you' in the future. Well, my 'net pay' deduction did not render a 0-FITW liability but greatly reduced it. With 'all transactions', there is now a 0-FITW liability. I still believe the 1040 LM demand is a slippery slope but I have stepped into the fire if there is one to be lit.

Doug, I have a question for you specifically. You have received your full demand for what, 3 years now? Would you mind disclosing whether those refunds were based on a 1099 or 1040? Other?

A general question: Has anyone received a refund from a 1040 LM return for at least 3 years running?

These are important questions, with many potential consequences at stake if the beast decides as such. This is why I ask.

Thank you.
imm

doug555
04-18-15, 08:59 PM
Thank you for this insight. I do not plan to take any 'net pay' deduction going forward since I have court-recorded a demand for all transactions. However, I discussed (via emails) LM with someone fighting for others who are fighting the IRS in non-lawful-money situations. He is well versed in law, but this person did not even know about LM. However, he stated that as long as you earn "wages" (statutory via the coercion of signing a W-4) AND you state a 0-FITW liability that they will 'most certainly come after you' in the future. Well, my 'net pay' deduction did not render a 0-FITW liability but greatly reduced it. With 'all transactions', there is now a 0-FITW liability. I still believe the 1040 LM demand is a slippery slope but I have stepped into the fire if there is one to be lit.

Doug, I have a question for you specifically. You have received your full demand for what, 3 years now? Would you mind disclosing whether those refunds were based on a 1099 or 1040? Other?

A general question: Has anyone received a refund from a 1040 LM return for at least 3 years running?

These are important questions, with many potential consequences at stake if the beast decides as such. This is why I ask.

Thank you.
imm

VERY good questions... I have received refunds for over 3 years now, Federal and 4 different States, due to my living on land in one state, working on land in another state and being paid by yet another state, due to W-2 claims by third parties.

Now, what do you suppose that kind of evidence track record avails us as a defense?

Look up "estoppel in pais (http://definitions.uslegal.com/e/estoppel-in-pais/)" and "estoppel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel)" and equitable estoppel (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Equitable+Estoppel)".

Now, the bigger question is:

WHY is the Matrix honoring LMD's?

It is more than just 12 USC 411.

That statute was a result of HJR 192 of June 5, 1933.

And HJR 192 was a result of McFadden's charges of theft and treason against FRS and Treasury Officials, on May 23, 1933.

But what prompted the exact wording of HJR 192?

Why did they have to provide a "remedy" for the people of the Birthright?

I believe it is directly connected with creating probable cause to trigger Holyday 2 -- the Miraculous Deliverance of God's People so that they may gather together and fulfill Holyday 3.

If the equitable title to the Birthright is stolen, then God would intervene just as He did in Egypt. Notice the issue was about title then too: "Let my people go!"

The exact Divine line in the sand is in Mt 22:21 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/nas/matthew/22-21.html)


21 They said to Him, "Caesar's." Then He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."


This is WHY we must demand lawful money. We must demand our birthright.

If they ever stop honoring LMDs, then they know what will happen next, even if we don't!

itsmymoney
04-18-15, 10:13 PM
VERY good questions... I have received refunds for over 3 years now, Federal and 4 different States, due to my living on land in one state, working on land in another state and being paid by yet another state, due to W-2 claims by third parties.

Now, what do you suppose that kind of evidence track record avails us as a defense?

Look up "estoppel in pais (http://definitions.uslegal.com/e/estoppel-in-pais/)" and "estoppel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel)" and equitable estoppel (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Equitable+Estoppel)".

Now, the bigger question is:

WHY is the Matrix honoring LMD's?

It is more than just 12 USC 411.

That statute was a result of HJR 192 of June 5, 1933.

And HJR 192 was a result of McFadden's charges of theft and treason against FRS and Treasury Officials, on May 23, 1933.

But what prompted the exact wording of HJR 192?

Why did they have to provide a "remedy" for the people of the Birthright?

I believe it is directly connected with creating probable cause to trigger Holyday 2 -- the Miraculous Deliverance of God's People so that they may gather together and fulfill Holyday 3.

The exact Divine line in the sand is in Mt 22:21 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/nas/matthew/22-21.html)

D555, I briefly researched all that you have provided here (I was aware of the term 'estoppel' but not 'in pais' and 'equitable' - it is lawyer-wordy but I get the basic drift). Including HJR-192 of which I would like to comment via these findings (from http://www.educationcenter2000.com/legal/HJR_192.html)...

HJR-192 automatically extended the privilege to renege on debts to every person using the Federal Reserve banking system; however, never forget that when you operate on a privilege, you have to respect the ruler of the giver of that privilege. Furthermore, in the case of Great Falls Mfg. Co. v. Attorney General, 124 U.S. 581, the court said: "The court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits."

So I believe the above is stating that I can legally opt-out of using the FRS if properly executed, correct? i.e. 'HJR-192 automatically extended the privilege to renege on debts to every person using the FRS'.

Thus, if you avail yourself of any benefits of the public credit system you waive the right to challenge the validity of any statute pertaining to, and conferring "benefits" of this system on the basis of constitutionality.

BUT, if you 'avail yourself' (use, profit from, get an advantage from) of this system, then you are not protected from the privilege of using it (the FRS).

Quite telling. Apparently the opt-out vehicle (statute) is USC 411 (don't want to use FRS system) and also 95(a)(2) - (you can't hold me to the 'debt' and must 'discharge the obligation' that I WOULD have had if I chose to 'avail yourself of any benefits of the public credit system'). Please clarify the above if I am misunderstanding the legalities or operations thereof.

Forgive me here because you weren't completely clear (perhaps by design which I respect your right to do so), but I have to presume that you DID file at least one 1040 for one of those years due to your 'W-2 claims by third parties' comment. Unless of course you were able to circumvent a 1040 despite the 'W-2 claims'. I'm not asking for full disclosure from you but it would be nice to hear from you specifically that 'yes, at least one of those years I filed a 1040'. The 'LM 1040 return for 3-years running' question is relative to the 3-year ASED for assessing a deficiency or additional taxes. Another observation...

There appears to be a conflict between the legal standing by the Supreme Court that "wages" (statutory kind, albeit coerced) is "income", yet the lawful money demand on the 1040 offsets the "wages". The only thing I can think of where these two are tied together regarding taxation is that "wages" is based on "Federal privilege" and "income" is a gain or profit from certain activities and privileges and "Federal income" in this instance (income tax) would seem to be the 'gain and privilege' of using the private currency of the FRS as funneled through the U.S. Treasury. In that regard, anyone using FRN's incurs an excise tax (it can't be a direct tax or it would be Un-Constitutional) of which is a debt obligation.

Now I have mentioned this before on this site: I found it illuminating that you/others here have stated that using FRN's incurs a USAGE FEE. Well, in fact, the 6702 penalties (frivolous return/position) in my IMF from 2008 are listed as a USER FEE. Many of us at Codebusters uncovered this and could not make the connection between what is posted in the official IRS records and how that applied to a 0-wages 1040 return. It now seems to make sense that the 6702 penalty is actually a VALID one as posted. They doctor their records all the time but in this instance it may be legit, i.e. it IS frivolous to say that I had no "wages" because the "wages" were received as FRN's and NOT lawful money. It is still deceptive and non-disclosed, but it would appear to be legit in that sense.

The "wages" thing still bothers me a bit (i.e. 'trumping' and superseding a LM deduction) but when looked upon as I have explained above (if I'm interpreting the "privilege" aspect correctly relative to "wages") then I can see where IRS will kindly move along with 'nothing to see here'.

Thanks for the info you provided, and I'd appreciate a comment on all of the above if you so please.
imm















Pleas

doug555
04-19-15, 12:23 AM
1040s were filed for the past 4 consecutive years, as I state on http://1040relief.blogspot.com/ (http://1040relief.blogspot.com/)

IMO, ALL IRC terms apply only if FRNs are/were being used.

So, do NOT use any of those terms relating to LMD transactions, and derivatives thereof.

itsmymoney
04-19-15, 01:39 AM
1040s were filed for the past 4 consecutive years, as I state on http://1040relief.blogspot.com/ (http://1040relief.blogspot.com/)

IMO, ALL IRC terms apply only if FRNs are/were being used.

So, do NOT use any of those terms relating to LMD transactions, and derivatives thereof.

I have read your 1040-blogspot many times before but did not refer to it prior to my post, so my apologies for that. Otherwise I would have recognized the filing method (1040) for FOUR years running! Wow. If you were not aware of the ASED (Assessment Statute Expiration Date) relative to your filings (assuming TY 2014 was 1040-filed) then you are free and clear for any non-assessed 'income' taxes (if due) for your 2011 tax year (filed 2012, i.e. 3 years post would be April 15 2015 assuming you filed on time in 2012). So IRS had THREE YEARS to assess that 2011 TY return (and the years following, filed in the same LM-demanded manner) and has fallen silent. That is VERY telling evidence.

Here is how I see it relative to 1040: "wages" is "Federal income" based on "income" defined as gain or profit from certain activities and privileges where the "privilege" is the usage of FRN's that incurs an excise "income tax". If you opt out of the FRS, there is no "privilege" gained or profited from...thus, no "income" therefore no "income tax".

I know my prior post was lengthy, but I'm curious if you agree with my interpretation of HJR-192? (the blue responses).

As always, the education is priceless. Thank you for helping all of us. Bless you.
imm

doug555
04-19-15, 01:58 PM
I have read your 1040-blogspot many times before but did not refer to it prior to my post, so my apologies for that. Otherwise I would have recognized the filing method (1040) for FOUR years running! Wow. If you were not aware of the ASED (Assessment Statute Expiration Date) relative to your filings (assuming TY 2014 was 1040-filed) then you are free and clear for any non-assessed 'income' taxes (if due) for your 2011 tax year (filed 2012, i.e. 3 years post would be April 15 2015 assuming you filed on time in 2012). So IRS had THREE YEARS to assess that 2011 TY return (and the years following, filed in the same LM-demanded manner) and has fallen silent. That is VERY telling evidence.

Here is how I see it relative to 1040: "wages" is "Federal income" based on "income" defined as gain or profit from certain activities and privileges where the "privilege" is the usage of FRN's that incurs an excise "income tax". If you opt out of the FRS, there is no "privilege" gained or profited from...thus, no "income" therefore no "income tax".

I know my prior post was lengthy, but I'm curious if you agree with my interpretation of HJR-192? (the blue responses).

As always, the education is priceless. Thank you for helping all of us. Bless you.
imm

Thanks for your insight about ASED. I was not aware of that. That nails down estoppel, it seems.

As to HJR 192, that article totally leaves out "discharge upon payment" (option 2). Payment here means "paid" to me.

Which means discharge is payment.

Delay of payment (using FRNs) mean no payment/discharge.

Option 2 (https://iuvdeposit.wordpress.com/hjr-192/) HAD to exist, otherwise it would impose involuntary servitude, and thereby triggered Divine Intervention in 1933 for their stealing of the Birthright.

itsmymoney
04-19-15, 05:19 PM
Thanks for your insight about ASED. I was not aware of that. That nails down estoppel, it seems.

As to HJR 192, that article totally leaves out "discharge upon payment" (option 2). Payment here means "paid" to me.

Which means discharge is payment.

Delay of payment (using FRNs) mean no payment/discharge.

Option 2 (https://iuvdeposit.wordpress.com/hjr-192/) HAD to exist, otherwise it would impose involuntary servitude, and thereby triggered Divine Intervention in 1933 for their stealing of the Birthright.

I'm glad to help you and others with some of the tax statutes and terms, i.e ASED and such. Even if they had somehow missed 'catching this' (your 2011 return), the only thing available to IRS now would be coming after you for a 'false' or 'fraudulent' return but IMHO they would have no case. You have a public record of your intent to demand lawful money and you have indorsed all checks/slips backing that demand and also discharging your obligation beyond that 'immediate' redemption. I would consider this actual evidence of the true nature of the 'income' tax, by refusing to use FRN's thereby not incurring the tax. Well done, sir!

D555, would you mind if I posted the OPTION 2 link (https://iuvdeposit.wordpress.com/hjr-192/) for my friends over at Codebusters? Or, perhaps point them to this link here, whichever you prefer.

This is remarkable information. Thanks again.
imm

doug555
04-19-15, 05:31 PM
I'm glad to help you and others with some of the tax statutes and terms, i.e ASED and such. Even if they had somehow missed 'catching this' (your 2011 return), the only thing available to IRS now would be coming after you for a 'false' or 'fraudulent' return but IMHO they would have no case. You have a public record of your intent to demand lawful money and you have indorsed all checks/slips backing that demand and also discharging your obligation beyond that 'immediate' redemption. I would consider this actual evidence of the true nature of the 'income' tax, by refusing to use FRN's thereby not incurring the tax. Well done, sir!

D555, would you mind if I posted the OPTION 2 link (httphttp://pentecostnation.org/Battle-Los-Angeles.htmls://iuvdeposit.wordpress.com/hjr-192/) for my friends over at Codebusters? Or, perhaps point them to this link here, whichever you prefer.

This is remarkable information. Thanks again.
imm

It is OK to do either... It is in our national interest to choose option 2 so that we do not add to the national debt which at this stage is of such a magnitude that it is a threat to our national security... a fact that is commonly acknowledged by many in and out of government.

Thanks for your questions and additional research.

I wish there were many more like you in this forum.

It appears many are brain dead or have given up, but not without good cause.

Watch "Battle Los Angeles (http://pentecostnation.org/Battle-Los-Angeles.html)" and encourage others with the message of that movie from Our Father at this special "120" frequency period.

Thanks for your comments. They have encouraged me.

Doug

itsmymoney
04-19-15, 06:43 PM
It is OK to do either... It is in our national interest to choose option 2 so that we do not add to the national debt which at this stage is of such a magnitude that it is a threat to our national security... a fact that is commonly acknowledged by many in and out of government.

Thanks for your questions and additional research.

I wish there were many more like you in this forum.

It appears many are brain dead or have given up, but not without good cause.

Watch "Battle Los Angeles (http://pentecostnation.org/Battle-Los-Angeles.html)" and encourage others with the message of that movie from Our Father at this special "120" frequency period.

Thanks for your comments. They have encouraged me.

Doug



I wish there were many more like you in this forum.

D555,

Thank you for your inspiring and encouraging words. I sincerely consider that high praise coming from you. I am always looking to broaden my education, especially with trying to retain my unalienable rights of which were broached by those crooks where I was too 'inept' in trying to fight them. Having knowledge is useful but you must know how to empower it. Quite the harsh lesson. However, it appears I am on the rebound in reclaiming my rights and property going forward. Eternally grateful to this website and the members such as yourself that are so gracious with publishing copious amounts of information to utilize. Will put 'Battle Los Angeles' on my watch list!

As members here encourage, I also like to pass on to others the success stories of Demanding Lawful Money so that they may feel more secure in employing this method of reclaiming their rights. One person at a time, as they say.

imm

ag maniac
04-19-15, 10:04 PM
IMM, do not fear -- know what you are doing is right -- to the very depths of your soul -- and stand steadfast in that belief.

You'll be able to look 'em in the eye -- while they hang their heads

Michael Joseph
04-20-15, 01:24 AM
Well this year was the first year in a long long time that the friendly folks decided to send me a nice friv. filing fee x2. So without raising my ire and with patience I reached out to the friendly folks with letter and phone call to inform them of their mistake. And it took a couple of letters and phone calls but persistence pays off. As such the friv. filing fees are no more and now I am working on their re-evaluation of the tax burden. Which I see as a minor hurdle as I have been down that road before.

I can remember about 8 years ago that I would have been shaking in my boots if I even received a letter from the friendly folk; but those days are gone. Now I see it like this - those poor ignorant souls don't know what they are doing - as they are being manipulated by others. Basically the clerks learn the job - OJT and as such really don't know their jobs, or for that matter, the codes/law they are to support.

Of course understanding the trust structure and wherein and whereupon one finds himself helps. Fear indeed is a terrible dis-ease. I guess I just see matters with a different perspective. Thank you for you kind offer to contract but I must with good conscience decline. Have a nice day.

This world is hard enough as it is battling the lower egos of the carnal minds. I have been thru the ringer and proved to myself that what is most important is honor - which is to say - if you give your word - keep it.

We have clearance Clarence - Roger - over, eh?

Regards,
MJ

EZrhythm
04-20-15, 06:27 AM
No biggie as frivolous filing notices are just that, a notice. And we know that all notices may be returned back to them "Refused For Cause".

NONOFED
04-20-15, 09:54 AM
I have the feeling that there are taxes and what not for the banks to have privilege of using these FRN's and as 12 411 seems to state that they are for use with banks only, but some how they have shifted their obligations to the public. Public is using FRNs and paying the taxes that are supposed to be imposed upon the banks.

itsmymoney
04-24-15, 09:46 PM
Well this year was the first year in a long long time that the friendly folks decided to send me a nice friv. filing fee x2. So without raising my ire and with patience I reached out to the friendly folks with letter and phone call to inform them of their mistake. And it took a couple of letters and phone calls but persistence pays off. As such the friv. filing fees are no more and now I am working on their re-evaluation of the tax burden. Which I see as a minor hurdle as I have been down that road before.

I can remember about 8 years ago that I would have been shaking in my boots if I even received a letter from the friendly folk; but those days are gone. Now I see it like this - those poor ignorant souls don't know what they are doing - as they are being manipulated by others. Basically the clerks learn the job - OJT and as such really don't know their jobs, or for that matter, the codes/law they are to support.

Of course understanding the trust structure and wherein and whereupon one finds himself helps. Fear indeed is a terrible dis-ease. I guess I just see matters with a different perspective. Thank you for you kind offer to contract but I must with good conscience decline. Have a nice day.

This world is hard enough as it is battling the lower egos of the carnal minds. I have been thru the ringer and proved to myself that what is most important is honor - which is to say - if you give your word - keep it.

We have clearance Clarence - Roger - over, eh?

Regards,
MJ

MJ,

So NONE OF US are 'exempt' from their chicanery. Your resolve is commendable. I wish you the best.

I am curious if the year(s) in question here, you have employed the 'all transactions' method or the 'net pay' method, as both described and published on this fine forum. Experience and form are helpful in deciphering some of this, although 'they' seem to operate in a whimsical fashion - such are despots.

Regards,
imm

Michael Joseph
04-25-15, 01:42 AM
MJ,

So NONE OF US are 'exempt' from their chicanery. Your resolve is commendable. I wish you the best.

I am curious if the year(s) in question here, you have employed the 'all transactions' method or the 'net pay' method, as both described and published on this fine forum. Experience and form are helpful in deciphering some of this, although 'they' seem to operate in a whimsical fashion - such are despots.

Regards,
imm

I tried in another post to say I don't utilize the "all transactions" method. I am not even sure what that is. i keep it very simple. For example if the W-2 says 150000 then line 21 is (150000) and all other sections are either blank or zero. I have had great success like this but in 2013 was flagged as friv filing. I have been able to remove the presumption and therefore the 10k has gone away. But the wheels of bureaucracy go slow. One department is not necessarily talking to another.

Try not to think of THEM or THEY and think of this as a COMPUTER scanning the return and hitting on the possibility of a friv filing. Once you are in the cross hairs [old typewriter term] it takes a bit of time to be removed. It is just the way it is. I don't see it as despots or criminal like others do. To each their own.

In fact in some cases i see the tribulation as a benefit to the one who is being tried. I know now I have gone too far. See attached a commentary I just finished on chapter one of the great book of Jonah. Enjoy.

Full exception and exemption comes in church. Otherwise there remains a presumption which must be rebutted absent dishonor.

2525

2526

Regards,
MJ

itsmymoney
04-25-15, 09:05 PM
I tried in another post to say I don't utilize the "all transactions" method. I am not even sure what that is. i keep it very simple. For example if the W-2 says 150000 then line 21 is (150000) and all other sections are either blank or zero. I have had great success like this but in 2013 was flagged as friv filing. I have been able to remove the presumption and therefore the 10k has gone away. But the wheels of bureaucracy go slow. One department is not necessarily talking to another.

Try not to think of THEM or THEY and think of this as a COMPUTER scanning the return and hitting on the possibility of a friv filing. Once you are in the cross hairs [old typewriter term] it takes a bit of time to be removed. It is just the way it is. I don't see it as despots or criminal like others do. To each their own.

In fact in some cases i see the tribulation as a benefit to the one who is being tried. I know now I have gone too far. See attached a commentary I just finished on chapter one of the great book of Jonah. Enjoy.

Full exception and exemption comes in church. Otherwise there remains a presumption which must be rebutted absent dishonor.

2525

2526

Regards,
MJ

MJ,

I guess my last question regarding your method (W-2 to Line 21), did you include a supporting schedule with the filing? Your method has the 'net result' of the 'all transactions' method that one suitor suggests should include the supporting schedule with the filing.

Michael Joseph
04-25-15, 09:12 PM
MJ,

I guess my last question regarding your method (W-2 to Line 21), did you include a supporting schedule with the filing? Your method has the 'net result' of the 'all transactions' method that one suitor suggests should include the supporting schedule with the filing.

Oh yes, I did a schedule breaking out what was total, ss, fica, etc. But as always whenever I touch anything commercial within the trust called UNITED STATES - I make a demand for lawful money.

In Jubilee
05-02-15, 05:36 PM
When filing a return with lawful money redemption, does a paper return or eFiling make any difference?