View Full Version : What I have learned so far.
Starting with checks.
These are "NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS" per the Uniform Commercial Code. These instruments can be endorsed. From my understanding signing a check is not endorsing it as we all have been lead to believe. Signature is authorization, for something to happen or take place from that party who signs. It's permission to proceed as all terms are agreed upon. Endorsement of a check is creating a detail on how the check needs to be processed or known as a "Restrictive Endorsement". It is indeed explained in your bank agreement about restrictive endorsement or at least it is in mine. I collected the agreement from my bank and read it. In my account agreement, in order for a restrictive endorsement to be used, it must be agreed upon with the bank prior before it can be used. However, using lawful money demand is indeed in there title 12 banks and banking code that governs them. So isn't this already pre-accepted as a restrictive endorsement through there own code? Using lawful money restrictive endorsement limits there ability to use fractional banking on the instrument when deposited with the bank or cashed.
Question: Banks are in the business of purchasing securities, is a check a security such as a promissory note? Seems to me all the features are there?
Please inform me if any information here is incorrect so corrections can be made. There is enough misleading in the world today.
Direct Deposit
Direct Deposit is a scheme used to not only hinder you as a human being to inter-vein and choose how you want your money to function, it is used to reduce paperwork. This is what most companies have gone to in order to pay there employee's. This instantly transfers funds to the bank of your choice which defaults to private credit from the FED. Which is an automatic loan to the bank from you each pay period for the bank to use those funds as they see fit. Now using the process of modifying the signature card for the bank account changes this as all transactions are demanded to be in lawful money regardless what type of transaction it is. This is attached to the account directly at that point and then can be acted upon. Which is a really nice work around.
W-4 withholding agreement
The W-4 from my understanding is indeed the original contract agreement to be paid in private credit script. This agreement is not mandatory as most believe. These are links to the eCFR Voluntary withholding agreements for title 26 Internal Revenue stating this fact:
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&mc=true&node=se26.17.31_13402_2p_3_61&rgn=div8
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2013-title26-vol15/pdf/CFR-2013-title26-vol15-sec31-3402p-1.pdf
That said, if you still use private credit script or private credit in general, the fee's/liabilities generated are still owed.
They were generated from a different manner and must be paid at the end of the year.
Question: If the W-4 agreement was never entered into, yet lawful money demand was never put on record, is the fee still owed?
The truth is in the details.
Please inform me of any mistakes. This is my understanding of this subject.
you're using a private site
5073
Not the dot gov site:
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&mc=true&node=se26.17.31_13402_2p_3_61&rgn=div8
classic beginner mistake.
David Merrill
04-14-18, 10:02 PM
Starting with checks.
These are "NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS" per the Uniform Commercial Code.
These instruments can be endorsed. From my understanding signing a check is not endorsing it as we all have been lead to believe.
Signature is authorization...
Could you please use the forum's formatting so not to break up your sentences?
From my understanding signing a check is not endorsing it as we all have been lead to believe.
When you sign the backside of the check above the line specifying to endorse above the line, that is endorsement. There might be some kind of attorney fine print in the security agreement that most people never read, like you imply. Ever since the misuse of the NESARA Bill, that never made it to the Floor BTW, I have always considered secret and private law as of no effect and unenforceable. If you know no different though, your confusion will be construed as consent.
After all; you signed it.
Be careful what you sign.
My first instinct when somebody hands me something to sign is to fold it up and tuck it in my shirt pocket. Sometimes they object and tell me that I have to sign it and then the questions come out of my mouth... Sometimes they want the proposal back and I just say, "I will look it over later when I am not in such a hurry."
In the last couple days I have been dealing with three good faith FOIA attempts to acquire the oath of office of a Mr. John Glover ROBERTS. Supposing that his oath does not exist, or that it says "SO HELP ME GOD." rather than the prescribed, "So help me God." then he is unbound and a fraud.
5075
Now consider that the President never signs an oath of office at all. His oath is such a public event that there is no need for an affirmation; the American people as witness negates any need for a signed written oath. But look here:
5076
It would take a lot of catching up to explain fully so it is redacted for now. The oath is a bond, and that is a financial instrument. You are on a great journey but mine has been explained in the first sentences of my career autobiography http://tinyurl.com/DMVPATROON. Very simple - explain remedy in a few sentences (https://youtu.be/5C3nD-36dTk). So with that in mind you might get it that I have cancelled the inauguration and bond for fraud because the "minister" ROBERTS is a fraud. I cancelled it from the church - ecclesiastic (https://tinyurl.com/BISHOPCASTLE)- and a global condition of redemption (https://tinyurl.com/BISHOPCASTLEONFACEBOOK).
I feel like I relate to your journey though. And you are still trying to press some illusions; legend, myth, parable, hallucination and fable into nice round holes. When you see how elegantly I have proven out that there was never any inauguration of lawful effect that day, then you might better understand some of the extra baggage you try to pack into a simple understanding of natural right and divine heritage.
Often somebody will put out a premise I disagree with and then build upon it. So here we have the proposal that when you endorse a check, it is not endorsing the check because there is some fine print in the agreement. Therefore if you want to scan that for us to read, then we can move forward if it is my commentary that you are looking for. I suggest that you take an hour to read the bank's Tariff. They will pretend there is no such thing for half an hour then bring it out and insist that you sit there in the lobby, or in a closed conference room reading it. That will open your eyes I should think.
If you like being informed though, you might care to read the Tariff before you even open up an account. As I recall the tariff is the licensing agreement with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency before your bank can do business.
David Merrill
04-14-18, 10:18 PM
you're using a private site
5073
Not the dot gov site:
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&mc=true&node=se26.17.31_13402_2p_3_61&rgn=div8
classic beginner mistake.
WAY COOL!
That could be so useful!
Captain's log, stardate 41153.7. Our destination is planet Merrill, at the edge of the great unexplored mass of the galaxy. My orders are to examine STSC, a starbase built there by the inhabitants called 'suitors' and find out what happened to prior missions. Oh, and apparently none of them pay Federation taxes.
5081
David Merrill
04-19-18, 10:03 PM
Thanks. I love these spoof Stardate entries...
What's next. The Wrath of KAHN (https://youtu.be/wRnSnfiUI54) when he discovers his oath of office is invalid?[-][/-]
David Merrill
04-21-18, 05:54 PM
Yes. That movie was on the tip of my mind too! LoL!!
Captain's log, stardate 41156.2
Upon arrival we had some trouble getting the cube sum number locks to open but with help from engineering we eventually docked and were warmly received. Good meeting with the liason, Mister X. It's Federation policy to spy on all bases but this one seems more infiltrated than most. Some are easy to spot but some so good I'm not always sure I'm dealing with the agent or the suitor.
I have learned so far there are several transplants here from the LostHorizons (http://losthorizons.com/MidEditionUpdate.htm) colony founded by P. Hendrickson. He taught the income tax as an excise on the gainful exercise of privileges and concluded that private sector earnings were nontaxable. Of course the judge didn't agree and incarcerated him (and his wife) yet he retains quite a following; the so-called CTC warriors.
CAPT: Why are they bouncing balls in their left hands?
SPOCK: It is said to improve right-brain function, Captain.
CAPT: They do seem quite intelligent. But why no resistance? I mean they're not the least bit hostile.
SPOCK: Why should they be? They're doing nothing wrong.
CAPT: So this thing they're doing - redeeming lawful money - it's legal?
SPOCK: Yes Captain.
CAPT: OK Spock, explain the conundrum to me again, briefly.
SPOCK: Banknotes were once redeemable in latinum or silver, on demand. When they took away the option to redeem FRNs in metal, the option to redeem the notes in lawful money remained, U.S. notes. See Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act codified at 12 USC 411.
CAPT: But U.S. notes are no longer printed.
SPOCK: Correct, they serve no function not also served by FRNs which is legal tender.
CAPT: So the FRN is legal tender but not lawful money. Does the FRN redeem itself into itself?
SPOCK: Not quite. The FRN is dual capacity - two seals - two functions. If you make demand for lawful money by restrictive endorsement (http://www.ctcwarrior.com/slavefree.jpg) then you have lawful money (U.S. notes) in the form of FRNs in your hand.
CAPT: (scratches head) Bones, what do you make of it?
McCOY: dammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not a metaphysician.
David Merrill
04-26-18, 03:00 AM
Hilarious!!
One of my neighbors worked on the original Star Trek set. She has many great memories. She filled a niche that all the others completely forgot about until about lunchtime. She began arranging for feeding everybody and that turned into one of her duties. She spent a lot of her days working out exotic fabrics and helping get them into all those terrific gowns, outfits and uniforms. She still refers to SHATNER as "Bill".
Thanks again for the chuckle.
CHEKOV: Fish on the right side of the boat, Captain
CAPT: Huh?
CHEKOV: in John Chapter 21 the disciples aren't catching anything. Jesus says cast your net on the righthand side and they then caught 153 fish.
CAPT: What does fishing have to do ...
UHURA: The righthand side of the note is the public side, left is Federation seal. Public versus private.
David Merrill
05-01-18, 01:22 AM
Indeed; the Federation is looking to avoid a war with the Klingons again...
04/11/2018 4
Corporate Disclosure Statement by CONCORD MANAGEMENT AND CONSULTING LLC (Seikaly, Katherine) (Entered: 04/11/2018)
04/18/2018 5
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED-Addendum One to Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition as to INTERNET RESEARCH AGENCY LLC. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "Leave to File Denied" by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich. Signed by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on 4/18/2018. (hsj) (Entered: 04/25/2018)
04/18/2018 6
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED- Addendum Two to Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition as to INTERNET RESEARCH AGENCY LLC. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "Leave to File Denied" by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich. Signed by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on 4/18/2018. (hsj) (Entered: 04/25/2018)
Two sealed Addendum Docs? So they are Addendum to Doc 4!
5083
Therefore the Writ of Mandamus is for a recusal. And the "judge" is reluctant to recuse himself so he hides the Addendums, that probably explain how the "judge" has no proper oath of office. See the attached Amicus Brief.
The House Intelligence Committee (https://youtu.be/o158uYCdglU) was quick to get it. Public and Private!!
Oh I did not notice that as I thought i was linking from linking from the gpo.gov or was directed from there. Must of used google search and didn't notice. Thank you for your help. I have corrected the link in my post. May be redundant but definitely don't want bad links that could house misinformation.
I'm very sorry for the formatting. I never really blog or use forums a lot til now. I realized it was a mess after the fact. Haven't been back on in a while but I fixed it and made it more readable. Thank you for your help on the formatting.
SUCCESS!! I have processed two checks with the verbiage of non endorsement and am using the title 12 ss 411 certified copies as my defense if things go south or questions get asked. It seems to work. Also my bank is a registered federal reserve commercial bank as well!!! Plus one of the checks was from the Ky state treasury. I am interested in how this will turn out when they get processed. The treasury check however was first declined due to my bank usually following the 6 month rule I found out which is actually UCC 4-404. I had them accept it due to the fact of the KRS 41.370 statute and the fact I got the Ky treasury involved.
quick link
https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/4/4-404
Mr Merrill,
Thank you for your inquiry and by all means dissect my posts, agree or disagree. Prove me right or wrong etc. I welcome it. It is how we learn and teach. From my understanding, when you sign a document, you have bonded your self to the words and agree with everything that is on that document. Such as in your video when you were talking about "bonding your substance" to a check signed with a blank endorsement to operate into default private credit script. A naked contract without full disclosure. As the signature, I was referring to the act of notary when you can notarize your own documents with stamp, signature, and thumbprint. (I believe that is the correct three... will verify and correct if not) I assume it functions the same way... signature is authorization, thumbprint is verification, and a stamp puts it into the federal realm of things via the post office. The post office is a very large entity I found out and they do more then just mail. They are responsible for all communications for the military and government. Isn't this the same thing the court clerk does to documents when she signs the stamp? But isn't the judge suppose to do that and not the clerk? Anyway off point. My bank agreement I have read and it did have the restrictive endorsement section in it but for the life of me can no longer find it. I have found every other piece of "research documents" except that. But when I find it or just get another one I will most definitely post it. I do like to be informed though. That way when I talk to someone about this stuff, I am able to enforce it with documentation. I'm still new to this anyways. You and the others hear are way more experienced and are more knowledgeable then me.
a site I use sometimes to look up stuff quickly. May need a better more informed page.
https://definitions.uslegal.com/r/restrictive-endorsement/
David Merrill
06-16-18, 12:28 AM
Thank you. I am just getting started. It has been really exciting my latest technologies and explorations.
Albeit the breach of trust is simply changing the oath of office, there would seem to be a lot more behind the simple fraud. Not only involving Mark as scribe to Peter and who later interviewed Matthew, Luke and John - but as a Venetian (Rome). This, with Paul writing the Epistles from Roman protective custody as a Roman citizen means that the entire New Covenant is a Roman parable.
But thank you for posting and I will give your writings a reading...
David Merrill
06-16-18, 12:53 AM
SUCCESS!! I have processed two checks with the verbiage of non endorsement and am using the title 12 ss 411 certified copies as my defense if things go south or questions get asked. It seems to work. Also my bank is a registered federal reserve commercial bank as well!!! Plus one of the checks was from the Ky state treasury. I am interested in how this will turn out when they get processed. The treasury check however was first declined due to my bank usually following the 6 month rule I found out which is actually UCC 4-404. I had them accept it due to the fact of the KRS 41.370 statute and the fact I got the Ky treasury involved.
quick link
https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/4/4-404
Source links are always welcome and a great education online.
Mr Merrill,
Thank you for your inquiry and by all means dissect my posts, agree or disagree. Prove me right or wrong etc. I welcome it. It is how we learn and teach. From my understanding, when you sign a document, you have bonded your self to the words and agree with everything that is on that document. Such as in your video when you were talking about "bonding your substance" to a check signed with a blank endorsement to operate into default private credit script. A naked contract without full disclosure. As the signature, I was referring to the act of notary when you can notarize your own documents with stamp, signature, and thumbprint. (I believe that is the correct three... will verify and correct if not) I assume it functions the same way... signature is authorization, thumbprint is verification, and a stamp puts it into the federal realm of things via the post office. The post office is a very large entity I found out and they do more then just mail. They are responsible for all communications for the military and government. Isn't this the same thing the court clerk does to documents when she signs the stamp? But isn't the judge suppose to do that and not the clerk? Anyway off point. My bank agreement I have read and it did have the restrictive endorsement section in it but for the life of me can no longer find it. I have found every other piece of "research documents" except that. But when I find it or just get another one I will most definitely post it. I do like to be informed though. That way when I talk to someone about this stuff, I am able to enforce it with documentation. I'm still new to this anyways. You and the others hear are way more experienced and are more knowledgeable then me.
a site I use sometimes to look up stuff quickly. May need a better more informed page.
https://definitions.uslegal.com/r/restrictive-endorsement/
Isn't this the same thing the court clerk does to documents when she signs the stamp? But isn't the judge suppose to do that and not the clerk?
The clerk stamps the top of filed Docs. I should spend some more time going into the clerk's rules and oath.
5107
The clerk of court is obviously in more authority than any judge. But then I suppose I will need to spend some effort to find out if certain clerks have signed deviant oaths of office.
But isn't the judge suppose to do that and not the clerk?
The judge is more an arbitrator of the rules and the clerk specializes in the rules of court. Everything is supposed to happen according to the rules. But as one suitor pointed out today:
Aristotle if equity's role is to prevent the law from adhering too rigidly to its own rules and principles when those rules and principles produce injustice. Hence equity permits judges to depart from legal principle in order to promote justice. How do i preference redemption as equity?
Possibly a little poetic for execution but I like the writing style.
My bank agreement I have read and it did have the restrictive endorsement section in it but for the life of me can no longer find it. I have found every other piece of "research documents" except that.
If you already have an account, go get another copy of it. Just say you have misplaced yours.
While you are at it, ask to read the Tariff. It is the agreement between your bank and the OCC in order to operate. They will pretend that they do not know what you are asking about. Then the manager should finally let you read it in front of a security camera, not photos.
Indeed I will work on getting another copy. May be Friday cause I work before and after bank hours except on Fridays. The bank tariff is interesting to know about. Makes perfect sense as too the comptroller of the currency regulates all banking. Comparable to a state wanting to participate in the "National Driver Registrar" federal program to issue driver's license per title 49 Transportation.
I was reading a scan on another topic "LAW states registration not required" which I found out comes from the 73rd congress 1st session document no. 43. However I seem to only find the text in non validated sites but they all read the same. It's titled "Contracts Payable in Gold".
Links provided:
http://pacinlaw.us/pdf/sup/Senate_Resolution_62.php
https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-htyAjTTj1y7WqU6I/Senate%20Doc%2043%20Money%20Banking%20History%20Se nate%2043_djvu.txt
http://www.freedom-school.com/reading-material/senate-resolution-62-contracts-payable-in-gold.pdf
They reference the document from GPO.gov but here is the link for the congress records. They reference it to be printed as a senate document but can't find the reading.
link:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?na=_publishdatehier&se=_1933false&sm=&flr=&ercode=&dateBrowse=&govAuthBrowse=yes&collection=&historical=false&st=Edwin+A.+Halsey&psh=&sbh=&tfh=&originalSearch=Edwin+A.+Halsey&fromState=&sb=re&sb=re&ps=10&ps=10&granuleId=GPO-CRECB-1933-pt2-v77-11-1&packageId=GPO-CRECB-1933-pt2-v77
Anyway, this congress session seems to show that ultimate ownership is vested in the State and only provides individual's user ship of there said property. Which is why a license is required to do anything now that is normally lawful. We do not own anything. However, being United States (Currency) Notes can function as minted coin, Isn't paying for property with lawful money make true ownership vested in the buyer? My mortgage promissory note states this on the very first line "for all payments to be in lawful money of the united states". Well, that is another argument I used with the bank as it's in there contracts and title 12 ss 411 says FRN's can't be lawful money. I stated am just trying to fulfill my debt/note.
Thoughts?
Expanding on my other statement "But isn't the judge suppose to do that and not the clerk?"
I thought the documents that are in court and stamped must be signed by the parties that are trying the case as they are on the same plane or field. So the judge is suppose to have a true oath of office signed and under seal that matches the jurisdiction on the document that needs to be tried. Therefore, the judge has standing to try the case. If the oath does not match, then he cannot try the case. If the clerk signs, that makes the clerk the judge but as you stated, need to learn more about the clerk and there obligations. This would put meaning to someone demanding to see the judges oath to verify they have jurisdiction or "challenge jurisdiction" as they call it.
p.s. I'm not sure if these responses are being put in order. I am clicking reply on the posts at the bottom.
David Merrill
06-17-18, 05:28 PM
Government is an irrevocable trust.
When you go through it yourself, like I have, to be attacked personally in the news and social media while the trust and trustee(s) are untouched then you might better understand how it is so much more efficient to educate yourself about trust law than to fight to mitigate the obligations of contract with Government.
David Merrill
06-17-18, 05:31 PM
Expanding on my other statement "But isn't the judge suppose to do that and not the clerk?"
I thought the documents that are in court and stamped must be signed by the parties that are trying the case as they are on the same plane or field. So the judge is suppose to have a true oath of office signed and under seal that matches the jurisdiction on the document that needs to be tried. Therefore, the judge has standing to try the case. If the oath does not match, then he cannot try the case. If the clerk signs, that makes the clerk the judge but as you stated, need to learn more about the clerk and there obligations. This would put meaning to someone demanding to see the judges oath to verify they have jurisdiction or "challenge jurisdiction" as they call it.
p.s. I'm not sure if these responses are being put in order. I am clicking reply on the posts at the bottom.
Looks good to me.
All the "judges" are bond-dodging and therefore the clerk is always acting as the judge. But I have not put the suitors to pursuing the oaths of the clerks yet. The clerks are publishing evidence on PACER and so I do not want them recused. The publications might stop too.
P.S. Consider the arrogance and hubris:
5108
5110
5111
It is like the attorney was doinking with the Pitney Bowes machinery! And the DoJ is saying they will get to it when they can? This is a FOIA appeal for viewing the oath of John Glover ROBERTS for crying out loud!!
The DoJ defaulted on 6/4 and so Judgment will come July 4.
5112
WOW! They flat out refused to release an oath and the DOJ drug there feet! The question must be asked, why even have a Constitution if no one will adhere to it? Attorney's/Lawyers, police, judges, sheriff's, etc are getting away with illegal and unlawful process and are not being held accountable by the ones who are suppose to hold them as such. But if we miss a date or forget to pay a fee, then LOOKOUT!
I'm sorry to hear about your bad experiences. But, you are now in a much better position and more knowledgeable. Trials and tribulations mold people and change the way they think and act. Worrying about small things like government contracting isn't where the energy and effort needs to be put. Trust law and how it operates is where the meat is. Got it.
David Merrill
06-18-18, 11:51 AM
WOW! They flat out refused to release an oath and the DOJ drug there feet! The question must be asked, why even have a Constitution if no one will adhere to it? Attorney's/Lawyers, police, judges, sheriff's, etc are getting away with illegal and unlawful process and are not being held accountable by the ones who are suppose to hold them as such. But if we miss a date or forget to pay a fee, then LOOKOUT!
I'm sorry to hear about your bad experiences. But, you are now in a much better position and more knowledgeable. Trials and tribulations mold people and change the way they think and act. Worrying about small things like government contracting isn't where the energy and effort needs to be put. Trust law and how it operates is where the meat is. Got it.
I did not mean to say these experiences are bad. It is a wonderful exploration into the New World Order - but pre-1492. Who discovered America?
ANSWER: Good money is on the people who were already here.
BETTER ANSWER: The pre-Babylonian Hebrews. Akkadian/Sumarian peoples.
5114
This Bat Creek Stone (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_Creek_inscription)was discovered under a Cherokee garbage dump.
5115
All the "judges" are bond-dodging and therefore the clerk is always acting as the judge. But I have not put the suitors to pursuing the oaths of the clerks yet. The clerks are publishing evidence That is whats called railroading the "judge" the CLERK being safe in the controlled publications environment merely throwing the doctoral pacer appellant bone and your application is now in the PACERS hall of fame Enjoying the Nonadministrative Death posthumously preserved, Highway 61 never hooks up with Route 66 my irrevocable trust has published my tombstone blues. but who owns that Pacer irrevocable Trust publishing house. High Water "judges" and "dry dock clerks" give me a flag pole a courtroom and a paper office thats where all the killings are done . revisiting the record Gringo
HOFFMAN says Route 66 was laid out by Freemasons.
5118
Did freemasons lay out the IRS Penalty Reference Numbers?
5126
David Merrill
06-24-18, 05:56 PM
Did freemasons lay out the IRS Penalty Reference Numbers?
5126
I gather you mean the "666" section.
Your guess is as good as mine. I think that the 6+6+6=18=9 is base. Base 9 is non-productive. 9x7=63. 6=3=9
When the product always equals the input it is non-productive. This is the base lifestyle, in the ego. So I think if there is any design to the number of the Section for the FrivPen, it is to scare Christians into paying up. But while I am guessing, the FrivPen went up from $500 to $5000 when we began redeeming lawful money. So it may have been based on scaring me, thinking that I must be a religious leader.
However, I think that cause and effect are different than what most people do, or what I used to think it was. So it simply makes more sense that statute should be aligned to the Base Chakra - thinking with the gonads.
Ah, the infamous 666 friv pen (Pena de muerto).
Yes, the penalty jumped to $5000 in 2007. The IRS objective does seem to be FEAR.
26 USC § 6702 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6702) - Frivolous tax submissions
(a) Civil penalty for frivolous tax returns
A person shall pay a penalty of $5,000 if—
(1) such person files what purports to be a return of a tax imposed by this title but which—
(A) does not contain information on which the substantial correctness of the self-assessment may be judged, or
(B) contains information that on its face indicates that the self-assessment is substantially incorrect, and
(2) the conduct referred to in paragraph (1)—
(A) is based on a position which the Secretary has identified as frivolous under subsection (c), or
(B) reflects a desire to delay or impede the administration of Federal tax laws.
...
(c) Listing of frivolous positions
The Secretary shall prescribe (and periodically revise) a list of positions which the Secretary has identified as being frivolous for purposes of this subsection. The Secretary shall not include in such list any position that the Secretary determines meets the requirement of section 6662(d)(2)(B)(ii)(II).
The current list can be found here: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb10-17.pdf starting on page 609.
This presents a little problem for the IRS: lawful money tax returns aren't even remotely "based on a position" on the Secretary's list. The IRS is without authority to assess a FrivPen to a lawful money filer, it would be a misapplication of law.
Now if you are husbanding human animals ... using the apparatus of government, and some of the animals learned the methodology of the theft (by way of a private currency) and stopped using FRNs, wouldn't you try a catch-all 666 PENALTY to scare them back into the tax pen? Before everyone starts doing it?
I have my account agreement now. I may have to retract my statement about indorsement. However it is listed as restrictive legend. Below are the attached images.
5142
5141
5140
5143
David Merrill
06-28-18, 09:55 AM
Thank you for finding such valuable source material and posting it here!
28 U.S. Code § 951 - Oath of office of clerks and deputies. Each clerk of court and his deputies shall take the following oath or affirmation before entering upon their duties: “I, ___ ___, having been appointed ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will truly and faithfully enter and record all orders, decrees, judgments and proceedings of such court, and will faithfully and impartially discharge all other duties of my office according to the best of my abilities and understanding. So help me God.” (June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 925.) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/951
"Contracts Payable in Gold". The laws of the United States recognize two kinds of money, namely coin and paper. The term “dollars in specie” means gold or silver coined dollars. “Dollars in currency” means dollars in notes or any paper money current in the community. (Trebilcock v. Wilson (1872) 12 Wall. 687, 20 L. Ed. 460.)
Government is an irrevocable trust.
https://www.assetprotectionatty.com/dean-v-united-states-irrevocable-trust-protects-against-federal-tax-lien/
Oaths and Bonds Fraud Corrupt Clerks Judges Courts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQSffsd5w7c
Robb Ryder Judges Oath https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK0wiHZxjEo
I'm sorry, your oath is invalid.
Please try your call again.
Question. What is the main difference between a restrictive legend and an endorsement? I remembered reading the text but thought it was restrictive endorsement. 2nd, if the clerk is actually the judge then can't you just have the judge thrown out of the court and declare the clerk the rightful judge on the plane? 3rd, the judge needs an oath to hold office lawfully, do they have to present it upon request or is it lawful to demand such a presentation because we also need identification/honor-ship for our own verification that we are being treated with the right jurisdiction and law? I ask only because I have not read anything yet that states we have that right to do so. Not saying is doesn't exist, just saying I have not read it. 4th, How do we push the wrong jurisdiction back into there realm if we are found to be in the wrong playing field?
Captain's Log: stardate 41159.2
Entering the dog days of summer. There was a flurry but now little activity save a hundred some odd droids wandering voiceless. There's something going on here though, can't quite put a finger on it, something under the surface. And why are they so interested in such a remote and insignificant starbase? unless ...
CAPT: [pointing] Check this, the reagent misuses this word, every time.
SPOCK: Humans aren't perfect, Captain.
CAPT: looks like an idiot.
SPOCK: Literary idiot, perhaps.
CAPT: Unless ... [dramatic pause] it's INTENTIONAL.
SPOCK: What purpose would it serve?
CAPT: Purpose. Yes.
SPOCK: A marker, a code, a communication?
CAPT: And I think it's gonna be a long long time.
ag maniac
07-04-18, 05:13 AM
https://youtu.be/8f1CgJXkcUQ?t=23s
I shat (https://youtu.be/lul-Y8vSr0I?t=50) you not.
Happy Forth of July!
Is that code?
Go fourth, and make suitors of all the land, ..
I wish to humbly apologize if I have offended someone with my posts. I am sorry for any mis-information or incorrect word usage. However, that being said. I enjoy reading information and cross referencing it with real factual documentation. I post stuff I have read and intent to educate others what I have found out. A lot I have disproved but to post information and have others put there thinking caps on and start wondering, is this correct, is in my opinion a good way to start and learn.
I am very thankful to be on the forums though with like minded people. May God bless you all. And remember what God did for us. Jesus spilled one drop of blood for each and every one of us.
David Merrill
07-29-18, 09:59 AM
I wish to humbly apologize if I have offended someone with my posts. I am sorry for any mis-information or incorrect word usage. However, that being said. I enjoy reading information and cross referencing it with real factual documentation. I post stuff I have read and intent to educate others what I have found out. A lot I have disproved but to post information and have others put there thinking caps on and start wondering, is this correct, is in my opinion a good way to start and learn.
I am very thankful to be on the forums though with like minded people. May God bless you all. And remember what God did for us. Jesus spilled one drop of blood for each and every one of us.
I have been occupied, if not busy. So it may be my absence making you think some kind of offense?
I hope not.
It is like the attorney was doinking with the Pitney Bowes machinery! And the DoJ is saying they will get to it when they can? This is a FOIA appeal for viewing the oath of John Glover ROBERTS for crying out loud!!
The DoJ defaulted on 6/4 and so Judgment will come July 4.
This could be why your FOIA requests yield nothing:
… Additionally, Lisa Barsoomian has specialized in opposing the Freedom of Information Act requests on behalf of the intelligence community.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/corruption/connecting-the-dots-behind-the-curtain/
I have just read your response and thank you for that. I didn't really take anything anyone said as a direct offense. I may have interpenetrated what they were saying wrong. I just wanted to say I'm not trying to offend anyone for anything. I've read instances where people have gotten into heated discussions about the smallest things and wish not to partake in those type of actions. So the answer is no, you have not offended me. I enjoy discussions with you and anyone else who wish to post. I do not however wish to spread mis-information as that is why we are in this mess today or, cause a racket from my post. I wish to have ALL of my information challenged in it's validity.
Thanks again and God Bless
Speaking of information, has anyone researched the Leahy amendment No. 2529 from the Congressional record on Nov 10th 1999? It seems to stem from the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999 due to the International Law of bankruptcy 70 year charter. From what I have researched, the bankruptcy ended in 1999 and the seats of government had to vacate due to the United States no longer existing. The President seat is the seat to control or oversee the bankruptcy. This is what is stated in the record "Leahy amendment No. 2529, to save United States taxpayers $24,000,000 by eliminating the blanket mandate relating to the filing of tax returns." congressional record November 10, 1999 S14439. Thoughts?
It would appear that TRUMP placed his left hand on his own bible AND Lincoln's Bible during the 2017 non-inauguration. At least that was the plan according to the Courier Journal (https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/religion/2017/01/17/donald-trump-sworn-lincoln-family-bibles/96387086/). The same Lincoln Bible present at OBAMA's swearing-in (https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/09012/obama.html).
David Merrill
03-05-19, 09:46 AM
Speaking of information, has anyone researched the Leahy amendment No. 2529 from the Congressional record on Nov 10th 1999? It seems to stem from the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999 due to the International Law of bankruptcy 70 year charter. From what I have researched, the bankruptcy ended in 1999 and the seats of government had to vacate due to the United States no longer existing. The President seat is the seat to control or oversee the bankruptcy. This is what is stated in the record "Leahy amendment No. 2529, to save United States taxpayers $24,000,000 by eliminating the blanket mandate relating to the filing of tax returns." congressional record November 10, 1999 S14439. Thoughts?
Thank you. I appreciate that information.
It sounds like the Shutdown ended after 35 days? Does this mean that the 800,000 employees went back to work and are being paid again?
Michael Joseph
03-05-19, 07:12 PM
TRUMP put his hand on a book. Who knows what words are in that book. It is only our willingness to trust that he put his hand on a Bible that creates the illusion that the oath was to a higher power man calls God. And putting a hand on a book means nothing. Even if that book is a Bible. If one does not have Christ within - meaning a way of Life - then that one has nothing. So any book with a cover means nothing. And it means even less and actually confirms idol worship to another who trusts in some book.
Jesus said you search the Scriptures thinking they hold Salvation and do not realize that they testify of Me. So then if one has no honor, then placing a hand on any book will not create honor. I make no claims against TRUMP or any other. I merely say that to raise a book up on a pedestal is idol worship - a golden calf.
A man is truthful or is not. An image trained nation must be fed images to be satisfied.
John 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
John 5:38 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
John 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
John 5:44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
Truth requires a (wo)man for Truth must be contended for to keep and preserve. For He said "the Truth shall set you free." And He said "the Father seeks those who worship in Truth..." Putting a hand on an image is not true. It is truth mixed with error - which is error.
Does not an actor submit himself to the play-write? Lincoln Bible you say? What's that?
Best regards,
Michael Joseph
David Merrill
03-05-19, 09:44 PM
Interestingly, I remind everybody about the Lincoln Scepter. The Letter (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=2207&d=1422574713) is very informative about the NEPHALIM and operations during the War of Rebellion.
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=2206&d=1422574712
This collection is worth downloading. (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=3861&d=1460651894)
The Southern Jurisdiction has been moved to Washington DC (https://scottishrite.org/).
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=4004&d=1462956945
Really, I am not being evasive. The story is very simple yet very lengthy. The fascinating part to me is that it is all right there in the Bible! The Bible is a parable.
Doc 30 (https://scottishrite.org/)
At the last moment I saved my explanation, figuring it is futile to notify the NEPHALIM about themselves. But Patrick Neill misunderstood my instructions and included the rough draft with his filing. And the clerks swapped the docs and pretended that Patrick's garnishment was not the key note by putting my unsigned elaborations first in the Doc 32.
I wish to ask how people on here overcame their own fear and doubts on utilizing law to use a right? This is a stumbling block for me as I research more on these subjects. Knowledge is useless until you can manifest it into your world.
Dithiobutylamine, show 'em what's under the hood. They be afraid of you.
5561
David Merrill
09-07-19, 09:58 AM
I wish to ask how people on here overcame their own fear and doubts on utilizing law to use a right? This is a stumbling block for me as I research more on these subjects. Knowledge is useless until you can manifest it into your world.
This post catches my eye. DTBA is earnestly confronting fear right here on StSC!
There is work product of the CIA, MK-ULTRA called A Course in Miracles. I spent six years at three hours per week reading it one paragraph at a time, and discussing it among some 15 people. Not that you need to follow my footsteps but the Lesson was that fear and love are like bipolar opposites. One does not exist in the presence of the other.
All thing derived from fear are temporary. All things derived from love are permanent.
PATIENT: I've got a parasite?
DOCTOR: Yes, you are host to a parasite; it's feeding off of you.
PATIENT: Gosh, and that's why I can't gain weight?
DOCTOR: It's why you can't gain wealth. Well that and your gambling addiction.
PATIENT: Oh, right right. So what do you recommend?
DOCTOR: begin Redeeming lawful money. Right away.
PATIENT: OK but what if ... I mean, what if they ... catch wind of it?
DOCTOR: THEY? the Romulans? They're a fictional race ...
PATIENT: the IRS?
DOCTOR: Obviously I can only recommend you end your relationship. The choice is yours. By law you do have a right to lawful money.
PATIENT: and you're a board-certified physician, right?
DOCTOR: Meta-physician. Board-certified metaphysician.
PATIENT: oh right right.
David Merrill
09-08-19, 07:08 PM
PATIENT: I've got a parasite?
DOCTOR: Yes, you are host to a parasite; it's feeding off of you.
PATIENT: Gosh, and that's why I can't gain weight?
DOCTOR: It's why you can't gain wealth. Well that and your gambling addiction.
PATIENT: Oh, right right. So what do you recommend?
DOCTOR: begin Redeeming lawful money. Right away.
PATIENT: OK but what if ... I mean, what if they ... catch wind of it?
DOCTOR: THEY? the Romulans? They're a fictional race ...
PATIENT: the IRS?
DOCTOR: Obviously I can only recommend you end your relationship. The choice is yours. By law you do have a right to lawful money.
PATIENT: and you're a board-certified physician, right?
DOCTOR: Meta-physician. Board-certified metaphysician.
PATIENT: oh right right.
Let's see what is going on here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZXJLQntCP0).
Will love in itself generate fear because we love something or someone? I love good hearten people but I fear the negative garbage being pushed onto them. I love my child but fear for the future for her. But, the big reason for my fear of the Law, is the fact that I am trying to do something I do not fully understand and could get me locked up. It's the main reason why I wanted to learn more before I tread the waters again.
Tread the waters again brings up another question. What is the fact for the Pope of the Holy Sea? I ask because of the lost at sea trust and your document on "Are you lost at sea".
Thank you for your link I will check that out.
David Merrill
09-16-19, 10:33 AM
Will love in itself generate fear because we love something or someone? I love good hearten people but I fear the negative garbage being pushed onto them. I love my child but fear for the future for her. But, the big reason for my fear of the Law, is the fact that I am trying to do something I do not fully understand and could get me locked up. It's the main reason why I wanted to learn more before I tread the waters again.
Tread the waters again brings up another question. What is the fact for the Pope of the Holy Sea? I ask because of the lost at sea trust and your document on "Are you lost at sea".
Thank you for your link I will check that out.
I feel that you cannot love and fear simultaneously. I am sure enough about that to say so here.
Are You Lost at C? was written by some attorneys, identities withheld to protect their lives. I think that Eustace MULLINS played a part because he was the cousin of James Harlan AYERS, a 32nd Degree Freemason who was paying attention to my challenges to traffic jurisdiction. As time goes by I begin to see the import.
I think I get your point. As I recall, when ever I am having one of those family type loving moments or just plain having fun and loving company of others, fear isn't there in those times. It's always after the moment has passed. So how do I/we transition that into moving with lawful rights and showing we are doing so with no harm to others? In which with success, that love will erode the fear and defeat it within ourselves.
David Merrill
09-17-19, 01:42 PM
I think I get your point. As I recall, when ever I am having one of those family type loving moments or just plain having fun and loving company of others, fear isn't there in those times. It's always after the moment has passed. So how do I/we transition that into moving with lawful rights and showing we are doing so with no harm to others? In which with success, that love will erode the fear and defeat it within ourselves.
Redemption. Understand redemption.
What is the fact for the Pope of the Holy Sea? Ah, OK now. Did you get authorization from the Catholic Church before you began redeeming lawful money?
No indeed I did not. I do not or never have felt or believed I have to ask the catholic church for anything. They are not my authority in any matter as I look at it. Any church that wants to create law to force something like the observation of the sabbath on Sunday instead of Saturday because they deem "They are above gods law" is absurd. They deem that will be their "mark" of authority which I reject completely.
Did you ask your upline distributor?
David Merrill
09-23-19, 06:57 PM
Did you ask your upline distributor?
That was a big C chuckle!! Thanks for that.
P.S. A few days ago it dawned on me how religion is an ancient MLM.
I do believe I see your point. I am my own authority and I have the power to move within the constraints of true law without anyone's permission. My struggle however is this. Ever since I started studying and learning these principals, my mind and view point on life has changed. I can't look at a document now without knowing it was written in fraud (as far as I'm concerned). The spiritual struggle to move in these manners is real enough to talk about it and admit it exists. What I must learn and align myself with is how to over come these struggles within myself to no longer allow fear to control me. I am even having trouble at work now listening to people who deem they have authority over me when they really don't and are less knowledgeable. I come to realize that I was the one who was doing my best to do right and operate in honor. It was all the others that needed to change. Realizing that was one mile stone for me to bring me to stand on my own for what I believe is right and correct.
Michael Joseph
11-17-19, 04:18 AM
I do believe I see your point. I am my own authority and I have the power to move within the constraints of true law without anyone's permission. My struggle however is this. Ever since I started studying and learning these principals, my mind and view point on life has changed. I can't look at a document now without knowing it was written in fraud (as far as I'm concerned). The spiritual struggle to move in these manners is real enough to talk about it and admit it exists. What I must learn and align myself with is how to over come these struggles within myself to no longer allow fear to control me. I am even having trouble at work now listening to people who deem they have authority over me when they really don't and are less knowledgeable. I come to realize that I was the one who was doing my best to do right and operate in honor. It was all the others that needed to change. Realizing that was one mile stone for me to bring me to stand on my own for what I believe is right and correct.
three calls - 527 - 529.... I do this call every Sunday night starting at 8pm.
Divine Mind Group (https://www.talkshoe.com/show/divinemindgroups-community-call)
It has always been you. You are the Father and the Son. Are you ready to step thru the veil and see that David is humanity - a man after my own heart who does my will?
To our success,
MJ
David Merrill
11-17-19, 04:00 PM
three calls - 527 - 529.... I do this call every Sunday night starting at 8pm.
Divine Mind Group (https://www.talkshoe.com/show/divinemindgroups-community-call)
It has always been you. You are the Father and the Son. Are you ready to step thru the veil and see that David is humanity - a man after my own heart who does my will?
To our success,
MJ
I discovered something yesterday, in a Messianic Synagogue of all places! Hyperforin (in St John's Wort) with bouncing a ball in the left hand (building white matter on the right hemisphere) leads to great daydreams.
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=5595&d=1570376362
Thank you Dan WINTER for your talents with graphics and heart math.
I wondered how many dodecahedron fit in a buckeyball and discovered that a complete twist of the double helix fits well. twelve, going on to thirteen dodecahedra fit nicely into a single C(60) Fullerene nanoparticle. This opens up a whole explanation about the origin of life.
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=5589&d=1569347408
But more to my point, about repairing errant DNA on the spot. Noble transition metals can be captured inside a buckeyball and doped on the ends of DNA while in cerebrospinal fluid, then distributed among the endocrine system where they remind cancerous cells what they are supposed to be like, reforming them.
So the red dot represents this. While the gold atom in between two gluons represents white powder gold - manna - like what Moses redacted the Golden Calf to and fed to the Israelites to enable them invincible.
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=5641&d=1574008164
The oath is a bond, and that is a financial instrument. You are on a great journey but mine has been explained in the first sentences of my career autobiography http://tinyurl.com/DMVPATROON. Very simple - explain remedy in a few sentences (https://youtu.be/5C3nD-36dTk). So with that in mind you might get it that I have cancelled the inauguration and bond for fraud because the "minister" ROBERTS is a fraud.
I see that ROBERTS was lauded by the Knights of Malta
http://texemarrs.com/072012/roberts_lauded_by_knights_of_malta.htm
Do you suppose he's a member of the secretive group?
David Merrill
01-16-20, 04:11 AM
That article looks older than Obamacare. But there is no date? Is there a way to date that article you linked? I remember TRUMP executed the abolition of Obamacare as his first EO back when everybody thought he became the President.
Not that it really matters regarding the secret societies.
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=5108&d=1529256839
5722
David Merrill
01-16-20, 04:58 AM
I see that ROBERTS was lauded by the Knights of Malta
http://texemarrs.com/072012/roberts_lauded_by_knights_of_malta.htm
Do you suppose he's a member of the secretive group?
I have no qualms saying this, because those without ears to hear it will reject it outright.
2016 marked the 70th Jubilee since the Invasion of Canaan. And it was also 2520 years since the first constitution - Nehemiah 10. So this Levite rule is very well ended. Welcome to the now. I am well pleased with my servant Masons for their custodial performance with the record.
As the oxen plows. Right to Left - Left to Right... That is the Key to re-paginating the Declaration of Faith. The Declaration is 32 Pages according to the Sepher Yezirah. 22 stamina and 10 digits = 32.
We are now ready for the cognitive dissonance:
5725
Jehovah - Enlil was a genetically engineered man. The day I stoned God was the exact same moment I learned how to control the weather.
David Merrill
01-16-20, 05:14 AM
This is The Declaration 5726 as I found it, the latter half of the document. Knowing the Laws of Moses (Exodus 20-24:7) helped.
That article looks older than Obamacare. But there is no date? Is there a way to date that article you linked?
ROBERTS traveled to Malta in July 2012; same date as the article. I was able to decrypt that, somehow, without resorting to the 5 cube sum number locks or the RSA fast factoring algorithm. http://texemarrs.com/072012
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.