PDA

View Full Version : New here about to take the plunge!



liqdfire
09-29-11, 02:50 AM
Hi all,

I am new here, for a while I have had one of those in the matrix feelings that something was just not right about the way the IRS / Fed Reserve was being executed. After reading a lot of information on the subject from here and various links contained within; I am officially ready to take the plunge, but I know I have a lot of work to do.

I ordered my restrictive endorsement stamps tonight, and they are being sent next day air to me.

David, I realized I order my stamp with "Redeemed in Lawful Money" etc... if there a significant importance for "Demand" vs. "Redeemed"?

I plan on going in and changing my checking account signature card here in the next couple of days. Once I do that will I still be able to pay the bills that require online payment with my debit card (bank issued)? How about bills that direct debit my checking account, virtual check?

David Merrill
09-29-11, 04:21 AM
Welcome to the forums.

As of late it seems that some banks are feeling that the Signature Card is solely their property. It is an agreement.

Let them know that you signed it incorrectly but do not be assertive enough to get into an argument. Let them know that you are not expecting any different treatment of your funds. If they know what is going on legally they will handle that appropriately for themselves according to the instructions from their attorneys. Just show them that according to law, you have a choice to make a demand or not and you want to keep the convenience of electronic funds transfers without endorsing private credit from the Federal Reserve.

Bills that direct debit from your checking account?

If you write, All transactions redeemed in lawful money... Something to that effect that will cover electronic payments. You will of course need to get a copy of that should you want to show the IRS with your Tax Return and get a full refund of withholdings.

Thanks for being here and thank you especially for informing yourself.

If your bank obstructs you might be better off somewhere else that has been doing this for a while. That gives you a chance to clean up what may be an already over-complicated financial system. For example, you might start paying in advance and refusing credit. Think like putting a junky table of stuff into a box, cleaning the table and only putting what you want back on the table. Get rid of billing wherever possible. Bills indict. Bill of Indictment - get it? You should leave the indictment to obligations of the US. That means the bills are already signed and billing information provided on the signatures of the Secretary and the US Treasurer; right there on the face of the bills.

With the PayPal stuff I wrote about a few weeks ago for a good example. But that was before August 2nd when the Good Faith and Credit of the US started to falter. PayPal abandoned faith in the US Dollar a week or two early. It is growing in concern though. T-Mobile kept pressing me that they were getting rid of my FLEX Plan but moving me to a new Plan where I pay at the end of the billing cycle. No changes at all, except that I do not have to pre-pay. That equals credit. I saw the writing on the wall so I kept ignoring their overtures because I am paid up for well into next year so I do not feel they can shut down my phone. The overtures kept growing so I finally took a call. I went through a few helpful associates and got argumentative about a few points, finally consenting to change to the new plan - after objecting that I like the FLEX Plan. The last guy was telling me that I cannot pay in advance but that I can pay in advance. I am already paid up well in advance but he was saying what he is scripted to say to coerce the legal point that I am applying for credit. I kept saying I like to pay in advance but he kept saying that the new Plan does not allow for me to pay in advance; however if I go to the T-Mobile store they will accept my cash; sure enough. In advance! Then when we seemed to agree there it came:

So tell me your Social Security Number?

I do not want any credit from you!

Now he was trying to make it out like credit had nothing to do with anything.

Well I told him that I did not want them to shut off my phone because I had paid well in advance. He assured me they would not be shutting off my phone so I hung up on him. The day after a much friendlier fellow called and assured me the new Plan had no changes from my FLEX Plan. I said that would be okay then. I am paid up in advance and expect to see no changes in minutes and perks, no changes in monthly charges etc. Great! He started to go some where but I stated a firm finality - Thank You! He paused, said, You are welcome and we hung up. He had obviously coached himself from the recorded conversations from the day before.

I am in a course at church. I paid up the tuition in cash and grabbed a textbook, hoping that the book came with tuition. No such luck. $16.25 for the book not including tax. Well because the tax was so difficult to calculate the instructor wanted us to buy the book by check or credit card.

??

Why is calculating the $17.95 price any more difficult or less difficult to calculate for a credit card or check?

He wanted my bill of indictment against myself - called billing information. He wanted my legal information, legal name etc. I even asked him looking in my wallet and counting coins, If I have exact change then you will accept that?

No. Not for the book. You have to pay for the book with a check or credit card. - He repeated.

During break I walked over to Wendy's and bought a small burger to get change. I came back and he was by the cookies with the students enjoying break. I handed him the cash and said, Here it is - $17.95 exact change in cash. He accepted it.

I don't think it malice. He is conditioned. When you redeem lawful money and start the non-endorsement process you are actually undermining debt as currency which is a good and patriotic thing to be doing. But it undermines a quickly imploding, immanently imploding debt system. We redeemers are like carefully regulated release valves in a highly compressed information infrastructure called money. It is better we clear our heads of a lifetime of faulty mental surgury early and help the implosion go a little less violently - because the Federal Reserve System has been setting up to implode since 1913 sure enough.

Thanks for being here.



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Here is what was going on in the background (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/09/secret-memo-reveals-which-telecoms-store-your-data-the-longest.ars?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+arstechnica/index+%28Ars+Technica+-+Featured+Content%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher). T-Mobile is on an information quest lately. My call details and texts are now recorded for 5 years instead of 2. They wanted all the billing information they could get.

liqdfire
09-29-11, 11:32 AM
Thanks for having me; and, especially thanks for sharing the information.

About how long have you been using the remedy, and opting out of the federal reserve system?

David Merrill
09-30-11, 09:28 PM
About 12 years ago a woman insisted on paying me with a $75 check. She said her accountant told her so. We had agreed on cash. I never cashed it. People pay me cash. I like to mark it with my stamp (http://www.merchantcircle.com/business/Quality.Rubber.Stamps.2.719-635-0943) though:



http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/6239/lawfulmoneystamp.jpg

christopher george
12-15-11, 12:43 AM
About 12 years ago a woman insisted on paying me with a $75 check. She said her accountant told her so. We had agreed on cash. I never cashed it. People pay me cash. I like to mark it with my stamp (http://www.merchantcircle.com/business/Quality.Rubber.Stamps.2.719-635-0943) though:



http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/6239/lawfulmoneystamp.jpg

although i just registered and this is my first post, i have been reading on this forum for many months and trying to wrap my head around all the hoops i will have to jump through to stop "playing the game" that we have been led into playing.

my question is, how can one lawfully stamp on FRNs?

the bureau of engraving and printing states:

"Defacement of Currency

Defacement of currency is a violation of Title 18, Section 333 of the United States Code. Under this provision, currency defacement is generally defined as follows: Whoever mutilates, cuts, disfigures, perforates, unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, Federal Reserve Bank, or Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such item(s) unfit to be reissued, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

Defacement of currency in such a way that it is made unfit for circulation comes under the jurisdiction of the United States Secret Service."

source: http://www.bep.treas.gov/historicallegislation.html

Treefarmer
12-15-11, 01:47 AM
I have wondered about this myself.
I came to the conclusion that it's an infraction which just isn't big enough to prosecute in and of itself.
But it might become an issue if a persecuting power decided to single out and go after someone for other and related reasons.

Perhaps prosecuting "persons" for stamping lawful money verbiage on FRNs would call too much attention to the topic of lawful money?

David Merrill
12-15-11, 03:38 AM
...with intent to render...

The statute specifies that one must have the intent.

martin earl
12-15-11, 04:56 AM
There is only one "face" on the FRN, deface can only mean doing damage to that side of the bill. Clearly, the back is not the face, stamping the back of the bill is not against the rule, as it does not reach the legal definition of "defacement".

Notice also this little bit in the Code evidence of debt, not even their code claims the bills are or have value as money.

Leave the face of the note(s) alone and there is no defacement.

Demanding redemption of lawful money, nor stamping the note changes the fact it is "evidence of debt" it simply keeps the obligation to pay that debt with the issuer and endorser of the note in the case of Federal reserve notes, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of the US.

David Merrill
12-15-11, 08:41 AM
although i just registered and this is my first post, i have been reading on this forum for many months and trying to wrap my head around all the hoops i will have to jump through to stop "playing the game" that we have been led into playing.

my question is, how can one lawfully stamp on FRNs?

the bureau of engraving and printing states:

"Defacement of Currency

Defacement of currency is a violation of Title 18, Section 333 of the United States Code. Under this provision, currency defacement is generally defined as follows: Whoever mutilates, cuts, disfigures, perforates, unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, Federal Reserve Bank, or Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such item(s) unfit to be reissued, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

Defacement of currency in such a way that it is made unfit for circulation comes under the jurisdiction of the United States Secret Service."

source: http://www.bep.treas.gov/historicallegislation.html

Thank you for pointing out the "evidence of debt" part of the statute!

Here is something from the Third Circuit. Sadly this predates electronic imaging so I can only get secondary images. It is a published opinion though:


319 F.3d 640: United States of America v. Luther Thomas, Appellant

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. - 319 F.3d 640
Argued November 13, 2002 Filed February 12, 2003

Douglas J. Beevers (Argued), Assistant Federal Public Defender, St. Thomas, USVI, for Appellant.

Joycelyn Hewlett (Argued), Assistant U.S. Attorney, St. Thomas, USVI, for Appellee.
Before SCIRICA, ALITO, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges.

ALITO, Circuit Judge.

1 Appellant Luther Thomas contests the administrative forfeiture of $1,049 in cash. After unsuccessfully moving for a return of property pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(e), Thomas argued that the government's failure initially to assert jurisdiction over the res rendered the forfeiture invalid. The District Court found no jurisdictional deficiencies, and we affirm.

2 On May 25, 2000, the Drug Enforcement Administration obtained from the District Court a warrant to search Thomas's home. Officers seized $1,049 in cash pursuant to that warrant and arrested Thomas for possessing a small amount of cocaine base (crack) with intent to distribute. On June 1, a DEA task-force agent and Virgin Islands police...

...checks, and bank deposits are simply surrogates for each other, and in modern society are certainly regarded as `fungible,' when the question is ownership of the funds each represents." Similarly, the Ninth Circuit rejected the argument that when "currency was exchanged for a cashier's check, the currency, which is the res, `disappeared into the banking system and is no longer identifiable.'" United States v. $46,588 in U.S. Currency and $20.00 in Canadian Currency, 103 F.3d 902, 905 (9th Cir.1996). Citing Madewell, it held that "the cashier's check was an appropriate, fungible surrogate for the seized currency." Id.

18 This approach accords comfortably with the jurisprudence of civil forfeiture. Historically, forfeiture proceeded from the legal fiction that property used in the commission of a crime itself offends the law. See, e.g., The Palmyra, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 1, 14, 6 L.Ed. 531 (1827). The forfeited res, as a legal entity, is identical with the physical article when the property is, for example, a sea vessel, an automobile, or a firearm. Currency, however, differs substantially from such objects. Paper currency, in the form of the Federal Reserve Note, is defined as an "obligation[] of the United States" that may be "redeemed in lawful money on demand." 12 U.S.C. ยง 411 (2002). These bills are not "money" per se but promissory notes supported by the monetary reserves of the United States. When an individual engages in a criminal transaction with paper currency, although the individual certainly uses the notes to accomplish the criminal end, the currency's monetary value funds the transaction and is also an appropriate target of forfeiture. This result also follows from the fact that an individual who uses legal documents representing ownership of land to raise funds for a criminal purpose renders the land itself subject to forfeiture. See United States v. RD 1, Box 1, Thompsontown, 952 F.2d 53 (3d Cir.1991). It would be absurd, in that case, to suppose that forfeiture could attach only to the document and not to the legal interests represented by that document. We therefore hold that the DEA did not abandon the res when it converted the currency to a cashier's check.

19 In sum, we hold that the DEA properly exercised in rem jurisdiction over the $1,049 seized from Thomas. As the District Court correctly recognized in citing McGlory, no other issue that would normally go to the merits of a Rule 41(e) motion may be considered or adjudicated at this time. We therefore affirm the judgment of the District Court.

I will try getting a better rendition of the case into .pdf later today.

Treefarmer
12-15-11, 05:02 PM
Thank you for pointing out the "evidence of debt" part of the statute!

Here is something from the Third Circuit. Sadly this predates electronic imaging so I can only get secondary images. It is a published opinion though:



I will try getting a better rendition of the case into .pdf later today.
Nice!
Thank you David Merrill.

David Merrill
12-16-11, 01:15 AM
Nice!
Thank you David Merrill.


Thank you for reminding me!


Click Here (http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/7662/lawfulmoneydescription.pdf).

christopher george
12-16-11, 08:14 AM
There is only one "face" on the FRN, deface can only mean doing damage to that side of the bill. Clearly, the back is not the face, stamping the back of the bill is not against the rule, as it does not reach the legal definition of "defacement".

Notice also this little bit in the Code evidence of debt, not even their code claims the bills are or have value as money.

Leave the face of the note(s) alone and there is no defacement.

Demanding redemption of lawful money, nor stamping the note changes the fact it is "evidence of debt" it simply keeps the obligation to pay that debt with the issuer and endorser of the note in the case of Federal reserve notes, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of the US.

ah!!! thank you martin earl...it is so easy to overlook true definitions. For those wondering, Black's Law Dictionary defines "deface" as:
To mar or destroy the face(that is, the physical appearance of written or inscribed characters as expressive of a definite meaning) of a written instrument, signature, inscription, etc., by obliteration, erasure, cancellation, or superinscription, so as to render it illegible or unrecognizable. Linney v. State, 6 Tex. 1, 55 Am. Dec. 756. See CANCEL