PDA

View Full Version : Direct depost coming my way in January...2 credit unions decline to open accounts



logjam
10-18-11, 11:15 PM
Greetings all,

I got the "letter" at work telling me MANDATORY direct deposit will begin on Jan 1, 2012.

I went to two different credit unions today, presented them with $8000 in paychecks with the 12usc411 non-endorsement on them, and was told they don't accept any restrictive endorsements on them. So, I left without joy... Well, that sucks!

A while back, someone posted on a GLP forum topic (I believe David contributed to that thread for a time) about sending the bank I already have an account with a notarized letter stating that "All withdrawals or deposits on account XXXXXXXXXX-XXXX are for credit on account or exchanged for lawful money in the form of Non-negotiable Federal Reserve Notes of face value" Then send it registered mail to the bank.

Will this work, or does the actual signature card need this verbiage as well?

Thanks!

EZrhythm
10-19-11, 08:53 AM
"It" doesn't work, each makes it work.

I would form it as a NOTICE,record a certified copy in the public and then send a certified copy. The court makes the record and the record makes the court. You are the court.

To make the declaration more impenetrable certify your statement under oath with a notary or witness placing a seal.

When you open an account look for the I-9 form that may be included in the wording of the account agreement. The I-9 section/form is for allowing the bank permission to share you account activities with the IRS. Wells Fargo tried tried to pull a fast one and get the account endorsements on the electronic pad but I insisted on signing a hard copy. They still tried to get me to sign electronically saying that they could print me a hard copy after I signed.

logjam
10-19-11, 11:05 AM
"It" doesn't work, each makes it work.

I would form it as a NOTICE,record a certified copy in the public and then send a certified copy. The court makes the record and the record makes the court. You are the court.

To make the declaration more impenetrable certify your statement under oath with a notary or witness placing a seal.

When you open an account look for the I-9 form that may be included in the wording of the account agreement. The I-9 section/form is for allowing the bank permission to share you account activities with the IRS. Wells Fargo tried tried to pull a fast one and get the account endorsements on the electronic pad but I insisted on signing a hard copy. They still tried to get me to sign electronically saying that they could print me a hard copy after I signed.

Thanks EZ. Yea they are sneaky that way. Is the I-9 a form that has to be filled out, or is it voluntary? Also, is it not the I-9 that makes one declare that they are US Citizens?

Banks are really fighting back it seems. They don't want to give up that precious ability to fractionally lend...

Jethro
10-19-11, 01:30 PM
I suspect "MANDATORY" does not really mean mandatory at all. If "direct deposit" wasn't a condition of being hired, it's likely an unenforceable condition to stay hired. If they fired you because of this matter, you'd likely have a rather nice lawsuit against them.

George Gordon once told of a similar story (if I can find the link to the audio, I'll post it) where a company "mandated" everyone move to direct deposit. One guy refused to do so. The company threatened over and over to terminate him by X date if he didn't go along. X date passed, and not only was he not fired, he still got his paycheck (or it may have been cash) -- he was the only one.

If it were me, I'd likely make a conditional offer something like: "I'd be happy to use direct deposit. However, YOU (company) must set up the DD account for me; and such account must be in in lawful money per 12 USC 411, or YOU assume full liability for the account. Deal?" Now they got a problem. :)

shikamaru
10-19-11, 04:33 PM
I suspect "MANDATORY" does not really mean mandatory at all. If "direct deposit" wasn't a condition of being hired, it's likely an unenforceable condition to stay hired. If they fired you because of this matter, you'd likely have a rather nice lawsuit against them.

George Gordon once told of a similar story (if I can find the link to the audio, I'll post it) where a company "mandated" everyone move to direct deposit. One guy refused to do so. The company threatened over and over to terminate him by X date if he didn't go along. X date passed, and not only was he not fired, he still got his paycheck (or it may have been cash) -- he was the only one.

If it were me, I'd likely make a conditional offer something like: "I'd be happy to use direct deposit. However, YOU (company) must set up the DD account for me; and such account must be in in lawful money per 12 USC 411, or YOU assume full liability for the account. Deal?" Now they got a problem. :)

I remember that broadcast. That was awesome.
I can't recall which one it was either.
Was it you can beat city hall?

logjam
10-19-11, 09:31 PM
Well looky what I just found...

Title 40.1 of the Code of Virginia

Virginia Payment of Wage Law, ยง 40.1-29 of the Code of Virginia.

Employers must establish regular pay rates and pay dates, and pay employees all wages, salaries, and commissions on or before the established pay day. Fringe benefits such as vacation, sick, holiday, and severance pay are not required to be given under the law, and employers may establish any or no policy regarding these fringe benefits. Payment must be made in cash, by check, or direct deposit if the employee chooses, and, in limited circumstances, by payroll debit cards. The law prohibits employers from making deductions, other than for taxes or other items required by law such as garnishments, without first securing the employee's written authorization to do so. Even with written permission, employees cannot be required to forfeit their wages for shortages, errors, damages, etc. Employers can be assessed a $1,000 penalty per violation or face criminal charges for intentionally and willfully violating this law.

I am thinking about drafting an affidavit stating first, that direct deposit was offered as an option when I was hired, NOT as a condition of employment. Do ex-post facto laws apply in situations such as this?

Then quote the law as seen above. (My employer is county govt. Don't they have to abide by state laws, which have superior jurisdiction?) The last time (quite a while ago) they tried to get me to switch to DD, they sicked one of the directors on me. I held my ground, but definitely didn't make friends doing it. What recourse would I have if they pursue harassing me on this?

This is starting to be fun... now that I think I have the upper hand.

BTW, I too remember that George Gordon podcast... need to go searching for it.

Thanks all.

Here it is: http://library.georgegordon.com/node/1540

David Merrill
10-19-11, 11:09 PM
"It" doesn't work, each makes it work.

I would form it as a NOTICE,record a certified copy in the public and then send a certified copy. The court makes the record and the record makes the court. You are the court.

To make the declaration more impenetrable certify your statement under oath with a notary or witness placing a seal.

When you open an account look for the I-9 form that may be included in the wording of the account agreement. The I-9 section/form is for allowing the bank permission to share you account activities with the IRS. Wells Fargo tried tried to pull a fast one and get the account endorsements on the electronic pad but I insisted on signing a hard copy. They still tried to get me to sign electronically saying that they could print me a hard copy after I signed.

Thank you EZ;


I was thinking of forming an identical suggestion. In general publish your demand for lawful money pursuant to... at the county clerk and recorder. Whenever applicable grab a certified copy for a couple bucks and send it to a banking institution. Use either Registered Mail and an evidence repository ($39 Miscellaneous Case file in the federal court) or maybe a professional process server. It is doubtful that they would close down your account since it is the only method of paying you and you have not broken any laws.

About your marked checks. You can simply strike through the demand. Use a single strikethrough and be careful to get before and after copies. Now you have both evidence of your demand and evidence that the institution is coercing you to endorse private credit from the Fed. I can imagine the only purpose is for a full refund of your withholdings, right? So you have the evidence of your demand. Do that every paycheck and show your blanket demand and its proof of service on your electronic bank when you file your 1040.



Regards,

David Merrill.



P.S. The option of payroll debit cards sounds good.

logjam
10-20-11, 12:43 AM
P.S. The option of payroll debit cards sounds good.

David, how would one redeem lawful money from a payroll debit card?

I've seen your threads re: Paypal, but would a payroll dc be issued by my employer, or is it something I must acquire and give them permission to deposit funds into? I realize you don't know, I was just thinking out loud.

Thanks.

David Merrill
10-20-11, 01:49 AM
I am presuming the conditions are like a suitor who works for WalMart. So that is the model I am working from.

It is about record-forming with the account authorization. WalMart has its own debit card. The employee gets the same debit card as any WalMart debit card and the paycheck amounts get put on the debit card. I am presuming that the debit card from your employer is with a name bank.

You would publish a general demand at the county clerk and recorder. Serve it on the bank.

The debit card is not a credit card, refer to the PayPal and other related threads.

This is an interesting endeavor in record-forming though. Maybe we should sit down?

logjam
10-27-11, 07:16 PM
Update as of 10/27...

Decided to try my luck with another bank. This time, I did not tell them of my intentions... just listened politely as the Bank officer told me all about the features, overdraft protection, etc.
It was for a non-interest bearing checking account. I handed her the state-issued DL, and a $50FRN to open the account with.
After her tap tap tapping on her keyboard for quite a while, she finally handed me the "signature card" which is actually an 8.5x11 piece of paper. She indicated where I was to sign. I thoroughly read it through, then did some changes.
First, I crossed through U.S. Citizen, and wrote "man" in its place. Then in the section called "Other Terms/Information", I wrote "On all transactions, demand is made for lawful money per 12USC411", and signed with Without Prejudice above my name.

Great I thought! They didn't even question it.

About 15 minutes later and 12 miles down the road I get a call from the branch manager telling me that he checked with "Legal" and this is not allowed. I asked him if he was aware that Title 12 is US law, but he didn't want to hear it. He said to come in and change it, or they will have to cancel the account.

Can they do this once they've accepted a cash deposit?

What other recourse do we have? It seems banks are catching on to this, and want no part of it. If this is written into the US code and pertains to Federal Reserve Banks and branches, how can they ignore this law?

Anyone?

Thanks.

motla68
10-27-11, 10:26 PM
Update as of 10/27...

Decided to try my luck with another bank. This time, I did not tell them of my intentions... just listened politely as the Bank officer told me all about the features, overdraft protection, etc.
It was for a non-interest bearing checking account. I handed her the state-issued DL, and a $50FRN to open the account with.
After her tap tap tapping on her keyboard for quite a while, she finally handed me the "signature card" which is actually an 8.5x11 piece of paper. She indicated where I was to sign. I thoroughly read it through, then did some changes.
First, I crossed through U.S. Citizen, and wrote "man" in its place. Then in the section called "Other Terms/Information", I wrote "On all transactions, demand is made for lawful money per 12USC411", and signed with Without Prejudice above my name.

Great I thought! They didn't even question it.

About 15 minutes later and 12 miles down the road I get a call from the branch manager telling me that he checked with "Legal" and this is not allowed. I asked him if he was aware that Title 12 is US law, but he didn't want to hear it. He said to come in and change it, or they will have to cancel the account.

Can they do this once they've accepted a cash deposit?

What other recourse do we have? It seems banks are catching on to this, and want no part of it. If this is written into the US code and pertains to Federal Reserve Banks and branches, how can they ignore this law?

Anyone?

Thanks.

Hey logjam, just my 2 cents based upon experience, they do not like restrictive endorsements because certain ones limit their ability on the fractional reserve banking side to negotiate transactions at different rates.
If you can get a hold of a regular bank check from an account if you have an old one laying around, use a high powered magnifying glass on the signature line, it will say something like " Authorized Signature " . amazing how small it can be and still be legal. The other thing is that you do not need to be so elaborate in the lawful money statement, just simply put " 12 usc 411 - lawful money " and do it real small right below your signature, not just on the signature card but for all checks deposited, that way they cannot try to weasel out of a transaction and yet gets stream lined past most tellers, have had lots of success doing it this way. The only time i had a problem is before i started doing that was writing it real big to make it very obvious and in that case all i did was go to a different branch of the same bank and it was accepted.

good luck in your journey.

logjam
10-27-11, 10:41 PM
Thanks Motla.

I actually mused how it would be nice to have a stamp that is so microscopic, they wouldn't see it once it was stamped on their paperwork. Turn their trickery back on themselves!

It just really pisses me off how their "legal" dept. always deny changes to their precious signature card.

What stuck me was that the only sigNATURE on it was mine. No bank officer signature, none.

So then, can this still be considered to be a contract? What do you think would have happened if I asked the bank officer to sign it as well? hmmmm....

It looks like the banks and corporations are in collusion with one another, quietly corralling people into a direct deposit system, thereby removing the ability of one to non-endorse. They are a crafty bunch!

I have yet to use my trump card against my employer (pointing out the state law to them) and am reluctant to do so, but that may be my only recourse.

grrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!

shikamaru
10-27-11, 11:26 PM
What stuck me was that the only sigNATURE on it was mine. No bank officer signature, none.

So then, can this still be considered to be a contract? What do you think would have happened if I asked the bank officer to sign it as well? hmmmm....

It's called an adhesion contract or contract of adhesion.



A standard form contract (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_form_contract) (sometimes referred to as an adhesion or boilerplate contract) is a contract between two parties where the terms and conditions of the contract are set by one of the parties, and the other party is placed in a "take it or leave it" position with little or no ability to negotiate terms more favorable to it.

Examples of standard form contracts are insurance policies (where the insurer decides what it will and will not insure, and the language of the contract) and contracts with government agencies (where certain clauses must be included by law or regulation).

While these types of contracts, in and of themselves, are not illegal per se, there exists a very real possibility for unconscionability.


Courtesy of Roman Civil Law. Isn't that special?
Perfectly legal or not illegal. That's why corporations present them to customers.

You may want to read Ancient Law (http://books.google.com/books?id=sppsAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Ancient+Law&hl=en&ei=wOSpTvXrHYLo0QGF9tmLDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false) by Henry James Sumner Maine.

According to Maine, society has been a progression from "status to contract".

What I want to draw attention to here is your right to contract.
We want to wield this power without injuring ourselves or agreeing to terms and conditions which are prejudicial against our rights or position.

motla68
10-28-11, 12:53 AM
Thanks Motla.

I actually mused how it would be nice to have a stamp that is so microscopic, they wouldn't see it once it was stamped on their paperwork. Turn their trickery back on themselves!

It just really pisses me off how their "legal" dept. always deny changes to their precious signature card.

What stuck me was that the only sigNATURE on it was mine. No bank officer signature, none.

So then, can this still be considered to be a contract? What do you think would have happened if I asked the bank officer to sign it as well? hmmmm....

It looks like the banks and corporations are in collusion with one another, quietly corralling people into a direct deposit system, thereby removing the ability of one to non-endorse. They are a crafty bunch!

I have yet to use my trump card against my employer (pointing out the state law to them) and am reluctant to do so, but that may be my only recourse.

grrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!

If you use some thinking here on approach it is a negotiable contract thing, not a us is against them thing, got to get that patriot indoctrination out of your head so you can go in with a clear mind. One bank that had refused I had requested to speak with the bank manager, politely asked according to their banking policy what qualifies as a restrictive endorsement from what the teller told me, he explained and the way he did is about how some of you all out there are so wordy when doing these things so this is how the simplification came about. You do not have to be a historical genius of banking transactions to get the job done, each situation has it's own unique experience it does not accomplish anything for bringing prejudice to all banks for what one or two does.

Please do not consider this as me singling you out or me being some kind of hard ass, but you wrote " without prejudice " on the signature card, the first sign of adversity then the thought was of prejudice... frustration, the bank officer could have been new or any other reasons, please do correct me if i am wrong here, but this is what I mean by approaching things with a clear mind, attract more positive energy by correcting the mistake and gain more probability of things going in your favor in the end. Save yourself from countless hours of historical research on the 101 ways of banking contracts unless that really interests you.

dmk
01-05-12, 05:53 AM
Wow very good discussion.
logjam: did you get a response on what to do on your signature card?
I am not with a big 4 bank but next tier and they are not listening either.
What to do? checks with statement still okay and are they being excepted? My fear though is with wire transfers: business to business or personal accounts; keep to small amounts?
Are smaller regional banks better? or keep looking until I find one that will accept?
Thanks everyone.
D

Binbokusai Yagyuu
05-09-12, 08:36 PM
Banks are instrumentalities of the Federal Gov ...

why do you think that "citizen" question is such a big deal ...???

They ... are forming a Record

David Merrill
05-09-12, 09:43 PM
Banks are instrumentalities of the Federal Gov ...

why do you think that "citizen" question is such a big deal ...???

They ... are forming a Record

I am not clear about your point BY but I do have a link that supports your comment.

http://img863.imageshack.us/img863/3750/frbvmetrocentreimprovem.pdf

Binbokusai Yagyuu
05-09-12, 10:01 PM
good case, I have others showing that "national" banks are such also

the Record they are forming by the Citizen question, and SSN ...
is the presumption that you are a Taxpayer

Binbokusai Yagyuu
05-09-12, 10:12 PM
Re: Banks

Davis v. Elmira Savings Bank - 161 U.S. 275 (1896)

David Merrill
05-09-12, 10:35 PM
Thank you BY!

shikamaru
05-09-12, 11:08 PM
good case, I have others showing that "national" banks are such also

the Record they are forming by the Citizen question, and SSN ...
is the presumption that you are a Taxpayer

I hear whispers of "Invisible Contracts" :D.

gdude
09-27-12, 04:41 PM
good case, I have others showing that "national" banks are such also

the Record they are forming by the Citizen question, and SSN ...
is the presumption that you are a Taxpayer

Correct, anytime they are asking you to sign under penalty of perjury that you are a U.S. citizen or U.S. person or U.S. Individual, you are providing prima facie evidence that:

1.) you are domiciled within a United States federal zone (even though your domicile is in one of the states of the union)
2.) you are a U.S. business (meaning you are a federal connected corp., like a bank)
3.) your SS# also lends to the presumption that you are a federal employee

How convenient of the banks to attach the W-9 to the signature card!

I personally cross out U.S. citizen or person and write "American citizen", but that is difficult if they don't present a paper copy. Or you could just sign it under T/D/C....threat/ duress/ coercion

David Merrill
09-27-12, 05:28 PM
Correct, anytime they are asking you to sign under penalty of perjury that you are a U.S. citizen or U.S. person or U.S. Individual, you are providing prima facie evidence that:

1.) you are domiciled within a United States federal zone (even though your domicile is in one of the states of the union)
2.) you are a U.S. business (meaning you are a federal connected corp., like a bank)
3.) your SS# also lends to the presumption that you are a federal employee

How convenient of the banks to attach the W-9 to the signature card!

I personally cross out U.S. citizen or person and write "American citizen", but that is difficult if they don't present a paper copy. Or you could just sign it under T/D/C....threat/ duress/ coercion

Hi Gdude!


It is great to have you posting around here.

I think the problem is that the form is a Form. It becomes optional to read in the revisions when filing the form. In other words if they register an residential address then you "reside" for all effective usage.

gdude
09-27-12, 11:12 PM
Hi Gdude!


It is great to have you posting around here.

I think the problem is that the form is a Form. It becomes optional to read in the revisions when filing the form. In other words if they register an residential address then you "reside" for all effective usage.

Thanks David, I am still learning!

In a court of law, who is going to testify from first hand knowledge where your domicile is? What evidence do they have? Do you receive mail there? Do you work there? etc...

A Domicile is your fixed, permanent home....... you can only have ONE domicile.

Residence implies that your home is temporary (ie. a soldier being assigned to a post in another country, a Congress critter living in DC , but actually has his domicile in Virginia) you can several residences (ex: a vacation home in Florida and a beach house in Florida, but your Domicile may be in Texas....)

shikamaru
09-27-12, 11:33 PM
Thanks David, I am still learning!

In a court of law, who is going to testify from first hand knowledge where your domicile is? What evidence do they have? Do you receive mail there? Do you work there? etc...


I believe States call this "minimal contacts" for purposes of in personam jurisdiction.

David Merrill
09-27-12, 11:34 PM
You best stay out of court. Residence and domicile arguments are pretty worn out.

gdude
09-28-12, 12:44 AM
You best stay out of court. Residence and domicile arguments are pretty worn out.

I agree.

The court system is no place to find justice in my experience.

Misstating and twisting your arguments, denying your every motion while approving the governments motions ( no matter how flawed) is par for the course.

PS....I never personally argued the Domicile issue in court.

shikamaru
09-28-12, 08:51 PM
I agree.

The court system is no place to find justice in my experience.

Misstating and twisting your arguments, denying your every motion while approving the governments motions ( no matter how flawed) is par for the course.

PS....I never personally argued the Domicile issue in court.

No need to argue.

Better to have a declaration in paper form, stamped, and filed in an evidentiary.

Let your papers and the power of declaration do the talking.
A public notice open to any who would possibly object wouldn't hurt either :).

gdude
09-30-12, 05:11 AM
No need to argue.

Better to have a declaration in paper form, stamped, and filed in an evidentiary.

Let your papers and the power of declaration do the talking.
A public notice open to any who would possibly object wouldn't hurt either :).

Thanks Shikamaru!

I have actually filed a Declaration of Domicile with in my County's Register of Deeds Record book.... It is notarized, and posted in a public forum.

David Merrill
09-30-12, 10:22 AM
Good for you Gdude!

I always love to see good record forming.

gdude
10-01-12, 01:53 AM
Good for you Gdude!

I always love to see good record forming.

Thanks Sensei, I mean David!

Next on the list is tackling the Demand for lawful money 12USC ? 411 for direct deposits in my local bank. I was going to first go to several different banks ( there are at least 15 in my area) and try to open a new account. BUT, i think before I do this I think I need to start using my True Name, and I am still trying to wrap my head around this.... it would seem I would need to change my DL BEFORE I attempt to open new accounts (since they use this whenever you open accounts) ....and wouldn't I have to change EVERY account that is in my LEGAL NAME?? IRS, Credit cards, banks, etc......

I also thought about filing a declaration to redeem lawful money (ab initio, from the beginning) in my county records, send one to local fed and the bank.

I also thought about just calling my employer's accountant and tell them to start sending me checks again...... they send a blank one every 2 weeks anyway, it has all the info on it except the amount on the check says -0-. So why would it be so difficult to revert back to a formal check??

Suggestions welcome!

Thanks, G

David Merrill
10-01-12, 02:53 AM
Thanks Sensei, I mean David!

Next on the list is tackling the Demand for lawful money 12USC ? 411 for direct deposits in my local bank. I was going to first go to several different banks ( there are at least 15 in my area) and try to open a new account. BUT, i think before I do this I think I need to start using my True Name, and I am still trying to wrap my head around this.... it would seem I would need to change my DL BEFORE I attempt to open new accounts (since they use this whenever you open accounts) ....and wouldn't I have to change EVERY account that is in my LEGAL NAME?? IRS, Credit cards, banks, etc......

I also thought about filing a declaration to redeem lawful money (ab initio, from the beginning) in my county records, send one to local fed and the bank.

I also thought about just calling my employer's accountant and tell them to start sending me checks again...... they send a blank one every 2 weeks anyway, it has all the info on it except the amount on the check says -0-. So why would it be so difficult to revert back to a formal check??

Suggestions welcome!

Thanks, G

Sounds like a good place to start - Driver License. You can get the bank notary to notarize your signature in True Name and then put that on a signature card with your stamp (http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/6742/redeemedbills.jpg). Have you got a stamp yet (http://www.merchantcircle.com/business/Quality.Rubber.Stamps.2.719-635-0943)?

There are various degrees of notice (http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/2922/noticeanddemand2012.pdf) for making your demand.

gdude
10-01-12, 05:36 AM
Sounds like a good place to start - Driver License. You can get the bank notary to notarize your signature in True Name and then put that on a signature card with your stamp (http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/6742/redeemedbills.jpg). Have you got a stamp yet (http://www.merchantcircle.com/business/Quality.Rubber.Stamps.2.719-635-0943)?

There are various degrees of notice (http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/2922/noticeanddemand2012.pdf) for making your demand.

Yes, I have a stamp that I bought a year ago and have been using to cash checks.

I could also make a record of True Name DBA/ LEGAL NAME in the County record book. BUT.... What about my current mortgage, IRS correspondence, passport, credit cards, etc?? Will they associate the LEGAL NAME with True Name by referring to the SS#?
OR does the SS# just apply to the LEGAL NAME?

Thanks, G

Gracefultrader
10-01-12, 10:46 PM
Correct, anytime they are asking you to sign under penalty of perjury that you are a U.S. citizen or U.S. person or U.S. Individual, you are providing prima facie evidence that:

1.) you are domiciled within a United States federal zone (even though your domicile is in one of the states of the union)
2.) you are a U.S. business (meaning you are a federal connected corp., like a bank)
3.) your SS# also lends to the presumption that you are a federal employee

How convenient of the banks to attach the W-9 to the signature card!

I personally cross out U.S. citizen or person and write "American citizen", but that is difficult if they don't present a paper copy. Or you could just sign it under T/D/C....threat/ duress/ coercion

When signing, add this "28 U.S.C. 1746(1)", which indicates that you are signing as a State Citizen, not a federal citizen, and outside the federal zone. This statute is the ONLY place in the United States Code where the distinction between declarations made outside the "United States" (i.e. the "Federal Zone") and those made within it is shown. It's actually the only place where the contradistinction between the two zones of jurisdiction is indicated.

Notice the form of words used in ? 1746(2) - "If executed within the United States, ITS territories..." (not THEIR territories). This second form of jurat is the one found on almost every document you will be asked to sign by any governmental agency (or bank) and it clearly indicates that you're signing as a party within the federal jurisdictional zone.

The term "United States" was ruled to have 3 distinctly different legal meanings by the Supreme Court - see Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt - 324 U.S. 652 (1945): http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/324/652/. For a discussion of the significance of this, see http://deoxy.org/lib/3us.htm or the extensive material on it found at supremelaw.org

As an aside, the Secretary of State's office in New Hampshire agrees that where the term "United States" appears on State forms, it refers to the third definition given in Hooven, but the State's A.G. office believes it refers to the second (federal zone)...

gdude
10-12-12, 01:58 AM
When signing, add this "28 U.S.C. 1746(1)", which indicates that you are signing as a State Citizen, not a federal citizen, and outside the federal zone. This statute is the ONLY place in the United States Code where the distinction between declarations made outside the "United States" (i.e. the "Federal Zone") and those made within it is shown. It's actually the only place where the contradistinction between the two zones of jurisdiction is indicated.

Notice the form of words used in ? 1746(2) - "If executed within the United States, ITS territories..." (not THEIR territories). This second form of jurat is the one found on almost every document you will be asked to sign by any governmental agency (or bank) and it clearly indicates that you're signing as a party within the federal jurisdictional zone.

The term "United States" was ruled to have 3 distinctly different legal meanings by the Supreme Court - see Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt - 324 U.S. 652 (1945): http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/324/652/. For a discussion of the significance of this, see http://deoxy.org/lib/3us.htm or the extensive material on it found at supremelaw.org

As an aside, the Secretary of State's office in New Hampshire agrees that where the term "United States" appears on State forms, it refers to the third definition given in Hooven, but the State's A.G. office believes it refers to the second (federal zone)...

I have used 28 U.S.C. 1746(1) before , but my question is..... couldn't you STILL be considered a U.S. person/citizen/individual even though you signed the form "outside the U.S." Remember, our arm forces, Congress critters , ambassadors are all those things , but may be "without the U.S.".

Treefarmer
10-12-12, 02:37 AM
I have used 28 U.S.C. 1746(1) before , but my question is..... couldn't you STILL be considered a U.S. person/citizen/individual even though you signed the form "outside the U.S." Remember, our arm forces, Congress critters , ambassadors are all those things , but may be "without the U.S.".

It's been my experience that if a man/woman was born on land somewhere between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, north of the Mexican border but south of Canada, and continually lives thereabouts, then s/he is considered to be a US citizen by nearly everyone, especially government employees and revenue officers.
That US-citizen may be a political instead of a geographical phenomenon is a closely guarded secret that has never been publicly disclosed to my knowledge.

The same goes for "person". I believe that there is an important legal distinction between the terms man/woman and person, but 99.9% of the population doesn't know or care, and acts as if these were the same word/term.

Since most of our daily interactions have to do with people and their perceptions, that makes this a very tricky topic. There are no easy answers, IMO, because these legal terms, being the mechanism of our enslavement, are closely guarded secrets.

I have learned through experience that the truth about government and all its functions is shrouded in deep mystery.
I've never been able to get a straight and truthful answer to any of my questions concerning government and its rules and regulations from any government employee, and not for the lack of trying.

shikamaru
10-12-12, 01:19 PM
It's been my experience that if a man/woman was born on land somewhere between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, north of the Mexican border but south of Canada, and continually lives thereabouts, then s/he is considered to be a US citizen by nearly everyone, especially government employees and revenue officers.
That US-citizen may be a political instead of a geographical phenomenon is a closely guarded secret that has never been publicly disclosed to my knowledge.

The same goes for "person". I believe that there is an important legal distinction between the terms man/woman and person, but 99.9% of the population doesn't know or care, and acts as if these were the same word/term.

Since most of our daily interactions have to do with people and their perceptions, that makes this a very tricky topic. There are no easy answers, IMO, because these legal terms, being the mechanism of our enslavement, are closely guarded secrets.

I have learned through experience that the truth about government and all its functions is shrouded in deep mystery.
I've never been able to get a straight and truthful answer to any of my questions concerning government and its rules and regulations from any government employee, and not for the lack of trying.

To assert with allowance for rebuttal may do the trick here :).

At some point the assertions or inquiry will be too much to bear.

Better to let one minnow go than to allow the catch to be revealed.

Gracefultrader
10-12-12, 03:07 PM
I have used 28 U.S.C. 1746(1) before , but my question is..... couldn't you STILL be considered a U.S. person/citizen/individual even though you signed the form "outside the U.S." Remember, our arm forces, Congress critters , ambassadors are all those things , but may be "without the U.S.".

The folks you mention are all employed by the United States and thus receiving a benefit/privilege from a government agency of one kind or another. As such they are operating "within" the jurisdiction of the United States, by consent and by contract. Positions held within the government are provided as discretionary benefits created by the government (they would not otherwise even exist as employment opportunities) and therefore entry into them is prima facie evidence of one's consent to federal jurisdiction.

For example, members of the armed forces sign a contract upon entry that limits the full expression of some of their Constitutionally-protected rights and subjects them to the Code of Military Justice as their new legal forum. They cannot, for example, practice the unrestrained limits of their 1st Amendment-guaranteed right to free speech, or of assembly (at will). For obvious and appropriate reasons, they cannot communicate on any subject at any time to anyone they choose as doing so could easily compromise U.S. military security. Congresspersons and ambassadors hold their respective positions at the pleasure of the government and/or the people. As such their work is a privilege, not a fundamental or essential right to work. It is these contracts and privileged activities that automatically bring them, by their own consent, within the jurisdiction of the United States. So, yes, you would, in the cases cited, still be subject to federal jurisdiction as found "within" the United States were you holding any of the consensual forms of employment mentioned - regardless of how you signed anything else. In such circumstances, you have established your political status by contract in a fashion that supersedes subsequent affirmations to the contrary until the binding contract is completed/broken/remedied, or otherwise made inoperable (e.g. as for fraud or some other defect).

I hope this answers your question.

Gracefultrader
10-12-12, 03:35 PM
It's been my experience that if a man/woman was born on land somewhere between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, north of the Mexican border but south of Canada, and continually lives thereabouts, then s/he is considered to be a US citizen by nearly everyone, especially government employees and revenue officers.
That US-citizen may be a political instead of a geographical phenomenon is a closely guarded secret that has never been publicly disclosed to my knowledge.

The same goes for "person". I believe that there is an important legal distinction between the terms man/woman and person, but 99.9% of the population doesn't know or care, and acts as if these were the same word/term.

Since most of our daily interactions have to do with people and their perceptions, that makes this a very tricky topic. There are no easy answers, IMO, because these legal terms, being the mechanism of our enslavement, are closely guarded secrets.

I have learned through experience that the truth about government and all its functions is shrouded in deep mystery.
I've never been able to get a straight and truthful answer to any of my questions concerning government and its rules and regulations from any government employee, and not for the lack of trying.

Government employees are a breed unto themselves, for reasons clarified in my previous post. You are quite correct that these important distinctions are rarely made and probably intentionally obscured by political insiders more interested in developing the dependent classes they rely upon for re-election, at the inevitable expense of the independent, self-governing, and responsibly productive people in our society. Still, the law remains clear, if obscured, and you should use it to your advantage, both legally and pedagogically when you may do so to advantage. 28 U.S.C. sec 1746 makes it obvious that there's a distinction between those within and those without the United States, but you have to dig deeper to find out just what the term "United States" defines in federal statutes. For that, I suggest starting with a reading of the 1945 SCOTUS case, Hooven & Alison Co. v. Evatt, discussed briefly at: http://deoxy.org/lib/3us.htm. The most exhaustive research into this subject was done by Paul Mitchell in his book "The Federal Zone", which is available in pdf format for download at: http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm. Everyone on this forum would benefit from reading it. Understanding what Paul thoroughly explains will help you understand what the consequences may be when you sign a license, job application, bank form, voting registration, or other form that uses the section 1746(2) jurat (within the United States) and thus forms an adhesion contract and admission to the already presumptive federal jurisdiction. To help avoid this, read the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) and put them to use. Filing a clear statement of your political status with your county registry provides self-authenticating evidence of a fact per FRE Rule 902 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_902). Then, STOP availing yourself of any federal benefits or privileges, which will be de facto proof that you've compromised at least some degree of your affidavit of political status through contractual compromise.

The only way to effectively combat ignorance is to teach, but before you presuming to teach, gain a truthful and comprehensive grasp of the subject - and that, my friends, though it may be time-consuming, is FAR easier through proper use of the resources available via the internet than it ever was in the past. Imagine your parents or grandparents trying to find out what the original 1880-vintage Act of Congress said, the wording of which has since been altered in a U.S. Code revision! The irony is that while we now live in an era that enjoys unparalleled access to fundamental legal information, too few people are willing to spend the time necessary to research for it, read the original documents (such as the Acts of Congress in their original form), constellate what they've learned, and parse it into more digestible chunks for others. "Texting" is NOT a form of meaningful communication when it comes to unraveling the mysteries of history. or government. Forums like this one are invaluable assets, but too often cluttered with "patriot" mythology and dangerous, if well-intentioned, representations.

Treefarmer
10-13-12, 03:23 AM
Government employees are a breed unto themselves, for reasons clarified in my previous post. You are quite correct that these important distinctions are rarely made and probably intentionally obscured by political insiders more interested in developing the dependent classes they rely upon for re-election, at the inevitable expense of the independent, self-governing, and responsibly productive people in our society. Still, the law remains clear, if obscured, and you should use it to your advantage, both legally and pedagogically when you may do so to advantage. 28 U.S.C. sec 1746 makes it obvious that there's a distinction between those within and those without the United States, but you have to dig deeper to find out just what the term "United States" defines in federal statutes. For that, I suggest starting with a reading of the 1945 SCOTUS case, Hooven & Alison Co. v. Evatt, discussed briefly at: http://deoxy.org/lib/3us.htm. The most exhaustive research into this subject was done by Paul Mitchell in his book "The Federal Zone", which is available in pdf format for download at: http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm. Everyone on this forum would benefit from reading it. Understanding what Paul thoroughly explains will help you understand what the consequences may be when you sign a license, job application, bank form, voting registration, or other form that uses the section 1746(2) jurat (within the United States) and thus forms an adhesion contract and admission to the already presumptive federal jurisdiction. To help avoid this, read the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) and put them to use. Filing a clear statement of your political status with your county registry provides self-authenticating evidence of a fact per FRE Rule 902 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_902). Then, STOP availing yourself of any federal benefits or privileges, which will be de facto proof that you've compromised at least some degree of your affidavit of political status through contractual compromise.

The only way to effectively combat ignorance is to teach, but before you presuming to teach, gain a truthful and comprehensive grasp of the subject - and that, my friends, though it may be time-consuming, is FAR easier through proper use of the resources available via the internet than it ever was in the past. Imagine your parents or grandparents trying to find out what the original 1880-vintage Act of Congress said, the wording of which has since been altered in a U.S. Code revision! The irony is that while we now live in an era that enjoys unparalleled access to fundamental legal information, too few people are willing to spend the time necessary to research for it, read the original documents (such as the Acts of Congress in their original form), constellate what they've learned, and parse it into more digestible chunks for others. "Texting" is NOT a form of meaningful communication when it comes to unraveling the mysteries of history. or government. Forums like this one are invaluable assets, but too often cluttered with "patriot" mythology and dangerous, if well-intentioned, representations.

Thank you for the Federal Zone link, Gracefultrader.
It's a valuable resource, which has been linked once or twice already in other threads here on StSC, and you really cannot have too many of these links.
I'm guessing most members here are probably familiar with it's content.

Even though documents like the Federal Zone make for interesting reading for those of us who are speed readers, have long attention spans, high pain thresholds, no children vying for our attention, and an insatiable appetite for the whole truth, it would be grotesque to think that everyone should have to read this kind of stuff just to be able to keep their heads above water.

Recently it occurred to me that due to the internet, which has made information access so much easier as you stated above, the cat has really got out of the proverbial bag on these previously hidden legal terminology shenanigans and court decisions, which have greatly contributed to transforming this late republic into a crumbling prison-house democracy.
What this tells me is that this crumbling democracy is not useful to its creators anymore as a plantation-controlling ship of state and they will have to get rid of it as fast as possible, in order to replace it with a new and more efficient enslavement mechanism.

Because once the notion of remedy enters the consciousness of only a few internet users, the spread of that consciousness with its accompaniment of ready-to-use legal ammunition is exponential and uncontrollably fast.

I predict that toward this end, of getting rid of the now unmasked US democracy corp. and its publicly exposed Achilles' heel, the public opinion makers and professional false-flag-agitators will do their utmost to make the US of A to stink in the nostrils of all the other nations, as well as its own US citizens, in every way at their disposal.
Of course there's no intention of going back to a free republic on the part of the handlers.

Instead, discontent and chaos will be stirred up to a fever pitch, public-official fall guys will be set up and made to look loathsome and reprehensible, to be taken down with all blame pinned on them publicly, and then the prepackaged one-world-government solution will be revealed.
It will be presented by the opinion makers as if it were a spontaneous, collaborative grassroots effort of the common people, and cast in the most rosy-golden and favorable light imaginable, with helpings of apple-pie and promises of peace, safety, and prosperity for all.

I believe there will be a strong religious component to go along with the new ruler-ship model, consisting of a new-age pantheistic belief system with an all-purpose messiah (anti-christos) who promises to fulfill everyone's needs.

The old US with its well-documented history of fraud and deceit will appear so utterly corrupt and beyond repair at that point that it will be a no-brainer for most people to leave it behind in favor of the new replacement.
Just sign here, here and here, get your RFID chip injection, and your debts will be forgiven so you can have a good clean start in the ALL NEW BETTER TRUST US.

Lawful money and remedy will have no place under that new system, without which no one will be able to have bank accounts and buy or sell anymore, because its currency will be digital.
This new system (mark of the beast) will appear indispensable to the vast majority of people who have survived the man-made horrors and trauma of the days which are already upon us now, because without that you'll be left behind as the whole world moves forward into the future beyond, won't you?

Of course I cannot prove that this will happen, so we will have to wait and see:)
Shabbat Shalom and I pray that your fall greens are thriving.

David Merrill
10-13-12, 04:22 AM
I was thinking - profound! Then I remembered how this was processed before as if you are carrying government-issued ID then you are government issue. Ergo the easy substitution as government employee/intentured servant even soldier etc.

Thank you for the fresh light on that Gracefultrader. Thank you too Treefarmer.

I was looking up Motla68 as he thought in this same deep abstract and discovered something quite profound - his Signature!


Journey for liberty started 2002. Has it come down to just forgiveness?


I was in class studying forgiveness and this came to me (http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/1623/irsform834forgiveness.pdf).

Gifts;

Gratitude
Intention
Forgiveness
Tithes
Surrender

So how best not be like a soldier?

Forgive.

What I felt I was learning was that when we feel the forgiveness it can be mirrored back in IRS forgiveness.


Hi David,

FYI...

For the last quarter of 2011, I had been putting "lawful money is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411" on all my personal checks on the front under my address, and likewise on all my deposit slips for all Expense Report reimbursement checks sent to me. So the bank and all check recipients, including IRS installment payment checks, received NOTICE of my lawful money demand. I also successfully added it to a new checking account agreement, and a broker agreement.

My 2011 US 1040 so far has been honored. Line 21 "Other Income" was notated "Demand for Lawful Money R (__,____)", and the amount was a (reduction). The refund was applied to back taxes. The amount was well over 20,000.

The State return "Other Income" line had no notation, just the same amount of (reduction). So far, my State refund has not been sent to me.

Thanks for making this possible. I would not have made it this year without this reduction.

True Name

Treefarmer
10-14-12, 01:34 AM
As an aside, the Secretary of State's office in New Hampshire agrees that where the term "United States" appears on State forms, it refers to the third definition given in Hooven, but the State's A.G. office believes it refers to the second (federal zone)...

Gracefultrader,
I've been pondering this statement a bit, and am wondering if it means that the SOS's office and the A.G.'s office of New Hampshire are in disagreement over the definition of the term "United States" on New Hampshire government forms?

If they are, then that would constitute a disagreement of consequential proportions.
What are the repercussions of this disagreement in your experience, if indeed such disagreement exists?

Gracefultrader
10-14-12, 03:22 PM
Gracefultrader,
I've been pondering this statement a bit, and am wondering if it means that the SOS's office and the A.G.'s office of New Hampshire are in disagreement over the definition of the term "United States" on New Hampshire government forms?

If they are, then that would constitute a disagreement of consequential proportions.
What are the repercussions of this disagreement in your experience, if indeed such disagreement exists?

The last time I asked (about two years ago) they were at odds on this issue. I've had no personal experience of any consequences, but I wrote a bill to clarify significant legal definitions under State law. Unfortunately, the first-term representative who submitted the bill got caught up in his work for Ron Paul and neglected to follow through on some aspect of the registration process so it will have to be re-submitted this coming session. The potential issue that could arise is another of the esoteric type wherein someone may have signed a document affirming themselves to be a "United States citizen" (e.g. they changed the voter registration form in our state so that one must now attest to this - though the State Constitution does NOT require it...) without knowing WHICH form of "United States citizen" they are affirming. Generally the form of the jurat will provide the necessary clue as to which definition of "United States" is intended (see 28 U.S.C. ?1746 for the two variations) and virtually every form I've ever seen uses the ? 1746(2) (Federal citizen) form.

Consequently, if you sign your license, voter registration card, U.S. Passport or other such documents without specifying which type of "U.S." citizen/Citizen you are - you'll most probably give evidence by consent of having (voluntarily) joined the federal political class and made yourself subject to its jurisdiction. In effect, such an unqualified signature will provide prima facia evidence that can be used against you in a federal court. The government loves to prosecute on the basis of prima facia evidence... and most people who find themselves trying defend themselves against such "evidence" won't have a clue what hit them when they're convicted by their own ignorance.

site: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html
Under Article 11, the New Hampshire Constitution requires that one be an "inhabitant" of (read: domiciled in) New Hampshire, 18 years or older, and not convicted of treason, bribery or a violation of N.H./U.S. election laws (unless the right is later restored by the Supreme Court). It says nothing about being a citizen of either New Hampshire or the United States. So why then does the New Hampshire registration form require one to sign a jurat that says you are? The form (http://www.gonashua.com/filestorage/51/74/166/voter_reg_form.pdf) also conflates "domicile" with "residence" and they are NOT legally the same thing. Without citing any statute or other authority, the form states, "In declaring New Hampshire as my domicile, I am subject to the laws of the State of New Hampshire which apply to all residents..." I doubt it, but haven't made the inquiry. This form is relatively new and does NOT conform to the State law cited on its face (RSA 654:7 - see this: http://nhrsa.org/law/654-7-voter-registration-form/) The form under law, last revised in 1979, also exceeds the specifications for voter qualification defined by the State Constitution but doesn't include the notice about getting one's vehicle registered within 60 days OR the bit of conflation regarding domicile/residency).

They recently passed a new voter I.D. act, which has lots of people up in arms, writing letters to the newspapers claiming it's designed to keep the poorer classes from the polls and such non-sense, but no one I've read has ever referred to the Constitutional requirements... so, do you thing we have a potential conflict forming here?

Gracefultrader
10-14-12, 04:20 PM
Thank you for the Federal Zone link, Gracefultrader.
[1]...it would be grotesque to think that everyone should have to read this kind of stuff [referring to: The Federal Zone] just to be able to keep their heads above water.

[2] Recently it occurred to me that due to the internet, which has made information access so much easier as you stated above, the cat has really got out of the proverbial bag on these previously hidden legal terminology shenanigans and court decisions, which have greatly contributed to transforming this late republic into a crumbling prison-house democracy.

[3] What this tells me is that this crumbling democracy is not useful to its creators anymore as a plantation-controlling ship of state and they will have to get rid of it as fast as possible, in order to replace it with a new and more efficient enslavement mechanism.

[4] Because once the notion of remedy enters the consciousness of only a few internet users, the spread of that consciousness with its accompaniment of ready-to-use legal ammunition is exponential and uncontrollably fast.

[5] I predict that toward this end, of getting rid of the now unmasked US democracy corp. and its publicly exposed Achilles' heel, the public opinion makers and professional false-flag-agitators will do their utmost to make the US of A to stink in the nostrils of all the other nations, as well as its own US citizens, in every way at their disposal.

[6] Of course there's no intention of going back to a free republic on the part of the handlers.

[7] Instead, discontent and chaos will be stirred up to a fever pitch, public-official fall guys will be set up and made to look loathsome and reprehensible, to be taken down with all blame pinned on them publicly, and then the prepackaged one-world-government solution will be revealed.
It will be presented by the opinion makers as if it were a spontaneous, collaborative grassroots effort of the common people, and cast in the most rosy-golden and favorable light imaginable, with helpings of apple-pie and promises of peace, safety, and prosperity for all.

I believe there will be a strong religious component to go along with the new ruler-ship model, consisting of a new-age pantheistic belief system with an all-purpose messiah (anti-christos) who promises to fulfill everyone's needs.

[8] The old US with its well-documented history of fraud and deceit will appear so utterly corrupt and beyond repair at that point that it will be a no-brainer for most people to leave it behind in favor of the new replacement.
Just sign here, here and here, get your RFID chip injection, and your debts will be forgiven so you can have a good clean start in the ALL NEW BETTER TRUST US.

[9] Lawful money and remedy will have no place under that new system, without which no one will be able to have bank accounts and buy or sell anymore, because its currency will be digital.
This new system (mark of the beast) will appear indispensable to the vast majority of people who have survived the man-made horrors and trauma of the days which are already upon us now, because without that you'll be left behind as the whole world moves forward into the future beyond, won't you?

[10] Of course I cannot prove that this will happen, so we will have to wait and see:)
Shabbat Shalom and I pray that your fall greens are thriving.

1) Unfortunately, as the balance of your post clearly intimates, we ARE arrived at a such a grotesque place that we DO have to read this kind of stuff if we are to have any hope of untangling the mess our 'representatives' have created.
2) The cat may be crawling out of the bag (slowly), but it's certainly not out very far yet and to the extent it's stuck its head out of the sack that's about to be thrown into the fast-moving river of history, it's due to the courageous work of people like those here on this forum, research authors like Paul Mitchell (The Federal Zone); G. Edward Griffin (The Creature from Jekyll Island); Edwin Vieira, Jr. PhD, J.D. (Pieces of Eight, etc); Kenneth Royce (aka Boston T. Party) (Goodbye April 15th, etc.), Phil Hart (Constitutional Income: Do You Have Any?); Dave Champion (Income Tax: Shattering the Myth); Melvin Stamper J.D. (Fruit from a Poisonous Tree); Ted Nace (Gangs of America: The Rise of Corporate Power and the Disabling of Democracy); Thom Hartmann (Unequal Protection, etc); Thomas E. Woods, Jr. (The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, Nullification, etc); and websites hosted by folks like Jim Puplava (financialsense.com); Lew Rockwell (mises.org). Going back to your first point, IF we are to save our Republic (not the Article I, ?8, Cl 17 democracy in Washington), we MUST read, and read, and read - dig deep into our own and the rest of the world's history and then teach others, especially the children, the truths we discover through our efforts. The tools are now at hand. We need to pick them up and use them to rebuild, restore, and regenerate.
3) The plantation-controlling Democracy you describe arises primarily out of the plenary power given to the government via Art 1, Sec 8, Cl 17/18 as well as those found in provisions for admiralty law jurisdiction. Because those instruments were long ago turned to serve advantage to those wielding the, more often adversely to the people who entrusted their use, they have turned destructive of the founding republican/federal principles and will, perforce, ultimately fail in their usefulness and application within the context of a Constitutionally-limited form of government and within any society of moral beings. WHO replaces them is the question. Will it be the people who insist upon the restoration of reason, morality and limitation in the exercises of their government, as intended, or will those in power be successful in morphing our country into the atheistic, neo-feudalistic form they prefer? You seem inclined to believe the latter. The future may not be ours to predict, but it is ours to shape and we do so by virtue of the beliefs we hold true.
4) The paradigm shift you're describing will statistically require an initial 3-5% of the reading population to initiate the change you describe. That's the "explorer" class, which doesn't always survive the change in landscape they discover. But when they're successful, a second wave (pioneers) follow their lead. They add another 10-12% to the body of informed people seeking change and improvement and it's usually this group that ESTABLISHES the change. They clear the land, so to speak, establish the metes and bounds, plow the earth and enjoy the fruits of its fertility. Finally, when all that work is done, only then do the 80-85% of the settler class move out of the old paradigm and into the new and the paradigm is fully shifted. This process is definable in ALL areas of human endeavor. (see Joel Arthur Barker on the subject of paradigm shifts)
5) The "United States of America", per se, eo nomine, is NOT the same thing as the "United States" when the latter signifies the government OF the United States of America. So long as the rest of the the world continues to distinguish between the two (which they do better than we do), it will remain difficult to achieve the all-pervasive stink you suggest.
6) There may be no intention on the handlers' part, but there certainly is within the heart of the people.
7) Well under way as described.
8) Again, only if the distinction between U.S. and U.S.A. cannot any longer be made.
9) Behind? Rather, outside, or beyond. Have faith and believe whole-heartedly for a better future than that which you imagine. Recall to yourself your spiritual heritage as a child of God - creative by nature, resourceful at will.
10) If waiting is what you choose to do, do so in peace.

shikamaru
10-14-12, 09:08 PM
For the alternative view that the Constitutions are not yours nor were you ever a party thereto (not that you would want to be), check out:

1) "The Informer"
2) James Montgomery
3) Greg Hallet

shikamaru
10-14-12, 09:22 PM
The Legacy - The Constitution is a Trust by Burness Speakman (partner of our beloved TrustGuy) :)

http://thelastoutpost.com/video-5/law-seminars/the-legacy.html

Michael Joseph
10-15-12, 12:22 AM
The Legacy - The Constitution is a Trust by Burness Speakman (partner of our beloved TrustGuy) :)

http://thelastoutpost.com/video-5/law-seminars/the-legacy.html

Yes I really appreciate her work. I have not seen Greg's work. Is it available to the general public?

Gracefultrader
10-15-12, 12:52 PM
I'm not familiar with any of these... a search of "The Informer" turns up a 1935 film about the Irish War for Independence. There are several returns for James Montgomery, and Hallet apparently wrote a book claiming that Hitler was a British agent/Illuminati. Please be more specific as to why you feel these are important references worth our time to look into. Thanks.

Gracefultrader
10-15-12, 01:49 PM
I have her set of videos and have watched them - very interesting, but I've not had the time to investigate her conclusions yet, which are derived from research into more of our hidden history. Worth looking into.

Treefarmer
10-15-12, 08:53 PM
They recently passed a new voter I.D. act, which has lots of people up in arms, writing letters to the newspapers claiming it's designed to keep the poorer classes from the polls and such non-sense, but no one I've read has ever referred to the Constitutional requirements... so, do you thing we have a potential conflict forming here?

Based on what you are reporting about New Hampshire, it looks to me like the conflict was formed a while back, and the factions who are seeking to obliterate the distinction between state and federal citizens in the minds of the people are winning over those who may want to keep the knowledge of the distinction alive.
I believe that popular perception is 9/10th of the law.

shikamaru
10-15-12, 10:23 PM
Yes I really appreciate her work. I have not seen Greg's work. Is it available to the general public?

I got you :).

http://www.greghallett.com/

Debt Slaves, American Plantation, The Truth Beyond the Illusion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcS4D41bymk)

What is interesting is that Greg Hallet says many of the same things that "the Informer" and James Montgomery say.
The thing is though is he is in New Zealand ... half a world away.

He is one of the very, very few relaying this information similar to "the Informer" and James Montgomery.

shikamaru
10-15-12, 10:30 PM
I'm not familiar with any of these... a search of "The Informer" turns up a 1935 film about the Irish War for Independence. There are several returns for James Montgomery, and Hallet apparently wrote a book claiming that Hitler was a British agent/Illuminati. Please be more specific as to why you feel these are important references worth our time to look into. Thanks.

Be warned if you broach down this road. This challenges everything you believe about the United States and the Constitutions therein.....

I broach these subjects and information with very, very few people.

You can begin your learning here:

The Informer on the Con-stitution of the United States (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3upprzQYQso&feature=related)
Vyzygoth Interviews both the Informer and James Montgomery (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnG2X8MimhQ)

The Informer:
http://thinkorbeeaten.com/theknoll/informer.html
http://thinkorbeeaten.com/theknoll/ibooks.html
Some more audio from the Informer (http://vigilantcitizen.com/vcboards/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4491).

James Montgomery (http://thinkorbeeaten.com/theknoll/montgomery.html)


Enjoy... don't suck it all in at once though.
It may take some time to sink in ..... or not.

Treefarmer
10-16-12, 12:41 AM
1) Unfortunately, as the balance of your post clearly intimates, we ARE arrived at a such a grotesque place that we DO have to read this kind of stuff if we are to have any hope of untangling the mess our 'representatives' have created.
2) The cat may be crawling out of the bag (slowly), but it's certainly not out very far yet and to the extent it's stuck its head out of the sack that's about to be thrown into the fast-moving river of history, it's due to the courageous work of people like those here on this forum, research authors like Paul Mitchell (The Federal Zone); G. Edward Griffin (The Creature from Jekyll Island); Edwin Vieira, Jr. PhD, J.D. (Pieces of Eight, etc); Kenneth Royce (aka Boston T. Party) (Goodbye April 15th, etc.), Phil Hart (Constitutional Income: Do You Have Any?); Dave Champion (Income Tax: Shattering the Myth); Melvin Stamper J.D. (Fruit from a Poisonous Tree); Ted Nace (Gangs of America: The Rise of Corporate Power and the Disabling of Democracy); Thom Hartmann (Unequal Protection, etc); Thomas E. Woods, Jr. (The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, Nullification, etc); and websites hosted by folks like Jim Puplava (financialsense.com); Lew Rockwell (mises.org). Going back to your first point, IF we are to save our Republic (not the Article I, ?8, Cl 17 democracy in Washington), we MUST read, and read, and read - dig deep into our own and the rest of the world's history and then teach others, especially the children, the truths we discover through our efforts. The tools are now at hand. We need to pick them up and use them to rebuild, restore, and regenerate.
3) The plantation-controlling Democracy you describe arises primarily out of the plenary power given to the government via Art 1, Sec 8, Cl 17/18 as well as those found in provisions for admiralty law jurisdiction. Because those instruments were long ago turned to serve advantage to those wielding the, more often adversely to the people who entrusted their use, they have turned destructive of the founding republican/federal principles and will, perforce, ultimately fail in their usefulness and application within the context of a Constitutionally-limited form of government and within any society of moral beings. WHO replaces them is the question. Will it be the people who insist upon the restoration of reason, morality and limitation in the exercises of their government, as intended, or will those in power be successful in morphing our country into the atheistic, neo-feudalistic form they prefer? You seem inclined to believe the latter. The future may not be ours to predict, but it is ours to shape and we do so by virtue of the beliefs we hold true.
4) The paradigm shift you're describing will statistically require an initial 3-5% of the reading population to initiate the change you describe. That's the "explorer" class, which doesn't always survive the change in landscape they discover. But when they're successful, a second wave (pioneers) follow their lead. They add another 10-12% to the body of informed people seeking change and improvement and it's usually this group that ESTABLISHES the change. They clear the land, so to speak, establish the metes and bounds, plow the earth and enjoy the fruits of its fertility. Finally, when all that work is done, only then do the 80-85% of the settler class move out of the old paradigm and into the new and the paradigm is fully shifted. This process is definable in ALL areas of human endeavor. (see Joel Arthur Barker on the subject of paradigm shifts)
5) The "United States of America", per se, eo nomine, is NOT the same thing as the "United States" when the latter signifies the government OF the United States of America. So long as the rest of the the world continues to distinguish between the two (which they do better than we do), it will remain difficult to achieve the all-pervasive stink you suggest.
6) There may be no intention on the handlers' part, but there certainly is within the heart of the people.
7) Well under way as described.
8) Again, only if the distinction between U.S. and U.S.A. cannot any longer be made.
9) Behind? Rather, outside, or beyond. Have faith and believe whole-heartedly for a better future than that which you imagine. Recall to yourself your spiritual heritage as a child of God - creative by nature, resourceful at will.
10) If waiting is what you choose to do, do so in peace.

Gracefultrader, I think you have fundamentally miscomprehended my post.
I'm neither describing a "paradigm shift", nor am I "imagining" a future.
I'm pointing out what is coming to pass under the current "paradigm", based on actions which were set in motion 6000 years ago and are at work now.
I phrased most of my post in future tense, because many people cannot see these actions yet as they are being somewhat concealed, and also because deNial is not just a river in Egypt; I could just as well have used present tense to make my point, because nearly everything I have touched on is already happening now, and has been happening for decades.

I am neither a prophet, nor the daughter of a prophet, but I can make some predictions about the future to the extent that I am familiar with the Word of Yehovah Elohim, who spoke the future into existence at the beginning of Creation.
Do not confuse this with determinism; we all have the free will to choose whom we will serve, every moment of our lives.
And serve we will, by default, whether we know it or not. "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places]. Ephesians 6:12 "

The events I describe had already been described by an American author (http://www.whiteestate.org/about/egwbio.asp) in 1888 in the book The Great Controversy (http://www.whiteestate.org/books/gc/gc35.html), chapters 35-42.
In 1888 you had to be a prophet to see these developments unfolding, but in 2012 it is no big feat to describe these trends, as they are occurring before our eyes all around us.

To be able to look back on the future as an accomplished and indisputable fact which can be proven to have occurred in reality by its material evidence, one must necessarily wait for it to become the past.
All who place their trust in Yahushua h'Mashiach, aka Jesus CHRIST, can do so in peace. He pronounced a blessing on the peacemakers:
"they shall be called the children of God."

Shalom

Rahyah
12-20-12, 11:40 PM
Be warned if you broach down this road. This challenges everything you believe about the United States and the Constitutions therein.....

I broach these subjects and information with very, very few people.

You can begin your learning here:

The Informer on the Con-stitution of the United States (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3upprzQYQso&feature=related)
Vyzygoth Interviews both the Informer and James Montgomery (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnG2X8MimhQ)

The Informer:
http://thinkorbeeaten.com/theknoll/informer.html
http://thinkorbeeaten.com/theknoll/ibooks.html
Some more audio from the Informer (http://vigilantcitizen.com/vcboards/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4491).

James Montgomery (http://thinkorbeeaten.com/theknoll/montgomery.html)


Enjoy... don't suck it all in at once though.
It may take some time to sink in ..... or not.

Like most of us who've been around for more than a 1/2 of a century, the 'Informer', 'Qui Tam' and 'James Montgomery' are amongst a plethora of fellow travelers striving to be Good Neighbors. And as we all know, Good Neighbors keep their turn upon the Watchtower of Duty & Honor (that we each owe to All Walks of Life), while giving alarm, whenever those precious steppingstones of Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness (left to us by our ancestors of happy memory), are ever jeopardized either through fickleness, folly or self-indulgence.

But what I can do in respect to the evidential consideration and the absence of any plausible alternative (if such could exist), I concur with the historical summation of no constitutional coterminus or cohabitant Standing thereunder, to Claim any Relief thereby. Excepting via variation by agreement, whenever a 'Conflict of Interest' arises to State a Claim for which Relief must be Granted:)