PDA

View Full Version : Redemption of Lawful Money at US Bank



OlyThoreau
10-22-11, 11:19 PM
Thank you all for the discussions posted here. They have really helped me out in making some headway. I'm currently working with three different banks on this issue, laying the groundwork for others more than anything. I was successful at redeeming lawful money with my paper check last week at US Bank. Still working on getting my signature card changed there. I'm also working with Bank of America to get a new checking account set up with a signature card that has the stamped demand for lawful money. I've set up an account with a credit union, that is refusing to let me amend my signature card. I'll probably be waiting until I have success with both US Bank and Bank of America before putting much more effort in at the credit union.

Thanks Again,
OT

David Merrill
10-22-11, 11:58 PM
Thank you!

OlyThoreau
10-27-11, 05:35 PM
Thank you all for the discussions posted here. They have really helped me out in making some headway. I'm currently working with three different banks on this issue, laying the groundwork for others more than anything. I was successful at redeeming lawful money with my paper check last week at US Bank. Still working on getting my signature card changed there. I'm also working with Bank of America to get a new checking account set up with a signature card that has the stamped demand for lawful money. I've set up an account with a credit union, that is refusing to let me amend my signature card. I'll probably be waiting until I have success with both US Bank and Bank of America before putting much more effort in at the credit union.

Thanks Again,
OT

Just an update. I've received the stamps I had made for my checks and deposit/withdrawal slips. I'm now stamping my checks with:


Redeemed in Lawful Money
Pursuant to 12 USC § 411
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/12C3.txt


I'm not using First Middle; dba Signature. No problem cashing the checks at all.

Hbert997
10-27-11, 11:57 PM
Just an update. I've received the stamps I had made for my checks and deposit/withdrawal slips. I'm now stamping my checks with:


Redeemed in Lawful Money
Pursuant to 12 USC § 411
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/12C3.txt


I'm not using First Middle; dba Signature. No problem cashing the checks at all.

Okay, I'm a bit confused... I HAVE been signing using my First Middle; then printing First Middle dba First Last. Should I NOT be signing at all?...just only using my "Redeemed etc." stamp? Because on my signature card I DID sign with my First Middle and then printed out First Middle dba First Last.

Thanks for the input.

Hbert

David Merrill
10-28-11, 10:28 AM
Okay, I'm a bit confused... I HAVE been signing using my First Middle; then printing First Middle dba First Last. Should I NOT be signing at all?...just only using my "Redeemed etc." stamp? Because on my signature card I DID sign with my First Middle and then printed out First Middle dba First Last.

Thanks for the input.

Hbert

This animal seems to be somewhat fleeting. I gather intelligence from anecdotes and conformity with current law. It may be that perceptions change. For example I just saw a fully FILED Default Judgment on a Libel of Review but it took over six weeks to happen; like they mulled it over and over and finally realized they had no choice but to honor the foreign true judgment. They had been trying over that time to dismiss but the Order was Refused for Cause properly.

What I am saying is that the signature, at least in my mind has been the endorsement of the Order for lawful money. You sign your Demand. But all along, I have only been advising that you sign your Demand so that the teller will process your paycheck, giving you the funds for your groceries etc. If there is a signature it goes a lot smoother at the bank.

When asking for a $40 refund at Lowe's and while a little distressed that the salesman sold me the wrong power tool battery I just signed, Lawful Money. That went so smoothly that I think I will adopt it more often.

OlyThoreau
10-30-11, 07:07 PM
Okay, I'm a bit confused... I HAVE been signing using my First Middle; then printing First Middle dba First Last. Should I NOT be signing at all?...just only using my "Redeemed etc." stamp? Because on my signature card I DID sign with my First Middle and then printed out First Middle dba First Last.

Thanks for the input.

Hbert

My understanding from reading posts from others around here is that it is just "First Middle (printed); dba First Last (signature)". David definitely knows more about this than I do. However, it is my opinion that if you can get away with just stamping the spot that asks for your endorsement without any signature at all, why not do it? I think this only makes it clear that you DO NOT endorse private credit, and leaves no room for argument that you do. I know that the tellers see what I have done because they always flip the check over, and I have red ink in my stamper.

motla68
10-30-11, 11:23 PM
As David has found out for himself as well you can acknowledge the obligation of the United States Treasury by simply signing " Lawful Money ", have stated here before that I have got some docs pushed through by not signing anything at all or just print the name. There is a school of thought have heard certain people consider when you sign you are actually cursing the instrument that is benefiting your neighbor. Who really has an obligation to sign? when you were given a birth certificate/ certificate of live birth from your parents did you have to sign for it or even receiving a SSN did you have to sign for that to receive one or did someone else do it for you?

This election form I recently got confirmation on, did not sign that one either, just printed the name.

OlyThoreau
10-31-11, 06:14 PM
As David has found out for himself as well you can acknowledge the obligation of the United States Treasury by simply signing " Lawful Money ",

What do you mean when you say "found out for himself"? What is the proof that David accomplished what he intended to by signing "Lawful Money"? A signature can be anything. It doesn't have to bear any resemblance to a person's legal name at all. I could sign everything with "XOXOXO" if I wanted to. I don't get the impression that someone signing with the phrase "lawful money" would constitute a demand of any kind. Perhaps I am missing an important piece of information that would help me understand.

EZrhythm
11-01-11, 10:15 PM
Point of interest - Most businesses who stamp their checks for deposit do not sign them. The stamp contains no signature:

"For Deposit Only"
[Bank name]
[Account number]

motla68
11-01-11, 11:31 PM
What do you mean when you say "found out for himself"? What is the proof that David accomplished what he intended to by signing "Lawful Money"? A signature can be anything. It doesn't have to bear any resemblance to a person's legal name at all. I could sign everything with "XOXOXO" if I wanted to. I don't get the impression that someone signing with the phrase "lawful money" would constitute a demand of any kind. Perhaps I am missing an important piece of information that would help me understand.

Check out the last line of post #5 in this same thread. Might be helpful to take some notes as your reading through these posts or create folders in your bookmarks for the different subjects.

motla68
11-01-11, 11:43 PM
Point of interest - Most businesses who stamp their checks for deposit do not sign them. The stamp contains no signature:

"For Deposit Only"
[Bank name]
[Account number]

And it is about to get even more interesting culminating some things from our original CS group to what is being accomplished now. I am envisioning a future where one can just say " I am my fathers son " and then handing over a copy of the recording for certificate of live birth as a " deed of gift " then things will be taken care of. I hear rumor this has been done, but nobody has sent me any artifacts to that which was told yet.

Inhisimage
11-04-11, 01:30 AM
WOULD THIS WORK?

Marc Fishman Lawful Money
Why not send the bank headquarters legal department a letter clarifying the character of the transactions associated with the account.

NOTICE OF BANK TRANSACTIONS CHARACTER

To whom it may concern:

I am writing you to clarify what may have been an incorrect presumption as to the nature of the transactions conducted through my account with your bank, number 123xxx. It is now and has always been my intent to use lawful money as described in the United States Code, Chapter 12, Section 411 in the conduct of all of my financial transactions. Thank you for taking the time to note this in my file with your bank.

Bless you.

EZrhythm
11-04-11, 07:20 AM
Technically there is nothing that "works" per say. Is it valid? Yes it is. Although I would title it as a NOTICE, record it in the public realm and send the bank a certified copy.

motla68
11-04-11, 01:14 PM
It would be better to just go in there and discuss with someone at that bank as a peaceful inhabitant would do how you can show your intent for lawful money of all transactions. If it is not a computer separating us from humanity it is that damn paper.

Michael Joseph
11-04-11, 05:20 PM
It would be better to just go in there and discuss with someone at that bank as a peaceful inhabitant would do how you can show your intent for lawful money of all transactions. If it is not a computer separating us from humanity it is that damn paper.

In regard to a Trust that I PROTECT, not as Trustee, but as Agent to Beneficiary who has power of direction, when setting up the account for the NAME OF TRUST, a honest friendly conversation occurred whereby the Trustee said it is our intention to only handle Lawful Money per 12USC411 so that we can remain without the Federal Reserve districts and cities; however, we are setting up a General Account whereby we know that the law that governs banking allows you to MIX the funds received with other types of deposits into a sort of General Fund. However, let us now be clear, when we come to withdraw the deposit, we expect to receive Lawful Money per 12USC411.

The banker had her manager oversee what we were doing, she called Legal - no problems. Confidence most times wins the day.

Analysis and Summary:

We deposit an instrument - redeeming it in Lawful Money - but we put it in General Deposit. The bank LOVES this. Why? Because they do not have to take the Lawful Money from their reserves and they get to employ Fractional Reserve Banking. Also, when we come to withdraw the money in Lawful Money- Cash - the banker is happy because he now has the Cash to pay and then some.

Win - Win all around. I suppose we could open a Special Deposit account and maybe one day we will, but how is that a win for the bank? A worker is worthy of his hire, yes? How does the bank receive compensation for money held, in Special Trust, on account? They can't do anything with it - nothing. I like the agreement where both sides win. So do others.

motla68
11-04-11, 06:13 PM
In regard to a Trust that I PROTECT, not as Trustee, but as Agent to Beneficiary who has power of direction, when setting up the account for the NAME OF TRUST, a honest friendly conversation occurred whereby the Trustee said it is our intention to only handle Lawful Money per 12USC411 so that we can remain without the Federal Reserve districts and cities; however, we are setting up a General Account whereby we know that the law that governs banking allows you to MIX the funds received with other types of deposits into a sort of General Fund. However, let us now be clear, when we come to withdraw the deposit, we expect to receive Lawful Money per 12USC411.

The banker had her manager oversee what we were doing, she called Legal - no problems. Confidence most times wins the day.

Analysis and Summary:

We deposit an instrument - redeeming it in Lawful Money - but we put it in General Deposit. The bank LOVES this. Why? Because they do not have to take the Lawful Money from their reserves and they get to employ Fractional Reserve Banking. Also, when we come to withdraw the money in Lawful Money- Cash - the banker is happy because he now has the Cash to pay and then some.

Win - Win all around. I suppose we could open a Special Deposit account and maybe one day we will, but how is that a win for the bank? A worker is worthy of his hire, yes? How does the bank receive compensation for money held, in Special Trust, on account? They can't do anything with it - nothing. I like the agreement where both sides win. So do others.

Now that is what I like to hear, we are all users and have families to take care of so why take something away from a neighbor? Operate in common, not Solomon.

Anthony Joseph
11-04-11, 07:06 PM
In regard to a Trust that I PROTECT, not as Trustee, but as Agent to Beneficiary who has power of direction, when setting up the account for the NAME OF TRUST, a honest friendly conversation occurred whereby the Trustee said it is our intention to only handle Lawful Money per 12USC411 so that we can remain without the Federal Reserve districts and cities; however, we are setting up a General Account whereby we know that the law that governs banking allows you to MIX the funds received with other types of deposits into a sort of General Fund. However, let us now be clear, when we come to withdraw the deposit, we expect to receive Lawful Money per 12USC411.

The banker had her manager oversee what we were doing, she called Legal - no problems. Confidence most times wins the day.

Analysis and Summary:

We deposit an instrument - redeeming it in Lawful Money - but we put it in General Deposit. The bank LOVES this. Why? Because they do not have to take the Lawful Money from their reserves and they get to employ Fractional Reserve Banking. Also, when we come to withdraw the money in Lawful Money- Cash - the banker is happy because he now has the Cash to pay and then some.

Win - Win all around. I suppose we could open a Special Deposit account and maybe one day we will, but how is that a win for the bank? A worker is worthy of his hire, yes? How does the bank receive compensation for money held, in Special Trust, on account? They can't do anything with it - nothing. I like the agreement where both sides win. So do others.

Just out of curiosity, how did you get around the "required" SS# of a person who is supposedly providing the "personal guarantee" as they say? In other words, did they accept ONLY a TIN for the TRUST? If so, how did that go?

Michael Joseph
11-04-11, 09:34 PM
Just out of curiosity, how did you get around the "required" SS# of a person who is supposedly providing the "personal guarantee" as they say? In other words, did they accept ONLY a TIN for the TRUST? If so, how did that go?

I will only discuss this aspect on the private. Yet in actuality, I have already given it in full to the Suitors via email. I will not put that into the Public arena here as there is Liability there and I will not be responsible for some poor soul attaching or grabbing onto bits and pieces and going straight to jail. I will not abide that. See now the Secret Society. Does it now seem so repugnant?

If the "Good and Friendly Way" was still secret it would rule the world - it was opened to "whomsoever will". Teach my sheep, Teach my sheep, Teach my lambs.

shalom,
mj

freedave
12-29-11, 04:22 PM
That is good that several people are finding the remedy to be beneficial.

Are you saying that if one endorses a check, one is signing a contact? If so, how would one find out what the contract is?

And how would one endorse cash in any form, or did you mean use cash in any form?

What is the nature of the private credit -- is it something the user (other than the U.S. Gov't) is required to pay back?

What does FDR saving the Fed from the run in 1933 have to do with accepting private credit?

Where is the contact stating that there is a fee for accepting private credit?

Where is the contact stating that there is a fee for using this private credit to purchase goods and services or for any other use?

freedave
12-29-11, 06:05 PM
In my last post, "contact" should be "contract."

David Merrill
12-29-11, 11:24 PM
Thank you for bringing your inquiries to an appropriate thread.

The Contract you sign is naked. What that means is that the agreement is to be constructed or construed. I suppose that the Agreement is really framed in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 but at that time it was for Fed banks, including state and other banks as described in the Fed Act. In 1933 when FDR saved the Fed from the expiration of the 20-year charter the greatest pronunciation of the Contract is probably:



http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/4556/governmentbondslarge.jpg


That is good that several people are finding the remedy to be beneficial.

Are you saying that if one endorses a check, one is signing a contact? If so, how would one find out what the contract is?

And how would one endorse cash in any form, or did you mean use cash in any form?

When you receive cash and are asked to sign for it - that is likely what I meant. At stores, when I get a cash refund I just sign "Lawful Money" anymore.

What is the nature of the private credit -- is it something the user (other than the U.S. Gov't) is required to pay back?

I have never studied into the nature of private credit in depth. There is a great court case citation though, actually several expressing that if you use somebody's private credit to purchase something, there is residual ownership of the items bought with whoever granted you the credit.

What does FDR saving the Fed from the run in 1933 have to do with accepting private credit?

That is how the option became available to you. Or you became like a Fed bank, whichever is clearer.

Where is the contact stating that there is a fee for accepting private credit?

You create that agreement by signing and filing a 1040 Form. Well actually the W-4 or 1099 causes you to have Withholdings taken from you that you wish to recover.

Where is the contact stating that there is a fee for using this private credit to purchase goods and services or for any other use?

The fee schedule is integrated into the 1040.

David Merrill
12-29-11, 11:28 PM
In my last post, "contact" should be "contract."

Look carefully and you should find an Edit button somewhere around your post, while you are logged in anyway. I bet that is what happened. You were not logged in when you noticed no editing function.

freedave
12-30-11, 04:14 AM
"When you receive cash and are asked to sign for it - that is likely what I meant. At stores, when I get a cash refund I just sign..."

I understand that.

But I don't see from your response that there is any contract or that what happened in 1933 created a contract or has anything to do with accepting private credit or that I became a Fed bank or that a fee for using this private credit is incorporated into the 1040 form.

Is there any simpler, more direct, more conclusive data or evidence available?

Richard Earl
12-31-11, 12:39 AM
Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized.

freedave, do you hold and use Federal Reserve Notes?

freedave
12-31-11, 03:15 AM
Thank you for your response, Earl.

Is the implication here that if individuals are using them they are either doing so illegally or that they are Federal reserve banks?

Yes, I do you hold and use Federal Reserve Notes.

Richard Earl
12-31-11, 04:29 AM
Thank you for your response, Earl.

Is the implication here that if individuals are using them they are either doing so illegally or that they are Federal reserve banks?

Yes, I do you hold and use Federal Reserve Notes.

Well, the statute is written right there -- as I have pasted to you. That is the issuance of Federal Reserve Notes.


The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues.

Since you are using and holding Federal Reserve Notes, you are in possession of obligations.

Richard Earl
12-31-11, 04:44 AM
Since you are holding and using Federal Reserve Notes, you are holding an advance or credit.

The obligations become many.


They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.

When they are redeemed, the obligations remain with the United States and the Federal Reserve banks.

David Merrill
12-31-11, 02:27 PM
Since you are holding and using Federal Reserve Notes, you are holding an advance or credit.

The obligations become many.



When they are redeemed, the obligations remain with the United States and the Federal Reserve banks.

Technically when you redeem your paychecks you reduce the national debt rather than raise it. I like your explanation! It makes it seem so simple to understand. One way I have been saying it is that fully bonded FRNs function like lawful money. The question is whether or not you pledged your own substance during the initial transaction?

freedave
12-31-11, 11:37 PM
Well, the statute is written right there -- as I have pasted to you. That is the issuance of Federal Reserve Notes.

Since you are using and holding Federal Reserve Notes, you are in possession of obligations.

Obligations of the United States to whom?

freedave
12-31-11, 11:44 PM
An advance or credit from the Federal Reserve to the United States?

freedave
12-31-11, 11:48 PM
By "redeem your paychecks," do you mean endorsing them similarly to the examples I have seen here. And, if so, how is that redeeming?

Richard Earl
01-01-12, 02:37 AM
The best place to start is to understand how money is created. The US Treasurer exchanges debt notes with the Federal Reserve System in exchange for credit (numerical deposit into a bank account) - this whole process relies on your endorsement.

Richard Earl
01-01-12, 02:42 AM
By "redeem your paychecks," do you mean endorsing them similarly to the examples I have seen here. And, if so, how is that redeeming?

I look at redeeming as the opposite to endorsing. The examples around here would be a non-endorsement or redemption. To redeem lawful money, you simply need to make a demand.

freedave
01-01-12, 04:03 PM
The best place to start is to understand how money is created. The US Treasurer exchanges debt notes with the Federal Reserve System in exchange for credit (numerical deposit into a bank account) - this whole process relies on your endorsement.

I have some understanding of how how money is created. But how and why does it rely on my endorsement? And what and where is the evidence that it relies on my endorsement?

freedave
01-01-12, 04:23 PM
I look at redeeming as the opposite to endorsing. The examples around here would be a non-endorsement or redemption. To redeem lawful money, you simply need to make a demand.

OK, I have seen "non-endorsements" here for checks in the form of stamped or hand-written statements. How do those statements create the effect of redeeming FRN's for lawful money? And how do they make a demand? And in what way does making a demand create the effect of redeeming FRN's for lawful money?

David Merrill
01-01-12, 10:39 PM
You make the demand on your paycheck and it is done. Now you have lawful money by law. You did not endorse any of it and therefore all the obligations are against the US by the US Treasurer and Secretary's signature bonds on the bills. The reason somebody wisely pointed you to understand how money is made is that is an easy way to understand endorsement;

The Story of Money (http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_Story_of_Money.zip).

If you endorse your paycheck you approve the bank may lend fractionally and that increase in the money supply is now bonded; by your signature. If you non-endorse your paycheck maybe the bank will lend on it fractionally anyway - at least that is the bank breaking the law, not you. Indications are that the bankers know better because in several instances the suitor's account has been switched to a non-interest bearing equivalent account. If the bank cannot profit from your deposits why should they be giving you an increase called interest?

freedave
01-02-12, 04:27 AM
You make the demand on your paycheck and it is done. Now you have lawful money by law. You did not endorse any of it and therefore all the obligations are against the US by the US Treasurer and Secretary's signature bonds on the bills. The reason somebody wisely pointed you to understand how money is made is that is an easy way to understand endorsement;

The Story of Money (http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_Story_of_Money.zip).

If you endorse your paycheck you approve the bank may lend fractionally and that increase in the money supply is now bonded; by your signature. If you non-endorse your paycheck maybe the bank will lend on it fractionally anyway - at least that is the bank breaking the law, not you. Indications are that the bankers know better because in several instances the suitor's account has been switched to a non-interest bearing equivalent account. If the bank cannot profit from your deposits why should they be giving you an increase called interest?

Thank you, David.

How is putting the following on a check making a demand?

Redeemed in Lawful money
Pursuant to Title 12 USC §411

And according to what evidence does that convert the check to lawful money by law?

David Merrill
01-02-12, 08:02 AM
Thank you, David.

How is putting the following on a check making a demand?

Redeemed in Lawful money
Pursuant to Title 12 USC §411

And according to what evidence does that convert the check to lawful money by law?



If that is not a clear enough demand stamp it:

Lawful Money Demanded Pursuant to Title...

Title 12 U.S.C. §411 is §16 of the Federal Reserve Act.

freedave
01-02-12, 06:01 PM
If that is not a clear enough demand stamp it:

Lawful Money Demanded Pursuant to Title...

Title 12 U.S.C. §411 is §16 of the Federal Reserve Act.

Thank you, David.

Is it correct that if I were to cash a check at a bank with that on the back, I would be demanding that I receive lawful money instead of Federal Reserve notes?

And if I were given Federal Reserve notes, would they then become lawful money as a result of what I stamped and signed on the back of the check?

Or would what I would put on the back of the check convert only the check received by the bank to lawful money?

And according to what evidence could what I put on the back of the check convert the check and/or the Federal Reserve notes to lawful money?

martin earl
01-03-12, 04:03 PM
Thank you, David.

Is it correct that if I were to cash a check at a bank with that on the back, I would be demanding that I receive lawful money instead of Federal Reserve notes?

With the possible acception of the $1 and $2 FRN, there is a US Treasury note on the face of all currently issued Federal Reserve Note, on the right side, it even is titled and sealed as such.

And if I were given Federal Reserve notes, would they then become lawful money as a result of what I stamped and signed on the back of the check?
They do not "become lawful money" your NOTICE and demand simply tells the ISSUER what note on the face you are using and who is obligated to pay the debt created and evidenced by that note.

Or would what I would put on the back of the check convert only the check received by the bank to lawful money?
Again, you are simply notifying the issuer of the credit note who is obligated to pay that amount of debt, you are not taking that obligation on yourself by endorsing the debt.

And according to what evidence could what I put on the back of the check convert the check and/or the Federal Reserve notes to lawful money?

The Rickman case proved that paper fiat currency is lawful money via endorsement and use. if non-endorsed by the user, and a demand for use of lawful money is recorded, there is your proof of demand, it is up to the issuer to actually pay the $$ amount of the debt. The only question any court or IRS agent could ask is "To whom does the obligation to pay this debt remain with?" That is simple and spelled out in 12-USC 411, the issuer of the note, the US Treasury (who is the endorser, since their official signature endorsement is on the face of ever single FRN, redeemed or not.

Mine in blue. The question is not "is lawful money taxable?" Because Rickman proves it can be, the question is: "Who has the obligation to pay the Tax if I am not endorsing it?" Again, the only answer is the original issuer of the debt/lawful money, per 12-USC 411 FR "notes shall be obligations of the United States...".

Nothing is actually "paid" by the use of lawful money, unless and until the US Treasury hands out GOLD coins, at face value, to the issuer of the notes. The key is to understand that obligation rests only on the US Treasury, once you demand redemption of lawful money, if it is not paid, it is not your problem, since you demanded they do their job as trustees of public gold in the amount of 3OO million 'dollars'.

freedave
01-03-12, 08:38 PM
Mine in blue. The question is not "is lawful money taxable?" Because Rickman proves it can be, the question is: "Who has the obligation to pay the Tax if I am not endorsing it?" Again, the only answer is the original issuer of the debt/lawful money, per 12-USC 411 FR "notes shall be obligations of the United States...".

Nothing is actually "paid" by the use of lawful money, unless and until the US Treasury hands out GOLD coins, at face value, to the issuer of the notes. The key is to understand that obligation rests only on the US Treasury, once you demand redemption of lawful money, if it is not paid, it is not your problem, since you demanded they do their job as trustees of public gold in the amount of 3OO million 'dollars'.

Thank you for this, Martin.

I don't see "US Treasury note" on the $5 or $20 bill. Does the fact that there is a U.S. Treasury seal and the signature of the Secretary of the Treasury make it a U.S. Treasury note?

And are you saying that if I endorses a check, I am obligated to pay that amount of debt?

I don't see how paper fiat currency would become lawful money via endorsement -- I thought the idea is to demand redemption in lawful money.

martin earl
01-03-12, 11:35 PM
Thank you for this, Martin.

I don't see "US Treasury note" on the $5 or $20 bill. Does the fact that there is a U.S. Treasury seal and the signature of the Secretary of the Treasury make it a U.S. Treasury note?

You cannot see "THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" and the Treasury seal on the right side of the NOTE? You cannot see the line between the 2 notes (hint: just because the line between the 2 notes is curved and artistic does not mean its not a Border between the notes, the line is around the dead President)? You cannot see the Secretary of Treasury Signature on the note? You cannot see the numerical value of the NOTE? You dont see "RESERVE NOTE" above the "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

Clearly, there are 2 notes there, with their own boarders, their own seals, their own serial numbers. Remember, when you put something in a box, it is its own "thing".

And are you saying that if I endorses a check, I am obligated to pay that amount of debt?

Of course you are, if the check bounces, does the bank come after YOU for payment or the endorser on the face of the check? This is so basic anyone with a checking account knows they assume full liability for the any deposit with their signature (unrestricted, open endorsement, of course). Not only that, you are obligated to pay face value plus interest in goods and services, since that is the deal Congress made with the FEDERAL RESERVE.

I don't see how paper fiat currency would become lawful money via endorsement
Then you have no idea what "endorsement" means and you need to look it up because it is basic contract law, you endorse it, you own it.

-- I thought the idea is to demand redemption in lawful money.

It is, there are many forms of "lawful" and being Constitutional is only one form of law. The idea is to stop the fractional reserve creation of currency, pay down the national debt and live a life that does not harm others by stealing their currency to fund a debt system. Look up the legal definition of Peonage, because every time you endorse the Federal Reserve system, you make a peon of yourself and future generations. And you are more than welcome!
785

Richard Earl
01-04-12, 01:35 AM
endorsed = fiat money, permission to fractionalize, obligations, taxes, turn me into a soup sandwich, etc...
redeemed = lawful money.

freedave
01-04-12, 03:59 AM
It is, there are many forms of "lawful" and being Constitutional is only one form of law. The idea is to stop the fractional reserve creation of currency, pay down the national debt and live a life that does not harm others by stealing their currency to fund a debt system. Look up the legal definition of Peonage, because every time you endorse the Federal Reserve system, you make a peon of yourself and future generations. And you are more than welcome!
785

Thank you again, Martin.

I see all the things you mention on the $5 and $20 bills I have, except for the line you show, which I do see on the $100 bill I have.

I don't see any of the bills labeled "US Treasury note." I think what I need to find out is what are the necessary elements that legally make something a note.

When I take a check to a bank and sign it in order to cash it, I thought I was signing to transfer payment to my account, not to guarantee the check. How does signing the check on the back obligate me to anything except to pay a bounced check fee if it bounces?

Obligation:
2 : an inscription (as a signature or notation) on a document or instrument
esp
: an inscription usu. on the back of a negotiable instrument that transfers or guarantees the instrument

I am in favor of stopping the fractional reserve creation of currency, paying down the national debt, living a life that does not harm others and eliminating the debt-money system.

I am trying to learn, understand and evaluate these principles and the remedy.

freedave
01-04-12, 04:00 AM
endorsed = fiat money, permission to fractionalize, obligations, taxes, turn me into a soup sandwich, etc...
redeemed = lawful money.

I am especially trying to understand the obligation and tax parts.

Michael Joseph
01-04-12, 04:04 AM
An item of interest that I point out:

Notice that the Original style of the Union of Colonies [plantations of the Crown] was styled "The United States of America".....

Notice that THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is capitalized. I have my own ideas but it is worthy of contemplation.

freedave
01-04-12, 04:51 AM
An item of interest that I point out:

Notice that the Original style of the Union of Colonies [plantations of the Crown] was styled "The United States of America".....

Notice that THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is capitalized. I have my own ideas but it is worthy of contemplation.

I have seen various things about the significance of capitalization and the various names used for the united states -- right now I am just trying to understand redeeming lawful money and its validity and effectiveness.

Chex
01-04-12, 05:13 AM
I had this in one of my files for ages so here you go.

When Congress borrows money on the credit of the United States, bonds are thus legislated into existence and deposited as credit entries in Federal Reserve banks.

United States bonds, bills and notes constitute money as affirmed by the Supreme Court (Legal Tender Cases, 110 U.S. 421), and this money when deposited with the Fed becomes collateral from whence the Treasury may write checks against the credit thus created in its account (12 USC 391). For example, suppose Congress appropriates an expenditure of $1 billion. To finance the appropriation Congress creates the $1 billion worth of bonds out of thin air and deposits it with the privately owned Federal Reserve System. Upon receiving the bonds, the Fed credits $1 billion to the Treasury's checking account, holding the deposited bonds as collateral.

When the United States deposits its bonds with the Federal Reserve System, private credit is extended to the Treasury by the Fed. Under its power to borrow money, Congress is authorized by the Constitution to contract debt, and whenever something is borrowed it must be returned. When Congress spends the contracted private credit, each use of credit is debt which must be returned to the lender or Fed. Since Congress authorizes the expenditure of this private credit, the United States incurs the primary obligation to return the borrowed credit, creating a National Debt which results when credit is not returned. However, if anyone else accepts this private credit and uses it to purchase goods and services, the user voluntarily incurs the obligation requiring him to make a return of income whereby a portion of the income is collected by the IRS and delivered to the Federal Reserve bankers.

Actually the federal income tax imparts two separate obligations: the obligation to file a return and the obligation to abide by the Internal Revenue Code. The obligation to make a return of income for using private credit is recognized in law as an irrecusable obligation, which according to 'Bouvier's Law Dictionary' (1914 ed.), is "a term used to indicate a certain class of contractual obligations recognized by the law which are imposed upon a person without his consent and without regard to any act of his own." This is distinguished from a recusable obligation which, according to Bouvier, arises from a voluntary act by which one incurs the obligation imposed by the operation of law. The voluntary use of private credit is the condition precedent which imposes the irrecusable obligation to file a tax return. If private credit is not used or rejected, then the operation of law which imposes the irrecusable obligation lies dormant and cannot apply.

In 'Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR Co.' 240 U.S. 1 (1916) the Supreme Court affirmed that the federal income tax is in the class of indirect taxes, which include duties and excises. The personal income tax arises from a duty -- i.e., charge or fee -- which is voluntarily incurred and subject to the rule of uniformity. A charge is a duty or obligation, binding upon him who enters into it, which may be removed or taken away by a discharge (performance): 'Bouvier', p. 459.

Our federal personal income tax is not really a tax in the ordinary sense of the word but rather a burden or obligation which the taxpayer voluntarily assumes, and the burden of the tax falls upon those who voluntarily use private credit. Simply stated the tax imposed is a charge or fee upon the use of private credit where the amount of private credit used measures the pecuniary obligation. The personal income tax provision of the Internal Revenue Code is private law rather than public law. "A private law is one which is confined to particular individuals, associations, or corporations": 50 AmJur 12, p.28. In the instant case the revenue code pertains to taxpayers. A private law can be enforced by a court of competent jurisdiction when statutes for its enforcement are enacted: 20 AmJur 33, pgs. 58, 59.

The distinction between public and private acts is not always sharply defined when published statutes are printed in their final form: Case v. Kelly 133 U.S. 21 (1890). Statutes creating corporations are private acts: 20 AmJur 35, p. 60. In this connection, the Federal Reserve Act is private law. Federal Reserve banks derive their existence and corporate power from the Federal Reserve Act: Armano v. Federal Reserve Bank 468 F.Supp 674 (1979). A private act may be published as a public law when the general public is afforded the opportunity of participating in the operation of the private law. The Internal Revenue Code is an example of private law which does not exclude the voluntary participation of the general public. Had the Internal Revenue Code been written as substantive public law, the code would be repugnant to the Constitution, since no one could be compelled to file a return and thereby become a witness against himself.

Page 1 of 3

Chex
01-04-12, 05:14 AM
Under the fifty titles listed on the preface page of the United States Code, the Internal Revenue Code (26 USC) is listed as having not been enacted as substantive public law, conceding that the Internal Revenue Code is private law. Bouvier declares that private law "relates to private matters which do not concern the public at large." It is the voluntary use of private credit which imposes upon the user the quasi contractual or implied obligation to make a return of income. In 'Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co.' 158 U.S. 601 (1895) the Supreme Court had declared the income tax of 1894 to be repugnant to the Constitution, holding that taxation of rents, wages and salaries must conform to the rule of apportionment.

However, when this decision was rendered, there was no privately owned central bank issuing private credit and currency but rather public money in the form of legal tender notes and coins of the United States circulated. Public money is the lawful money of the United States which the Constitution authorizes Congress to issue, conferring a property right, whereas the private credit issued by the Fed is neither money nor property, permitting the user an equitable interest but denying allodial title.

Today, we have two competing monetary systems. The Federal Reserve System with its private credit and currency, and the public money system consisting of legal tender United States notes and coins. One could use the public money system, paying all bills with coins and United States notes (if the notes can be obtained), or one could voluntarily use the private credit system and thereby incur the obligation to make a return of income. Under 26 USC 7609 the IRS has carte blanche authority to summon and investigate bank records for the purpose of determining tax liabilities or discovering unknown taxpayers: 'United States v. Berg' 636 F.2d 203 (1980).

If an investigation of bank records discloses an excess of $1000 in deposits in a single year, the IRS may accept this as prima facie evidence that the account holder uses private credit and is therefore a person obligated to make a return of income. Anyone who uses private credit -- e.g., bank accounts, credit cards, mortgages, etc. -- voluntarily plugs himself into the system and obligates himself to file. A taxpayer is allowed to claim a $1000 personal deduction when filing his return. The average taxpayer in the course of a year uses United States coins in vending machines, parking meters, small change, etc., and this public money must be deducted when computing the charge for using private credit.

Chex
01-04-12, 05:14 AM
On June 5, 1933, the day of infamy arrived. Congress on that date enacted House Joint Resolution 192, which provided that the people convert or turn in their gold coins in exchange for Federal Reserve notes. Through the operation of law, H.J.R. 192 took us off the gold standard and placed us on the dollar standard where the dollar could be manipulated by private interests for their self-serving benefit. By this single act the people and their wealth were delivered to the bankers. When gold coinage was thus pulled out of circulation, large denomination Federal Reserve notes were issued to fill the void. As a consequence the public money supply in circulation was greatly diminished, and the debt-laden private credit of the Fed gained supremacy.

This action made private individuals who had been previously exempt from federal income taxes now liable for them, since the general public began consuming and using large amounts of private credit. Notice all the case law prior to 1933 which affirms that income is a profit or gain which arises from a government granted privilege. After 1933, however, the case law no longer emphatically declares that income is exclusively corporate profit or that it arises from a privilege. So, what changed? Two years after H.J.R. 192, Congress passed the Social Security Act, which the Supreme Court upheld as a valid act imposing a valid income tax: 'Charles C. Steward Mach. Co. v, Davis' 301 U.S. 548 (1937).

Page 2 of 3

Chex
01-04-12, 05:15 AM
It is no accident that the United States is without a dollar unit coin. In recent years the Eisenhower dollar coin received widespread acceptance, but the Treasury minted them in limited number which encouraged hoarding. This same fate befell the Kennedy half dollars, which circulated as silver sandwiched clads between 1965-1969 and were hoarded for their intrinsic value and not spent. Next came the Susan B. Anthony dollar, an awkward coin which was instantly rejected as planned. The remaining unit is the privately issued Federal Reserve note unit dollar with no viable competitors. Back in 1935 the Fed had persuaded the Treasury to discontinue minting silver dollars because the public preferred them over dollar bills. That the public money system has become awkward, discouraging its use, is no accident. It was planned that way.

A major purpose behind the 16th Amendment was to give Congress authority to enforce private law collections of revenue. Congress had the plenary power to collect income taxes arising from government granted privileges long before the 16th Amendment was ratified, and the amendment was unnecessary, except to give Congress the added power to enforce collections under private law: i.e., income from whatever source. So, the Fed got its amendment and its private income tax, which is a banker's dream but a nightmare for everyone else. Through the combined operation of the Fed and H. J.R. 192, the United States pays exorbitant interest whenever it uses its own money deposited with the Fed, and the people pay outrageous income taxes for the privilege of living and working in their own country, robbed of their wealth and separated from their rights, laboring under a tax system written by a cabal of loan shark bankers and rubber stamped by a spineless Congress.

Congress has the power to abolish the Federal Reserve System and thus destroy the private credit system. However, the people have it within their power to strip the Fed of its powers, rescind private credit and get the bankers to pay off the National Debt should Congress fail to act. The key to all this is 12 USC 411, which declares that Federal Reserve notes shall be redeemed in lawful money at any Federal Reserve bank. Lawful money is defined as all the coins, notes, bills, bonds and securities of the United States: 'Julliard v. Greenman' 110 U.S. 421, 448 (1884); whereas public money is the lawful money declared by Congress as a legal tender for debts (31 USC 5103); 524 F.2d 629 (1974). anyone can present Federal Reserve notes to any Federal Reserve bank and demand redemption in public money -- i.e., legal tender United States notes and coins. A Federal Reserve note is a fixed obligation or evidence of indebtedness which pledges redemption (12 USC 411) in public money to the note holder.

The Fed maintains a ready supply of United States notes in hundred dollar denominations for redemption purposes should it be required, and coins are available to satisfy claims for smaller amounts. However, should the general public decide to redeem large amounts of private credit for public money, a financial melt-down within the Fed would quickly occur. The process works like this. Suppose $1000 in Federal Reserve notes are presented for redemption in public money. To raise $1000 in public money the Fed must surrender U.S. Bonds in that amount to the Treasury in exchange for the public money demanded (assuming that the Fed had no public money on hand). In so doing $1000 of the National Debt would be paid off by the Fed and thus cancelled.

Can you imagine the result if large amounts of Federal Reserve notes were redeemed on a regular, ongoing basis? Private credit would be withdrawn from circulation and replaced with public money, and with each turning of the screw the Fed would be obliged to pay off more of the National Debt. Should the Fed refuse to redeem its notes in public money, then the fiction that private credit is used voluntarily would become unsustainable. If the use of private credit becomes compulsory, then the obligation to make a return of income is voided. If the Fed is under no obligation to redeem its notes, then no one has an obligation to make a return of income. It is that simple! Federal Reserve notes are not money and cannot be tendered when money is demanded: 105 So. 305 (1925). Moreover, the Ninth Circuit rejected the argument that a $50 Federal Reserve note be redeemed in gold or silver coin after specie coinage had been rescinded but upheld the right of the note holder to redeem his note in current public money (31 USC 392; rev., 5103): 524 F.2d 629 (1974); 12 USC 411.

It would be advantageous to close out all bank accounts, acquire a home safe, settle all debts in cash with public money and use U.S. postal money orders for remittances. Whenever a check is received, present it to the bank of issue and demand cash in public money. This will place banks in a vulnerable position, forcing them to draw off their assets. Through their insatiable greed, bankers have over extended, making banks quite illiquid. Should the people suddenly demand public money for their deposits and for checks received, many banks will collapse and be foreclosed by those demanding public money. Banks by their very nature are citadels of usury and sin, and the most patriotic service one could perform is to obligate bankers to redeem private credit. When the first Federal Reserve note is presented to the Fed for redemption, the process of ousting the private credit system will commence and will not end until the Fed and the banking system nurtured by it collapse. Coins comprise less than five percent of the currency, and current law limits the amount of United States notes in circulation to $300 million (31 USC 5115). The private credit system is exceedingly over extended compared with the supply of public money, and a small minority working in concert can easily collapse the private credit system and oust the Fed by demanding redemption of private credit. If the Fed disappeared tomorrow, income taxes on wages and salaries would vanish with it.

Moreover, the States are precluded from taxing United States notes: 4 Wheat. 316. According to Bouvier, public money is the money which Congress can tax for public purposes mandated by the Constitution. Private credit when collected in revenue can fund programs and be spent for purposes not cognizable by the Constitution. We have in effect two competing governments: the United States Government and the Federal Government. The first is the government of the people, whereas the Federal Government is founded upon private law and funded by private credit. What we really have is private government. Federal agencies and activities funded by the private credit system include Social Security, bail out loans to bankers via the IMF, bail out loans to Chrysler, loans to students, FDIC, FBI, supporting the U.N., foreign aid, funding undeclared wars, etc., all of which would be unsustainable if funded by taxes raised pursuant to the Constitution.

The personal income tax is not a true tax but rather an obligation or burden which is voluntarily assumed, since revenue is raised through voluntary contributions and can be spent for purposes unknown to the Constitution. Notice how the IRS declares in its publications that everyone is expected to contribute his fair share. True taxes must be spent for public purposes which the Constitution recognizes. Taxation for the purpose of giving or loaning money to private business enterprises and individuals is illegal: 15 AmRep 39; Cooley, 'Prin. Const. Law', ch. IV. Revenue derived from the federal income tax goes into a private slush fund raised from voluntary contributions, and Congress is not restricted by the Constitution when spending or disbursing the proceeds from this private fund. It is incorrect to say that the personal federal income tax is unconstitutional, since the tax code is private law and resides outside the Constitution. The Internal Revenue Code is non-constitutional because it enforces an obligation which is voluntarily incurred through an act of the individual who binds himself. Fighting the Internal Revenue Code on constitutional grounds is wasted energy.

The way to bring it all down is to attack the Federal Reserve System and its banking cohorts by demanding that private credit be redeemed, or by convincing Congress to abolish the Fed.

Never forget that private credit is funding the destruction of our country.

Page 3 of 3

Lawful
01-04-12, 08:10 PM
Great post!
Thanks

David Merrill
01-05-12, 02:26 PM
Great post!
Thanks


I have noted it is important to remember the 1984 context of that article.

Chex
01-05-12, 04:30 PM
Sorry OT don’t mean to change this subject on you: you can always get back to it.

You correct David, it’s all changed from 1984.

Now here is something a little bit more up to speed.

Kind of has reference to the lawful money we all want in exchange for FRN’s.

All the hype about National Defense Authorization Act:
http://www.digitalprecursor.org/entry.php?7-National-Defense-Authorisation-Act-Turning-the-United-States-into-a-Battleground

Most people are quoted saying:

All the relief is what most people think is the answer: need to read 1031 first.
Meaning: of this quoted passage is – ”they can but are not required to detain us citizens”

From another blog or any other blog:

First, read Section 1031 subparagraph (b) Covered Persons. If you meet that definition than you should be worried.

Next, read Section 1031 subparagraph (e) Authorities. It's very clear that this section relating to the detention of US citizens does not "affect existing law or authorities". Let me explain that to you. That means that your rights under the law as a US citizen can not be circumvented by this section.

Last, read Section 1032 Requirement For Military Custody subparagraph (b) (1) United States Citizens - "The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."

Now read The Fourteenth Amendment: (maybe Wikipedia). They didn’t write this for “that blacks could not be citizens of the United States” it’s a contract that they (blacks) also pay the “use” of private credit.

If they do pass this bill onto the 14th “person” my question is what or whose identification are the “residents” need to carry now?
I don’t think the state id is going to be enough.

Here’s the bill:
The bill http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:s.01867:

Let’s dig a little deeper on the Amendments For S.1867

The Cosponsors: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:SP01126:@@@P

Number 62: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/L?d112:./temp/~bdaYdRJ:1[1-381](Amendments_For_S.1867)&./temp/~bdPe5G

TEXT OF AMENDMENTS:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r112:1:./temp/~r112lW3YQF:e499778:

SEC. 1099. ATTEMPT TO EVADE OR DEFEAT TAX.

SEC. 1099. ATTEMPT TO EVADE OR DEFEAT TAX.
Section 7201 of the Internal Revenue Code is amended--
(1) by striking ``$100,000'' and inserting ``$500,000''; and
(2) by striking ``$500,000'' and inserting ``$2,500,000''.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r112:1:./temp/~r112lW3YQF:e499778:

Thank you Dianne (http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/)"public"

If you "look" Low and behold you find there are more “rules” that are ready to be implemented for you're 14th amendment “person”:

Better have those 1040’s in proper order for that 1040 statue.

Sure: All the relief is what most people think is the answer “us citizens.”

freedave
01-06-12, 04:01 AM
I would like to point out that I have not received a response to my last post, especially the following:

I don't see any of my FRN bills labeled "US Treasury note." I think what I need to find out is what are the necessary elements that legally make something a note.

When I take a check to a bank and sign it in order to cash it, I thought I was signing to transfer payment to my account, not to guarantee the check. How does signing the check on the back obligate me to anything except to pay a bounced check fee if it bounces?

Obligation:
2 : an inscription (as a signature or notation) on a document or instrument
esp
: an inscription usu. on the back of a negotiable instrument that transfers or guarantees the instrument

freedave
01-17-12, 02:30 AM
Since this remedy seems to be something which could bring down the Fed and the IRS, I wonder why there is not more care taken to explain it to someone who could potentially spread it broadly...

David Merrill
01-18-12, 12:12 AM
Thank you again, Martin.

I see all the things you mention on the $5 and $20 bills I have, except for the line you show, which I do see on the $100 bill I have.

I don't see any of the bills labeled "US Treasury note." I think what I need to find out is what are the necessary elements that legally make something a note.

When I take a check to a bank and sign it in order to cash it, I thought I was signing to transfer payment to my account, not to guarantee the check. How does signing the check on the back obligate me to anything except to pay a bounced check fee if it bounces?

Obligation:
2 : an inscription (as a signature or notation) on a document or instrument
esp
: an inscription usu. on the back of a negotiable instrument that transfers or guarantees the instrument

I am in favor of stopping the fractional reserve creation of currency, paying down the national debt, living a life that does not harm others and eliminating the debt-money system.

I am trying to learn, understand and evaluate these principles and the remedy.

It is obviously a note signed by the Secretary and the Treasurer. It is regulated and issued by the Federal Reserve unless you demand the cash in lawful money.

Indeed it is a mystery how this remedy seems so obvious as to escape most people. There are a myriad of explanations though. I perceive carefully regulated release valve systems for a highly compressed information infrastucture. In other words if everybody saw it the Fed would already be abolished.

freedave
01-18-12, 02:56 AM
It is obviously a note signed by the Secretary and the Treasurer. It is regulated and issued by the Federal Reserve unless you demand the cash in lawful money.

Indeed it is a mystery how this remedy seems so obvious as to escape most people. There are a myriad of explanations though. I perceive carefully regulated release valve systems for a highly compressed information infrastucture. In other words if everybody saw it the Fed would already be abolished.

Yes, I see that it is a note signed by the Secretary and the Treasurer, but it says, "Federal Reserve Note." It is not clear to me that by "non-endorsing" a check, the Federal Reserve Notes given in return for the check become lawful money. How does that work and what is the evidence for it?

Ares
01-18-12, 04:44 AM
Yes, I see that it is a note signed by the Secretary and the Treasurer, but it says, "Federal Reserve Note." It is not clear to me that by "non-endorsing" a check, the Federal Reserve Notes given in return for the check become lawful money. How does that work and what is the evidence for it?

Dave, The note is of NO SIGNIFICANCE. It could say The Federal Reserve Monopoly on the note. It doesn't matter. What matters is your non-endorsement. When you sign the check normally without the redemption you are bonding your substance to the check and the money that is given to you. If you receive a check more than 600 dollars and you don't redeem it, you are liable for the duty or fee of it's use (taxation). Since lawful money is legislated into existence by an act of congress it falls outside the scope of direct taxation. Because the government tried taxing lawful money and the supreme court told them that it was unconstitutional as all direct unapportioned taxes are. HOWEVER if you endorse PRIVATE CREDIT you are agreeing to a contract and you are liable for the fee's of it's use. Thats why tax protestors get into trouble is they don't realize they are endorsing private credit and are liable for it's use. The constitution gives us unlimited right to contract. It is up to us to determine what contracts are beneficial and which ones are not.

Hopefully that makes sense and you're able to get a clearer picture of why the note they give you is of no importance. It's your demand in lawful money that is of substance.

freedave
01-19-12, 01:05 AM
Dave, The note is of NO SIGNIFICANCE. It could say The Federal Reserve Monopoly on the note. It doesn't matter. What matters is your non-endorsement. When you sign the check normally without the redemption you are bonding your substance to the check and the money that is given to you. If you receive a check more than 600 dollars and you don't redeem it, you are liable for the duty or fee of it's use (taxation). Since lawful money is legislated into existence by an act of congress it falls outside the scope of direct taxation. Because the government tried taxing lawful money and the supreme court told them that it was unconstitutional as all direct unapportioned taxes are. HOWEVER if you endorse PRIVATE CREDIT you are agreeing to a contract and you are liable for the fee's of it's use. Thats why tax protestors get into trouble is they don't realize they are endorsing private credit and are liable for it's use. The constitution gives us unlimited right to contract. It is up to us to determine what contracts are beneficial and which ones are not.

Hopefully that makes sense and you're able to get a clearer picture of why the note they give you is of no importance. It's your demand in lawful money that is of substance.

Thank you for responding, Ares.

What does "bonding your substance" mean?

Where is it stated that I would be liable for a duty or fee of for use of FRNs if I do not redeem them for lawful money?

Where is it stated that if I endorse private credit I am agreeing to a contract and am liable for fees for its use?

And if the contract is not disclosed, how could it be a valid contract?

Ares
01-19-12, 04:14 PM
What does "bonding your substance" mean?

Bonding your labor / yourself (your substance = you) to pay for the fee's of its use.


Where is it stated that I would be liable for a duty or fee of for use of FRNs if I do not redeem them for lawful money?

It isn't stated anywhere but is very much implied when you're REQUIRED by PRIVATE LAW to violate the 5th amendment when you file your taxes each year. Lawful money has no such implications, restrictions or duties.


Where is it stated that if I endorse private credit I am agreeing to a contract and am liable for fees for its use?

Contract law is binding whether you agree to it or not. You're looking for black and white answers but it isn't stated anywhere. You have to read through court cases that David and others have cited to read what ISN'T SAID that says you're liable for the taxes.


And if the contract is not disclosed, how could it be a valid contract?

It's valid with the endorsement of your signature. Government doesn't come out to the public and say "Hey there are United States Notes and all you have to do is demand them and you don't owe us a penny." That's where you have to go and read history of governments the world over and they all operate by deception. You as well as the rest of us were told from birth that we must pay "our fair share" to the government. Never teaching us or showing us that the founding fathers said that a man's labor is of his own and should never be taxed.

freedave
01-19-12, 05:41 PM
Bonding your labor to pay for the fee's of its use.



It isn't stated anywhere but is very much implied when you're REQUIRED by PRIVATE LAW to violate the 5th amendment when you file your taxes each year. Lawful money has no such implications, restrictions or duties.



Contract law is binding whether you agree to it or not. You're looking for black and white answers but it isn't stated anywhere. You have to read through court cases that David and others have cited to read what ISN'T SAID that says you're liable for the taxes.



It's valid with the endorsement of your signature. Government doesn't come out to the public and say "Hey there are United States Notes and all you have to do is demand them and you don't owe us a penny." That's where you have to go and read history of governments the world over and they all operating by deception. You as well as the rest of us were told from birth that we must pay "our fair share" to the government. Never teaching us or showing us that the founding fathers said that a man's labor is of his own and should never be taxed.

Thank you again, Ares.

I get the general idea.

Based upon what I have looked at so far, it seems to me that, as I've written before, this remedy would, if valid and broadly applied, eliminate the current destructive practices of the Fed, the IRS, etc.

It also appears that there is no simple and easy way to understand it enough to establish a certainty as to whether or not it is valid.

Am I correct in that?

Chex
01-19-12, 07:15 PM
It’s a right to contract. For example your employment has negotiations through the union that includes the pay scale and the benefits and there ready to be negotiated. The president of the union and management assemble, negotiate, and agree on the proposals. The then contact is settled and you as a “resident” of the membership represented by your elected official(s) and management are now under the terms of the contract.

After a certain amount has passed and one of those “agreements” has a clause in it that has you do something that you feel is not part of the agreement and refuse to abide by contract law.

As the chain of command goes you first talk to management who also must enforce the contract and they tell you it’s in the job description that you have no recourses but to do it.

Seeing that you disagree with these rules in the managements office eventually they get tired of your unwarranted complaint and eventually tell you “Don’t argue the contact here you have no standing.”

You don’t like the answer so you take it to the union and the union tells you its part of the negotiated contract.

You tell the union saying that if I knew that was in the contract I would have never voted on those proposals. But it’s too late your bound by the contract whether you knew about it or not.

I have seen it where a self proclaimed CEO’s taken the responsibility on themselves and spoke for the membership as a whole without the voice of the membership.

What recourse do you have? You can file a grievance although a contract is a contract unless it is deemed unsafe; you under an agreement now have to abide by the rules. Those who have made the rules you’re governed under will enforce them and the ones who assisted on making the rules will also have to enforce them as well. There is not really much of a choice.

On the other hand if you were not part of the contract such as the manager who is not part of the agreement has no contractual agreement to it is free and clear of all the requirements.

If you were to try to bring in outside council into preserving your rights such as a lawyer to represent you, you have to remember the first duty of fair representation does not even require that the union do a particularly good job at representing grievances. Unions are only prohibited from acting in arbitrary or discriminatory ways, or in bad faith that’s why companies rather have a union to control that an individual of body corporate.

Think about it as a contract. If you were told that any use of private credit was to be taxed; you would not go for it, nobody would. So how does “someone” come up with an idea that locks someone into a contact without their acknowledgement? Had to be with your consent other wise it would not be a valid contract? Are there age restrictions to contract? Did someone create someone just to get the job done for their mutual benefit? Did you inherit a title?

What you have to find is the source of this contract that locked you into it.

freedave
01-19-12, 09:01 PM
It’s a right to contract. For example your employment has negotiations through the union that includes the pay scale and the benefits and there ready to be negotiated. The president of the union and management assemble, negotiate, and agree on the proposals. The then contact is settled and you as a “resident” of the membership represented by your elected official(s) and management are now under the terms of the contract.

After a certain amount has passed and one of those “agreements” has a clause in it that has you do something that you feel is not part of the agreement and refuse to abide by contract law.

As the chain of command goes you first talk to management who also must enforce the contract and they tell you it’s in the job description that you have no recourses but to do it.

Seeing that you disagree with these rules in the managements office eventually they get tired of your unwarranted complaint and eventually tell you “Don’t argue the contact here you have no standing.”

You don’t like the answer so you take it to the union and the union tells you its part of the negotiated contract.

You tell the union saying that if I knew that was in the contract I would have never voted on those proposals. But it’s too late your bound by the contract whether you knew about it or not.

I have seen it where a self proclaimed CEO’s taken the responsibility on themselves and spoke for the membership as a whole without the voice of the membership.

What recourse do you have? You can file a grievance although a contract is a contract unless it is deemed unsafe; you under an agreement now have to abide by the rules. Those who have made the rules you’re governed under will enforce them and the ones who assisted on making the rules will also have to enforce them as well. There is not really much of a choice.

On the other hand if you were not part of the contract such as the manager who is not part of the agreement has no contractual agreement to it is free and clear of all the requirements.

If you were to try to bring in outside council into preserving your rights such as a lawyer to represent you, you have to remember the first duty of fair representation does not even require that the union do a particularly good job at representing grievances. Unions are only prohibited from acting in arbitrary or discriminatory ways, or in bad faith that’s why companies rather have a union to control that an individual of body corporate.

Think about it as a contract. If you were told that any use of private credit was to be taxed; you would not go for it, nobody would. So how does “someone” come up with an idea that locks someone into a contact without their acknowledgement? Had to be with your consent other wise it would not be a valid contract? Are there age restrictions to contract? Did someone create someone just to get the job done for their mutual benefit? Did you inherit a title?

What you have to find is the source of this contract that locked you into it.

Non est factum (Latin for "it is not [my] deed") is a doctrine in contract law that allows a signing party to escape performance of the agreement. A claim of non est factum means that the signature on the contract was signed by mistake, without knowledge of its meaning, but was not done so negligently.

Again, based upon what I have looked at so far, it seems to me that, as I've written before, this remedy would, if it is valid and if it is broadly applied, eliminate the current destructive practices of the Fed, the IRS, etc.

It also appears that there is no simple and easy way to understand it enough to establish a certainty as to whether or not it is valid.

Am I correct in that?

Chex
01-19-12, 09:14 PM
How did you get into the destructive practices of the Fed, the IRS, etc to begin with?

freedave
01-20-12, 03:37 AM
How did you get into the destructive practices of the Fed, the IRS, etc to begin with?

That's a pretty broad question -- one answer is by identifying with a physical body on this planet.

Would you like to respond to my post?

Non est factum (Latin for "it is not [my] deed") is a doctrine in contract law that allows a signing party to escape performance of the agreement. A claim of non est factum means that the signature on the contract was signed by mistake, without knowledge of its meaning, but was not done so negligently. Does that apply?

Again, based upon what I have looked at so far, it seems to me that, as I've written before, this remedy would, if it is valid and if it is broadly applied, eliminate the current destructive practices of the Fed, the IRS, etc.

It also appears that there is no simple and easy way to understand it enough to establish a certainty as to whether or not it is valid.

Am I correct in that?

Ares
01-20-12, 05:03 AM
Again, based upon what I have looked at so far, it seems to me that, as I've written before, this remedy would, if it is valid and if it is broadly applied, eliminate the current destructive practices of the Fed, the IRS, etc.

That is correct. When you redeem lawful money you are telling the Fed, IRS and the Federal Government that you want no part in it's game of deception.

Lawful money is outside the scope of the IRS, and what you do is you force the FED to pay off the national debt and not you. Because the FED has to go to the treasury to request lawful money. When you endorse private credit the treasury goes to the fed and says I need more private credit creating a national debt which the fed happily agrees too because they get to incur more interests on worthless linen printed from thin air.

I prefer the fed holding the bag for the debt instead of me and my fellow Americans. So I'll do my part and stop endorsing private credit.

David Merrill
01-20-12, 03:04 PM
I just expressed it a new way to the Suitors.

Redemption is calling the bankers on using government debt for money.

freedave
01-20-12, 06:07 PM
Thank you, Ares, for addressing that part of my response -- that is certainly an extremely desirable result.

But, as I also wrote, it appears that there is no simple and easy way to understand this enough to establish a certainty as to whether or not it is valid.

Am I correct in that?

freedave
01-20-12, 06:08 PM
I just expressed it a new way to the Suitors.

Redemption is calling the bankers on using government debt for money.

That seems to be a good way to put it.

But again, it appears that there is no simple and easy way to understand this enough to establish a certainty as to whether or not it is valid.

Am I correct in that?

David Merrill
01-21-12, 07:13 PM
Thank you again, Ares.

I get the general idea.

Based upon what I have looked at so far, it seems to me that, as I've written before, this remedy would, if valid and broadly applied, eliminate the current destructive practices of the Fed, the IRS, etc.

It also appears that there is no simple and easy way to understand it enough to establish a certainty as to whether or not it is valid.

Am I correct in that?

I am not sure that you are correct so much as that you are logical. If logic is correct then you are correct, by logic... See?

It is not that way though. Ronald Ernest PAUL is a terrific example. He wants to abolish the Fed, sure enough but does not see the logic in letting his constituency do it for him. Instead his constituency thwarts him at every turn by signing endorsement for private credit and makes PAUL look like a fringe lunatic or at best, a flake.

Here is what I suggest. There is no harm in redeeming lawful money - or at least in making your demand known; whether it applies in law or not. Just so long as you don't involve your employer that is, or start preaching it to others around the water cooler. You can make your demand for lawful money risk free and you decide whether you want to try it out come April 15th. If you don't want to risk being thought of as a tax protested wait until next year to decide. My point is that by exercising your right to demand lawful money now, you will very likely answer a lot of questions you seem to be having difficulty with now.

Try something like, next time you take something back to Lowe's for a cash refund when they want you to sign for the cash sign "Lawful Money". You are very likely to think about that and digest it, what you did and evaluate the national debt etc. and these things will cogitate more clearly in your mind.

freedave
01-22-12, 03:53 AM
I am not sure that you are correct so much as that you are logical. If logic is correct then you are correct, by logic... See?

It is not that way though. Ronald Ernest PAUL is a terrific example. He wants to abolish the Fed, sure enough but does not see the logic in letting his constituency do it for him. Instead his constituency thwarts him at every turn by signing endorsement for private credit and makes PAUL look like a fringe lunatic or at best, a flake.

Here is what I suggest. There is no harm in redeeming lawful money - or at least in making your demand known; whether it applies in law or not. Just so long as you don't involve your employer that is, or start preaching it to others around the water cooler. You can make your demand for lawful money risk free and you decide whether you want to try it out come April 15th. If you don't want to risk being thought of as a tax protested wait until next year to decide. My point is that by exercising your right to demand lawful money now, you will very likely answer a lot of questions you seem to be having difficulty with now.

Try something like, next time you take something back to Lowe's for a cash refund when they want you to sign for the cash sign "Lawful Money". You are very likely to think about that and digest it, what you did and evaluate the national debt etc. and these things will cogitate more clearly in your mind.

Thank you for the somewhat enigmatic first line of your response -- there are certainly truths higher than logic, but logic is pretty reliable when it comes to questions of law, finance and practicality.

When I ask my question regarding understanding, I'm not only being logical, I'm referring to reality.

I am definitely a great admirer of Ron Paul and have a fairly good understanding of the Fed, the monetary system, who is behind it, etc.

My main concern regarding redeeming lawful money is that it might cause difficulty with a financial institution and/or single me out in some way -- I try to keep a low profile.

Regarding taking something for a cash refund, are you suggesting that I put only the words "Lawful Money" rather than any kind of usual name? And, if I do that, and it is not accepted, what do I do then?

David Merrill
01-22-12, 04:05 AM
Thank you for the somewhat enigmatic first line of your response -- there are certainly truths higher than logic, but logic is pretty reliable when it comes to questions of law, finance and practicality.

When I ask my question regarding understanding, I'm not only being logical, I'm referring to reality.

I am definitely a great admirer of Ron Paul and have a fairly good understanding of the Fed, the monetary system, who is behind it, etc.

My main concern regarding redeeming lawful money is that it might cause difficulty with a financial institution and/or single me out in some way -- I try to keep a low profile.

Regarding taking something for a cash refund, are you suggesting that I put only the words "Lawful Money" rather than any kind of usual name? And, if I do that, and it is not accepted, what do I do then?

They will accept it. If not I suppose you could write a name next to your demand and then you will have demanded lawful money.

freedave
01-22-12, 04:40 AM
I am not sure that you are correct so much as that you are logical. If logic is correct then you are correct, by logic... See?

It is not that way though. Ronald Ernest PAUL is a terrific example. He wants to abolish the Fed, sure enough but does not see the logic in letting his constituency do it for him. Instead his constituency thwarts him at every turn by signing endorsement for private credit and makes PAUL look like a fringe lunatic or at best, a flake.

Here is what I suggest. There is no harm in redeeming lawful money - or at least in making your demand known; whether it applies in law or not. Just so long as you don't involve your employer that is, or start preaching it to others around the water cooler. You can make your demand for lawful money risk free and you decide whether you want to try it out come April 15th. If you don't want to risk being thought of as a tax protested wait until next year to decide. My point is that by exercising your right to demand lawful money now, you will very likely answer a lot of questions you seem to be having difficulty with now.

Try something like, next time you take something back to Lowe's for a cash refund when they want you to sign for the cash sign "Lawful Money". You are very likely to think about that and digest it, what you did and evaluate the national debt etc. and these things will cogitate more clearly in your mind.

Thank you for the somewhat enigmatic first line of your response -- there are certainly truths higher than logic, but logic is pretty reliable when it comes to questions of law, finance and practicality.

When I ask my question regarding understanding, I'm not only being logical, I'm referring to reality.

I am definitely a great admirer of Ron Paul and have a fairly good understanding of the Fed, the monetary system, who is behind it, etc.

My main concern regarding redeeming lawful money is that it might cause difficulty with a financial institution and/or single me out in some way -- I try to keep a low profile.

Regarding taking something for a cash refund, are you suggesting that I put only the words "Lawful Money" rather than any kind of usual name? And, if I do that, and it is not accepted, what do I do then?

freedave
01-24-12, 08:41 PM
Thank you for the somewhat enigmatic first line of your response -- there are certainly truths higher than logic, but logic is pretty reliable when it comes to questions of law, finance and practicality.

When I ask my question regarding understanding, I'm not only being logical, I'm referring to reality.

I am definitely a great admirer of Ron Paul and have a fairly good understanding of the Fed, the monetary system, who is behind it, etc.

My main concern regarding redeeming lawful money is that it might cause difficulty with a financial institution and/or single me out in some way -- I try to keep a low profile.

Regarding taking something for a cash refund, are you suggesting that I put only the words "Lawful Money" rather than any kind of usual name? And, if I do that, and it is not accepted, what do I do then?

I am now in communication with someone who had been part of the SuiJuris Forum and is applying the redeeming lawful money remedy using the phrase "deposited for credit on account." He told me of some interesting experiences he has had.

It seems to me that if there were 100,000 people doing this, assuming the remedy is valid, it would mean the end of the Fed and the IRS.

Again, my main concern regarding redeeming lawful money is that it might cause difficulty with a financial institution and/or single me out in some way -- I try to keep a low profile.

And again, regarding taking something for a cash refund, are you suggesting that I put only the words "Lawful Money" rather than any kind of usual name? And, if I do that, and it is not accepted, what do I do then?

I am about to send a check for deposit into a brokerage account in the name of an LLC -- is there something I could write on it which would not raise any "red flags"?

David Merrill
01-25-12, 02:11 AM
Don't write anything at all on it then. It is when you withdraw the cash that you would redeem the lawful money. Since you are sending it to a brokerage firm (as I understand it) it will remain credit on account and non-taxable until you withdraw it. Put your demand on the withdrawal slip.

You could strikethrough the Pay to the Order of: but that would not be conspicuous. It could be determined that the teller at the brokerage firm sees so many checks in a day that one with such a subtle claim might not be noticed.

freedave
01-25-12, 04:18 AM
Don't write anything at all on it then. It is when you withdraw the cash that you would redeem the lawful money. Since you are sending it to a brokerage firm (as I understand it) it will remain credit on account and non-taxable until you withdraw it. Put your demand on the withdrawal slip.

You could strikethrough the Pay to the Order of: but that would not be conspicuous. It could be determined that the teller at the brokerage firm sees so many checks in a day that one with such a subtle claim might not be noticed.

OK, what I normally do is sign my conventional (first and last) name on the back of the check plus put my brokerage firm account number and the name of my LLC all on the back of the check.

Then I mail it to the brokerage firm (out of state) along with a deposit slip.

Then, after it is OK'd at the brokerage firm, I use a debit card from the brokerage firm at a local ATM machine to get cash and deposit it into a local bank account.

Since the brokerage firm is out of state, I don't deal with any tellers there. Would it still be advisable to strike through the "Pay to the Order of" on the front of the check?

Considering this additional data, what would you suggest?

freedave
01-26-12, 02:10 PM
OK, what I normally do is sign my conventional (first and last) name on the back of the check plus put my brokerage firm account number and the name of my LLC all on the back of the check.

Then I mail it to the brokerage firm (out of state) along with a deposit slip.

Then, after it is OK'd at the brokerage firm, I use a debit card from the brokerage firm at a local ATM machine to get cash and deposit it into a local bank account.

Since the brokerage firm is out of state, I don't deal with any tellers there. Would it still be advisable to strike through the "Pay to the Order of" on the front of the check?

Considering this additional data, what would you suggest?

Before I send my check to the out-of-state brokerage firm, I would like to receive a response...

David Merrill
01-26-12, 11:45 PM
Never strike through the Order of: on somebody else's check. Look at the hypothetical example. The account-holder writing the check might choose whether it would be lawful money or not. The party with the authorizing signature on the check has the sole authority about the instrument.

Be careful!

Do not strike through the Pay to the Order of:

Here is an example (http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/4149/nonendorsementredemptio.jpg).

freedave
01-27-12, 04:32 AM
Never strike through the Order of: on somebody else's check. Look at the hypothetical example. The account-holder writing the check might choose whether it would be lawful money or not. The party with the authorizing signature on the check has the sole authority about the instrument.

Be careful!

Do not strike through the Pay to the Order of:

Here is an example (http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/4149/nonendorsementredemptio.jpg).

Thank you very much for clarifying that, David.

So I will not do anything to the front of the check.

Again, what I normally do is sign my conventional (first and last) name on the back of the check plus put my brokerage firm account number and the name of my LLC all on the back of the check.

Then I mail it to the brokerage firm (out of state) along with a deposit slip.

Then, after it is OK'd at the brokerage firm, I use a debit card from the brokerage firm at a local ATM machine to get cash and deposit it into a local bank account.

Considering this data, would you suggest anything that would be unlikely to cause a problem or raise any "red flags"?

David Merrill
01-27-12, 10:53 AM
It sounds as if you have foregone any Demand for lawful money in your description. Fine. Endorse private credit like everybody else if that is where you are at.

I break out the simplest scenarios so you might understand complex procedures simply. Fear certainly takes its toll and actually built the US Dollar into the Reserve Currency of the World.

freedave
01-27-12, 07:06 PM
It sounds as if you have foregone any Demand for lawful money in your description. Fine. Endorse private credit like everybody else if that is where you are at.

I break out the simplest scenarios so you might understand complex procedures simply. Fear certainly takes its toll and actually built the US Dollar into the Reserve Currency of the World.

What makes you think I have foregone any Demand for lawful money?

And is there something that makes you think I want to endorse private credit?

And what are you referring to when you write, "the simplest scenarios"?

I'm just trying to learn how this works.

David Merrill
01-28-12, 12:33 AM
What makes you think I have foregone any Demand for lawful money?

And is there something that makes you think I want to endorse private credit?

And what are you referring to when you write, "the simplest scenarios"?

I'm just trying to learn how this works.

I have made the presumption that you have watched my videos.

JohnnyCash
01-28-12, 06:24 PM
I am experienced at editing high-tech magazine articles for some large circulation publications, I know what it takes to make things understandable to most people, and I am having difficulty getting a workable understanding of this.

Is there anyone I could converse with by email or phone and get my questions answered?

One question I have is this:

Is it correct that the "income" tax is an excise tax on the use of FRN's?
I would say that's it in a nutshell. But also that fact is carefully hidden to the point that when shown evidence of it in law, some cannot see it, nor believe it. If you step back and think like a master criminal, trying to come up with the perfect scam, that would suck in nearly everyone, you might start to get a grasp. I should think a really good scam would operate in partnership with government actors.

Have any links to your work?

freedave
01-28-12, 09:11 PM
I have made the presumption that you have watched my videos.

I have watched at least one, I think two, of your videos -- they were really audios in a video format.

I have also listened to several interviews of you and looked through a number of threads on this forum..

As I wrote earlier, I have a very partial idea of how this works.

I have found getting a good understanding of this to be elusive.

If I did have a good understanding of it, and if I found it to be valid, I could put it into a format which many more people could understand -- and I suppose that there might then become enough people applying the remedy to rapidly shut down the Fed and the IRS (I have edited magazine articles which have reached large numbers of readers).

But, for now, I just want to find out whether or not there is any way I can demand lawful money regarding the check I have.

David Merrill
01-28-12, 10:30 PM
I have watched at least one, I think two, of your videos -- they were really audios in a video format.

I have also listened to several interviews of you and looked through a number of threads on this forum..

As I wrote earlier, I have a very partial idea of how this works.

I have found getting a good understanding of this to be elusive.

If I did have a good understanding of it, and if I found it to be valid, I could put it into a format which many more people could understand -- and I suppose that there might then become enough people applying the remedy to rapidly shut down the Fed and the IRS (I have edited magazine articles which have reached large numbers of readers).

But, for now, I just want to find out whether or not there is any way I can demand lawful money regarding the check I have.

Yes. Sign your demand instead of signing endorsement. Your question is whether there might be repurcussions as I understand you. Since it is written into the law I doubt it. The only repurcussions are troublesome tellers now and again, not very often but since you are mailing your check in it is likely you will never hear about any problems. Keep a copy and if you start redeeming lawful money consistently then you may be able to avoid taxes and get withholdings refunded etc.

Nobody has gotten into trouble for redeeming lawful money in itself. The only suitors who are getting flack were first customers of Peter HENDRICKSON (now in prison) and his Cracking the Code technique of Zero Income Returns. It is too early to make conclusions about it but so far the accusation of fraud by omission seems to keep the $5K frivolous penalties in limbo anyway:

If I had known in good faith that I could redeem lawful money I would have been doing so since my first paycheck ever!

freedave
01-29-12, 02:55 AM
Yes. Sign your demand instead of signing endorsement. Your question is whether there might be repurcussions as I understand you. Since it is written into the law I doubt it. The only repurcussions are troublesome tellers now and again, not very often but since you are mailing your check in it is likely you will never hear about any problems. Keep a copy and if you start redeeming lawful money consistently then you may be able to avoid taxes and get withholdings refunded etc.

Nobody has gotten into trouble for redeeming lawful money in itself. The only suitors who are getting flack were first customers of Peter HENDRICKSON (now in prison) and his Cracking the Code technique of Zero Income Returns. It is too early to make conclusions about it but so far the accusation of fraud by omission seems to keep the $5K frivolous penalties in limbo anyway:

If I had known in good faith that I could redeem lawful money I would have been doing so since my first paycheck ever!

Thank you, David.

Would this be correct?

Redeemed in Lawful money
Pursuant to Title 12 USC §411
John Joseph dba John Joseph Doe dba LLC name
Account number XXXXXXXXXX

And is it OK to include a deposit slip -- and, if so, should I write anything on it other than the numbers in the usual spaces indicating the amount of the check?

And would doing this be likely to cause the brokerage firm to make a report to the IRS?

David Merrill
01-29-12, 11:36 PM
Thank you, David.

Would this be correct?

Redeemed in Lawful money
Pursuant to Title 12 USC §411
John Joseph dba John Joseph Doe dba LLC name
Account number XXXXXXXXXX

And is it OK to include a deposit slip -- and, if so, should I write anything on it other than the numbers in the usual spaces indicating the amount of the check?

And would doing this be likely to cause the brokerage firm to make a report to the IRS?


The various gyrations I have been going about here are due to you depositing the check with a Brokerage Firm. I do not have any experience with a brokerage firm, even vicariously. When you make your withdrawals, distributions or collect dividends or whatever, that is when you should make your demand. I hesitate because thinking about it, what I have to compare this to is interest bearing accounts. If you are not going to allow your bank to capitalize on fractional lending with your paychecks then you do not have the right to demand interest off the money you are lending your bank. There is a kind of deposit (irregular?) where you have arranged for your bank to keep the exact same cash for your withdrawal - no mingling of funds. Redeeming lawful money is kind of like that but you do not get any interest. Often when somebody begins redeeming lawful money they find the bank has changed their account to interest-free.

I am thinking the brokerage firm considers your "investment" as interest-bearing. They may want the freedom to grow your money by conventional fractional lending too; I don't know.

If you are redeeming lawful money by demand then somebody like a boss or brokerage firm reporting you to the IRS is simply Notice that you would give anyway should you want to get a refund or withdraw money without the scope of the Fed. There are a lot of suitors who are self-employed and they do not send in withholdings. But they will send returns with evidence of redemption so that the IRS does not evaluate their tax liability in absence of a return.

I believe that you might want to treat your brokerage firm like a boss, not a bank. Do not involve them with your redemption of lawful money. While your money is with the brokerage firm I am presuming that your funds with them are tax free until you withdraw.

freedave
01-30-12, 04:37 AM
The various gyrations I have been going about here are due to you depositing the check with a Brokerage Firm. I do not have any experience with a brokerage firm, even vicariously. When you make your withdrawals, distributions or collect dividends or whatever, that is when you should make your demand. I hesitate because thinking about it, what I have to compare this to is interest bearing accounts. If you are not going to allow your bank to capitalize on fractional lending with your paychecks then you do not have the right to demand interest off the money you are lending your bank. There is a kind of deposit (irregular?) where you have arranged for your bank to keep the exact same cash for your withdrawal - no mingling of funds. Redeeming lawful money is kind of like that but you do not get any interest. Often when somebody begins redeeming lawful money they find the bank has changed their account to interest-free.

I am thinking the brokerage firm considers your "investment" as interest-bearing. They may want the freedom to grow your money by conventional fractional lending too; I don't know.

If you are redeeming lawful money by demand then somebody like a boss or brokerage firm reporting you to the IRS is simply Notice that you would give anyway should you want to get a refund or withdraw money without the scope of the Fed. There are a lot of suitors who are self-employed and they do not send in withholdings. But they will send returns with evidence of redemption so that the IRS does not evaluate their tax liability in absence of a return.

I believe that you might want to treat your brokerage firm like a boss, not a bank. Do not involve them with your redemption of lawful money. While your money is with the brokerage firm I am presuming that your funds with them are tax free until you withdraw.

Thank you for clarifying that, David.

My brokerage account does pay a very very small amount of interest to me.

I think they would function more like a bank than a boss, since they would not file a 1099 or a W-2 or other IRS form, except if I earned interest of over $10 per year, which I don't.

I don't see how I could apply the redemption of lawful money remedy regarding the check if I endorse the check to them in the usual way.

David Merrill
01-30-12, 11:48 PM
Thank you for clarifying that, David.

My brokerage account does pay a very very small amount of interest to me.

I think they would function more like a bank than a boss, since they would not file a 1099 or a W-2 or other IRS form, except if I earned interest of over $10 per year, which I don't.

I don't see how I could apply the redemption of lawful money remedy regarding the check if I endorse the check to them in the usual way.

You can make your demand. Because they are paying you some interest on your funds though, there may be some balking on their end. You seem more concerned about repurcussions than anything.

Sorry I don't know more about brokerage firms. I would make my demand for lawful money and sign that, rather than endorse private credit from the Fed. But then, until you came along I felt that I am pretty good at explaining this.

freedave
01-31-12, 02:14 AM
You can make your demand. Because they are paying you some interest on your funds though, there may be some balking on their end. You seem more concerned about repurcussions than anything.

Sorry I don't know more about brokerage firms. I would make my demand for lawful money and sign that, rather than endorse private credit from the Fed. But then, until you came along I felt that I am pretty good at explaining this.

OK, I understand.

I also have checks from the brokerage firm that I can write which I could cash at a bank if I decide not to try to apply the redemption of lawful money remedy to the brokerage firm.

The brokerage firm could also send me checks which I could cash at a bank if I decide not to try to apply the redemption of lawful money remedy to the brokerage firm.

Yes, I am concerned about potential repercussions -- I had determined that I do not owe taxes on the money that I have received -- I have also arranged things so that the money I have is relatively untraceable, and I don't want to compromise that.

You had advised me not to make a demand to the brokerage firm and now you state that I can make a demand -- I grant that this is an unusually complex situation, but I would prefer a bit more certainty before I go ahead.

I'm sure that you are pretty good at explaining this to a select group of people, but there is always room for improvement.

Perhaps if you and others were better at explaining it, the Fed and the IRS would now be out of business.

shikamaru
01-31-12, 05:10 PM
You can make your demand. Because they are paying you some interest on your funds though, there may be some balking on their end. You seem more concerned about repurcussions than anything.

Sorry I don't know more about brokerage firms. I would make my demand for lawful money and sign that, rather than endorse private credit from the Fed. But then, until you came along I felt that I am pretty good at explaining this.

Brokerage firms specialize in brokering deals.
Brokers bring together buyers and sellers in order to effect an exchange. Brokers are agents.

freedave
02-01-12, 03:45 AM
Would this serve the purpose?

Deposited for credit on account #XXXXXXXXXX
to be redeemed in lawful money
Title 12 USC §411
John Joseph dba John Joseph Doe dba LLC name

And would John Joseph Doe need to be in all capital letters and be in block letters?

stoneFree
02-01-12, 07:31 PM
Maybe this will help. You just received a check, and here is the backside with your choice:

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/1867/slavefree.jpg

David Merrill
02-02-12, 01:58 AM
That is a great visual. I created an ImageShack link (http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/3865/nonendorsementslavefree.jpg).

freedave
02-02-12, 03:04 AM
Maybe this will help. You just received a check, and here is the backside with your choice:

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/1867/slavefree.jpg

Thank you for that, stoneFree.

Does the signature on the "FREE" image indicate a first name and a last name or a first name and a middle name?

And is the URL (website address) necessary?

Publius
02-02-12, 04:06 AM
My opinion. Correction is requested. Okay, stay with me here, it's a little long.

Since many of us are stamping variably worded demands or directives on the backs of checks, I suggest that the precise wording might be considered since a precise outcome is desired.
For example: At 12 USC CHAPTER 3 SUBCHAPTER I Sect. 411 (addended below) We read that Federal reserve notes (a misnomer, since on the notes they are found named only as "FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES" and I will now refer to them as FRNs for the balance of this writing) may be redeemed for lawful money.
Now I ask. . . . where do we read that a check may be redeemed for lawful money ? I have not seen legislation which indicates that checks may be redeemed for lawful money. Neither have I seen a check denominated in FRNs as the unit to be used to satisfy the "Pay" directive.
I also do not have evidence that a check is equivalent to or exchangeable for FRNs. Even so, they are regularly "cashed" for lawful money (FRNs) but not cashed for redeemed lawful money.
Most of the checks I receive use the dollar sign preceding the space where the drawer writes in the numbers for the amount of the draft. So, one might then believe a check to be exchangeable for "dollars", or actually requiring "dollars" to be paid out upon presentment of the check. Not long ago, checks indicated the word "dollars" as the unit to be paid, but I don't see much of that any more. Some checks have neither and only have the words "CHECK AMOUNT" or "AMOUNT" present above a numeric entry which also does not include a dollar sign.
The concept of the constitutional "dollar" is repugnant to a healthy Federal Reserve banking system and the credit/debt mongers and so, the word "dollars" is scorned and disappeared. I also have never seen a check "paid" or "cashed" for "dollars".
I am too young to have withessed any check paid out in silver dollars.
I have only seen checks processed for credit (aka"deposit") as a bookkeeping entry of numbers or exchanged for FRN's. I have never seen a check "Paid", since payment would be by way of tendering wealth money (U.S. Notes, gold, silver, commodity money).
It is when one hands a check to the teller that the that a negotiation is made next. If not deposited for credit, the teller tenders FRNs. Since the draft is not limited by the words "Pay to" (as a non-negotiable sight draft) the teller is not bound to pay out the substance indicated (not bound to pay "dollars") and the check functions as an instrument for the discharge (transfer) of debt. Were the check written "Pay to", the teller would be bound to pay out the substance indicated, that being "dollars". However, since banks do not deal in "dollars" they also do not produce "Pay to" checks for use within their system. The checks are written otherwise as follows: "Pay to the order of". It is the open and negitiable nature of the phrase "to the order of" which leaves the descretion to the payee as to what constitutes satisfaction of the draft, it not thereby limited to "dollars". So, the teller, operating under the bank's order, offers FRNs to the presenter (the payee or third party payee) as an alternative and because the bank is not bound to pay out "dollars". The payee accepts the FRNs, in lieu of "dollars" because nothing else is available, or so he thinks. You and I know that redeemed lawful money is available as a release of FRNs against a qualified endorsement negotiated check.

The question is, how do we properly memorialize the occurrence of the negotiation as having been made for redeemed lawful money rather than lawful money (FRNs in bondage) ?
If one provides an unqualified endorsement (one w/o a stamp or demand), hasn't he has accepted all of the conditions adherent to the processing of that check?
Those conditions are precisely what we prefer to be severed from by seeking to obtain "redeemed lawful money" (not just "lawful money", since the FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE is also considered to be "lawful money") in exchange for the check presented.
So, might the endorsement qualifying statement more precisely address the result sought if worded thus:
"Exchanged for redeemed lawful
money in the amount of $______
or deposited for credit on account
in same money amount herein stated" You fill in the amount to match the amount for which the check is drawn.
The qualifying statement, above, provides a clear indication of how the check is to be negotiated, not in "lawful money", but in "redeemed lawful money".
It also presents the words in the case (upper/lower) as is found in the legislation, it reiterates the dollar sign and the amount.
It also indicates that the deposit is to be in "redeemed lawful money", though I doubt such a function is possible in today's "banks".

I suppose it could be streamlined to: Exchanged for redeemed lawful money
or deposited for credit on account in
same money herein stated"

I feel that the stamp which indicates: Redeemed in Lawful Money
Pursuant to 12 USC § 411
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/12C3.txt is a beauty. However, it might be most appropriate for stamping the redeemed FRNs and not for use as an endorsement qualifier unless one can show that a check can be redeemed for lawful money.


Here is the legislation:
Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of
making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal
reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose,
are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United
States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and
Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public
dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the
Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of
Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.

freedave
02-02-12, 09:26 PM
My opinion. Correction is requested. Okay, stay with me here, it's a little long.

Since many of us are stamping variably worded demands or directives on the backs of checks, I suggest that the precise wording might be considered since a precise outcome is desired.
For example: At 12 USC CHAPTER 3 SUBCHAPTER I Sect. 411 (addended below) We read that Federal reserve notes (a misnomer, since on the notes they are found named only as "FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES" and I will now refer to them as FRNs for the balance of this writing) may be redeemed for lawful money.
Now I ask. . . . where do we read that a check may be redeemed for lawful money ? I have not seen legislation which indicates that checks may be redeemed for lawful money. Neither have I seen a check denominated in FRNs as the unit to be used to satisfy the "Pay" directive.
I also do not have evidence that a check is equivalent to or exchangeable for FRNs. Even so, they are regularly "cashed" for lawful money (FRNs) but not cashed for redeemed lawful money.
Most of the checks I receive use the dollar sign preceding the space where the drawer writes in the numbers for the amount of the draft. So, one might then believe a check to be exchangeable for "dollars", or actually requiring "dollars" to be paid out upon presentment of the check. Not long ago, checks indicated the word "dollars" as the unit to be paid, but I don't see much of that any more. Some checks have neither and only have the words "CHECK AMOUNT" or "AMOUNT" present above a numeric entry which also does not include a dollar sign.
The concept of the constitutional "dollar" is repugnant to a healthy Federal Reserve banking system and the credit/debt mongers and so, the word "dollars" is scorned and disappeared. I also have never seen a check "paid" or "cashed" for "dollars".
I am too young to have withessed any check paid out in silver dollars.
I have only seen checks processed for credit (aka"deposit") as a bookkeeping entry of numbers or exchanged for FRN's. I have never seen a check "Paid", since payment would be by way of tendering wealth money (U.S. Notes, gold, silver, commodity money).
It is when one hands a check to the teller that the that a negotiation is made next. If not deposited for credit, the teller tenders FRNs. Since the draft is not limited by the words "Pay to" (as a non-negotiable sight draft) the teller is not bound to pay out the substance indicated (not bound to pay "dollars") and the check functions as an instrument for the discharge (transfer) of debt. Were the check written "Pay to", the teller would be bound to pay out the substance indicated, that being "dollars". However, since banks do not deal in "dollars" they also do not produce "Pay to" checks for use within their system. The checks are written otherwise as follows: "Pay to the order of". It is the open and negitiable nature of the phrase "to the order of" which leaves the descretion to the payee as to what constitutes satisfaction of the draft, it not thereby limited to "dollars". So, the teller, operating under the bank's order, offers FRNs to the presenter (the payee or third party payee) as an alternative and because the bank is not bound to pay out "dollars". The payee accepts the FRNs, in lieu of "dollars" because nothing else is available, or so he thinks. You and I know that redeemed lawful money is available as a release of FRNs against a qualified endorsement negotiated check.

The question is, how do we properly memorialize the occurrence of the negotiation as having been made for redeemed lawful money rather than lawful money (FRNs in bondage) ?
If one provides an unqualified endorsement (one w/o a stamp or demand), hasn't he has accepted all of the conditions adherent to the processing of that check?
Those conditions are precisely what we prefer to be severed from by seeking to obtain "redeemed lawful money" (not just "lawful money", since the FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE is also considered to be "lawful money") in exchange for the check presented.
So, might the endorsement qualifying statement more precisely address the result sought if worded thus:
"Exchanged for redeemed lawful
money in the amount of $______
or deposited for credit on account
in same money amount herein stated" You fill in the amount to match the amount for which the check is drawn.
The qualifying statement, above, provides a clear indication of how the check is to be negotiated, not in "lawful money", but in "redeemed lawful money".
It also presents the words in the case (upper/lower) as is found in the legislation, it reiterates the dollar sign and the amount.
It also indicates that the deposit is to be in "redeemed lawful money", though I doubt such a function is possible in today's "banks".

I suppose it could be streamlined to: Exchanged for redeemed lawful money
or deposited for credit on account in
same money herein stated"

I feel that the stamp which indicates: Redeemed in Lawful Money
Pursuant to 12 USC § 411
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/12C3.txt is a beauty. However, it might be most appropriate for stamping the redeemed FRNs and not for use as an endorsement qualifier unless one can show that a check can be redeemed for lawful money.


Here is the legislation:
Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of
making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal
reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose,
are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United
States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and
Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public
dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the
Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of
Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.

Thank you for this, Publius.

The check I have does use the word "DOLLARS."

Since I will be depositing the check by mail and receiving the money via an ATM machine, would the following be appropriate?

Deposited for credit on account #XXXXXXXXXX
in the same money herein stated
to be redeemed in lawful money
Title 12 USC §411

Publius
02-03-12, 02:09 AM
Freedave, thanks for taking the time to read through my post. I thought it to be a little dense and hope that my statements were concise.

Depositing by mail. Well, I am no authority on this topic. I do hope that we can work together to develop the right approach for the challenges we face. I and am really hoping to stimulate a little thought and refinement on the specific wording for endorsement qualifiers (modifiers, limiters, demands). It was Dave Merrill who first opened my eyes to this function a few years back. Thanks Dave. We put our faith in the possibility that we are not without remedy, and I hope that we are successful at properly exercizing and enjoying that remedy.

I have the convenience of ATM deposit for checks. I stamp and sign the checks and photocopy both sides, I then deposit them via ATM and the machine provides a photocopy of the face of the checks I deposited. The documentation of the qualified endorsement, I think is important. And if that qualified endorsement does do what we believe it to do, having proof that you used it may be an important defense should one be faced with defending against a claim for liability.

Regarding a check mailed for deposit: I might offer that hand printing the first one is a good idea. I suspect I might use the following qualifier for a check submitted by mail for deposit: For deposit on account # xxxxx
as redeemed lawful money

I do not see the need to also insert the cite of USC since the operative phrase "redeemed lawful money" makes it clear that the deposit substance is limited to "redeemed lawful money".

freedave
02-03-12, 04:30 AM
Freedave, thanks for taking the time to read through my post. I thought it to be a little dense and hope that my statements were concise.

Depositing by mail. Well, I am no authority on this topic. I do hope that we can work together to develop the right approach for the challenges we face. I and am really hoping to stimulate a little thought and refinement on the specific wording for endorsement qualifiers (modifiers, limiters, demands). It was Dave Merrill who first opened my eyes to this function a few years back. Thanks Dave. We put our faith in the possibility that we are not without remedy, and I hope that we are successful at properly exercizing and enjoying that remedy.

I have the convenience of ATM deposit for checks. I stamp and sign the checks and photocopy both sides, I then deposit them via ATM and the machine provides a photocopy of the face of the checks I deposited. The documentation of the qualified endorsement, I think is important. And if that qualified endorsement does do what we believe it to do, having proof that you used it may be an important defense should one be faced with defending against a claim for liability.

Regarding a check mailed for deposit: I might offer that hand printing the first one is a good idea. I suspect I might use the following qualifier for a check submitted by mail for deposit: For deposit on account # xxxxx
as redeemed lawful money

I do not see the need to also insert the cite of USC since the operative phrase "redeemed lawful money" makes it clear that the deposit substance is limited to "redeemed lawful money".

You're welcome, Publius, and thank you for your additional ideas.

It is not clear to me why "as redeemed lawful money" would be used since I thought that the redemption would happen when I actually receive the currency (in my case via an ATM machine. That's why I had earlier asked about the possibility of using "Deposited for credit on account #XXXXXXXXXX to be redeemed in lawful money."

Would "For deposit on account # xxxxx to be redeemed in lawful money" serve the purpose?

And then there is the question of whether or not the deposit would be accepted without the first and last name signed in longhand on the back of the check.

Brian
02-03-12, 04:46 AM
I Personally do this: "Redeem for non-elastic lawful money by demand pursuant USCA12 section 411, signature"

freedave
02-03-12, 10:45 AM
I Personally do this: "Redeem for non-elastic lawful money by demand pursuant USCA12 section 411, signature"

Thank you for this, Brian.

Do you use this for depositing checks and/or cashing checks?

How do you sign the check?

Have you had any problems with it?

Have you had any positive results?

Sabo
02-03-12, 01:08 PM
I Personally do this: "Redeem for non-elastic lawful money by demand pursuant USCA12 section 411, signature"

Does the bank where you cash your checks not require SS# or account number (if you have one at that bank)? I've noticed that often with examples people have posted here.

I haven't done any check cashing recently, but I always remembered banks requiring some sort of numeric identification when handling checks. I know my bank does for deposits, I think it would require it for cashing, too. Am I just remembering incorrectly?

Publius
02-03-12, 03:52 PM
You're welcome, Publius, and thank you for your additional ideas.

It is not clear to me why "as redeemed lawful money" would be used since I thought that the redemption would happen when I actually receive the currency (in my case via an ATM machine. That's why I had earlier asked about the possibility of using "Deposited for credit on account #XXXXXXXXXX to be redeemed in lawful money."

Would "For deposit on account # xxxxx to be redeemed in lawful money" serve the purpose?

And then there is the question of whether or not the deposit would be accepted without the first and last name signed in longhand on the back of the check.

Freedave, I used the phrase "redeemed lawful money" because it seems to me that your intent is that the check be credited on account as, or in the spirit of it's satisfaction having been made in "redeemed lawful money" and not simply in "lawful money" which can be construed as FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES or date entries presumed to be denominated as FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES. I felt that consistency and continuity is preserved by indicating ""redeemed lawful money" which ia a concept taken directly from the language of the legislation upon which you are depending for the purpose of effecting the libaration of the debt from "lawful money" to "redeemed lawful money". One could use the suggested phrase "non-elastic lawful money" as another suggested, but I then have to ask where that phrase is found in the subject statute. Why just shoot at the village when you have a clear scope sight line directly at the target ?

The "redemption" is effected, and somebody correct me if I am off base, by virtue of your having limited (negotiated) the terms of the check and the manner by which it is to be honored/processed under the terms of the endorsement qualifier (demand). The NOTES you receive from the ATM will be no different than any others in circulation, but the limitation is believed to be i,mposed on the bank's ability to use the fiat debt/credit capacity of the check to further their commerce of "fractional reserve banking" and debt mongering.

Now, since I believe that the banks take no notice of the stamps for the most part, and in particular when the deposit is made via ATM, I do not believe anything other than business as usual occurs in the bank when one of these qualified checks is deposited. This is why I make a photocopy of both sides of the check so to have evidence of how the check was negotiated. I am hoping that the photocopy evidence will be useful should an audit occur. We need evidence from experiences suitors relative to this supposition.

Maybe I am just off my rocker, but this matter is precisely what I hope can be cleared up by discussion and supporting facts, and that process is what I think we are engaged in presently. I also see no need for large type font or boistrous colors relative to the stamps which are being used. Everything the banks do is found as acceptable in typical fonts (some in microprinting, of which the signature line of checks is formed) and in black ink. Why come in with trumpets blaring regarding an endorsement modifier which ought to go through without a peep ?

As to the question posed about positive results, or any results for that matter; I sure would like to hear about that. Most times, we all go about doing a thing in faith without seeing proofs from those who are holding proof, or proofs against the process. Oftentimes we all go figuratively wandering in the desert and many "perish" for having used a process we thought right. So, I earnestly ask those who have had true and demonstrable benefit or damage arise as a result of using this process to please speak up and offer your proofs for our mutual benefit.

As it stands right now, it seems to me that we are acting on faith alone. I hope some suitor can prove me wrong. Please speak up and show your cards.

As for the signature; I first write "By:" and then sign it as I sign everything else; upper and lower case name as my Mom and Dad gave it to me; First, Middle and Last (as they are commonly referred to as). That is how I do it and I can give no good reason to do it that way or to do it otherwise.

freedave
02-03-12, 05:47 PM
Freedave, I used the phrase "redeemed lawful money" because it seems to me that your intent is that the check be credited on account as, or in the spirit of it's satisfaction having been made in "redeemed lawful money" and not simply in "lawful money" which can be construed as FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES or date entries presumed to be denominated as FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES. I felt that consistency and continuity is preserved by indicating ""redeemed lawful money" which ia a concept taken directly from the language of the legislation upon which you are depending for the purpose of effecting the libaration of the debt from "lawful money" to "redeemed lawful money". One could use the suggested phrase "non-elastic lawful money" as another suggested, but I then have to ask where that phrase is found in the subject statute. Why just shoot at the village when you have a clear scope sight line directly at the target ?

The "redemption" is effected, and somebody correct me if I am off base, by virtue of your having limited (negotiated) the terms of the check and the manner by which it is to be honored/processed under the terms of the endorsement qualifier (demand). The NOTES you receive from the ATM will be no different than any others in circulation, but the limitation is believed to be i,mposed on the bank's ability to use the fiat debt/credit capacity of the check to further their commerce of "fractional reserve banking" and debt mongering.

Now, since I believe that the banks take no notice of the stamps for the most part, and in particular when the deposit is made via ATM, I do not believe anything other than business as usual occurs in the bank when one of these qualified checks is deposited. This is why I make a photocopy of both sides of the check so to have evidence of how the check was negotiated. I am hoping that the photocopy evidence will be useful should an audit occur. We need evidence from experiences suitors relative to this supposition.

Maybe I am just off my rocker, but this matter is precisely what I hope can be cleared up by discussion and supporting facts, and that process is what I think we are engaged in presently. I also see no need for large type font or boistrous colors relative to the stamps which are being used. Everything the banks do is found as acceptable in typical fonts (some in microprinting, of which the signature line of checks is formed) and in black ink. Why come in with trumpets blaring regarding an endorsement modifier which ought to go through without a peep ?

As to the question posed about positive results, or any results for that matter; I sure would like to hear about that. Most times, we all go about doing a thing in faith without seeing proofs from those who are holding proof, or proofs against the process. Oftentimes we all go figuratively wandering in the desert and many "perish" for having used a process we thought right. So, I earnestly ask those who have had true and demonstrable benefit or damage arise as a result of using this process to please speak up and offer your proofs for our mutual benefit.

As it stands right now, it seems to me that we are acting on faith alone. I hope some suitor can prove me wrong. Please speak up and show your cards.

As for the signature; I first write "By:" and then sign it as I sign everything else; upper and lower case name as my Mom and Dad gave it to me; First, Middle and Last (as they are commonly referred to as). That is how I do it and I can give no good reason to do it that way or to do it otherwise.

Thank you again, Publius, for your willingness to address these issues.

You make some interesting points.

According to my understanding of the theory, it might be correct that the "redemption" is effected by virtue of having limited the terms of the check, but my question is, "When does the 'redemption' happen -- when the check is deposited or when currency is received by the depositor?"

Thank you also for the data on how you sign -- does anyone have any reason to do it otherwise?

The point about whether or not "we are acting on faith alone" seems to me to be very important -- have you, yourself, experienced any problems with doing this?

I join you in earnestly asking those who have had true and demonstrable benefit or damage arise as a result of using this process to please speak up and offer your proofs for our mutual benefit.

Brian
02-03-12, 07:05 PM
Thank you for this, Brian.

Do you use this for depositing checks and/or cashing checks?

How do you sign the check? (exactly as you see above)

Have you had any problems with it?

Have you had any positive results? (positive results will be hopefully revealed upon filing this year)

dave, I use this for depositing checks via the ATM, my signature card for the account was modified with "ALL transactions to be conducted in redeemed lawful money pursuant USCA12 section 411" upon opening the account which solicited some funny looks but was accepted.

I don't typically cash the checks as I don't want to solicit any ignorant questions, but all of the checks I have restrictively endorsed since last Feb have gone thru without issue.

freedave
02-03-12, 07:15 PM
Thank you again, Brian.

Do you withdraw money via the ATM?

And do you have any reason to believe this works beyond your own understanding of the law?

Publius
02-04-12, 04:54 PM
According to my understanding of the theory, it might be correct that the "redemption" is effected by virtue of having limited the terms of the check, but my question is, "When does the 'redemption' happen -- when the check is deposited or when currency is received by the depositor?"

The point about whether or not "we are acting on faith alone" seems to me to be very important -- have you, yourself, experienced any problems with doing this?

.


To address your questions:
Regarding when it happens. . . . I cannot show that "redemption" does actually happen. At a minimum, it seems to me that our negotiated (stated) terms are as good at a bank's negotiated (stated) terms, and our terms are expressed in the endorsement qualifier (not concealed or expressed merely by reference).
Also, it appears to our reading that the statutes which govern the Federal Reserve Bank, its NOTES; their use and function, sure does look as if "They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank."
So, we made / make the damand and that is all which appears as required by the statute's stated terms for the function of redeeming. So, again, we act on faith.
Logic tells me that if an organization is given the privilege of operating under the limited capacity of a grant of government, that organization's function is likewise limited or more restricted than the powers under which the granting government functions.

I see one problem in this scenario: we, living beings, are not the depositors or account holders. We are only the signatory sureties for the named account holders, they being artifices, and ens legis, a.k.a. creatures of the STATE OF X________ (fill in the blank). The necessity of the Account holder's character as being an artifice is that the system in which it is engaged is not open to the participation of living beings. The "bank" is an artifice, dealing in artificial "money" in the character of a corporation (artificial person) under statutes and regulations (artificial law). I like to tink that their world is admiralty, of the sea; the sea being fatal to living man, a place where he cannot live. Man's place is on the nourishing land, on the shores of the sea. He may contact the sea and take from it, but never live there. We may contact the artificial world which we create and take from it (the fruits being those developed from others' contact and interaction) but we canot live in it or alter its very nature of being a hostile environment to us, the living. The accounts are named in the artificial person name and we are trying to extinguish the fiat money system which underpins the world in which the artificial persons function. Every transaction is one half money (or credit, with the transaction permanently in limbo). Artificial money cannot pay for an actual existing thing, it can only discharge the debt to another willing holder or surety. In the case of the FEDERAL RESERVE System, the NOTES and all data entries effectively denominated in notes, act as a pool of the discharged debts and place all property into a presumed limbo state wherein all property is encumbered by the entanglement of the banker's interests and claims. They get their grubby fingers on our property by getting us to label (register or otherwise restrict) the property ownership as being that of a numbered Person (individual, trust, corporation, association or other artifice.) It is a fantastic system by which most folks believe that they are protecting their assets, when in fact, they are volunteering them into bondage. SO you, living man, are only the operator of the account which is named to an artifice, and you speak for and act for the benefit of the artifice. Does that make you the trustee for the benefit of operating the account to the benefit of the artifice and its owner (the banker) ? The banker entered the artifice name on the account instead of your living being name. This was done at your directive by having provided the SSN as the primary identifier of the account.
So, I do hope that I am not on a rant here and off track. I always invite and look forward to correction. So, I believe the "redemption" happens when the qualifiedly endorsed check is accepted and processed by the bank, whether or not the process is crediting an account or exchanging NOTES.
The SSN is the hub of the wheel and the marker by which all "commerce" is recorded, regulated and taxed.

Question #2 asked about problems. I have had no problems relative to this process, but neither can I claim any benefit.

David Merrill
02-05-12, 12:41 AM
Publius commented:


We need evidence from experiences suitors relative to this supposition.


We have plenty of evidence but there is an element that prevents enough details for a proof over cyberspace. A comprehensive evidence package is not available. There are suitors who are tax preparers and even bankers/licensed tax preparers but they like to filter their experiences sanitized, even with other suitors. If a suitor broadcasts details, fine; that is why we call it a brain trust. We trust each other. If a suitor sends something interesting to me though, I will sanitize it and broadcast it with my commentary. If it is a success story about the IRS though, I will send the sanitized rendition and comment back to the suitor alone for approval before I broadcast it to the brain trust.

We do not have a lot of sanitized success stories because I just do not bother with the sanitizing process unless a better example comes along and since they are sanitized, they cannot be verified and you will just have to believe me... So it gets so no better success stories come along until somebody is willing to give their address and SSN over the Internet.

One of my favorites is this one where NY (METRO's Finest) pondered the state tax return carefully enough to add on the $125 School Tax Credit but did not flag that there are thousands of $$$ of withholdings on zero taxable income!


http://img807.imageshack.us/img807/3503/staterefund125adjustmen.jpg

http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/3503/staterefund125adjustmen.jpg


If you want to look at those figures awhile, you might be able to convince yourself I am not lying.

However on Quatloos I am moderated and forbidden to show examples like this because, If you are going to show examples boasting that you can break the law, they have to be verifiable!

I worked carefully with the suitor and have shown you exactly what he is comfortable with me showing you.

freedave
02-05-12, 02:44 AM
To address your questions:
Regarding when it happens. . . . I cannot show that "redemption" does actually happen. At a minimum, it seems to me that our negotiated (stated) terms are as good at a bank's negotiated (stated) terms, and our terms are expressed in the endorsement qualifier (not concealed or expressed merely by reference).
Also, it appears to our reading that the statutes which govern the Federal Reserve Bank, its NOTES; their use and function, sure does look as if "They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank."
So, we made / make the damand and that is all which appears as required by the statute's stated terms for the function of redeeming. So, again, we act on faith.
Logic tells me that if an organization is given the privilege of operating under the limited capacity of a grant of government, that organization's function is likewise limited or more restricted than the powers under which the granting government functions.

I see one problem in this scenario: we, living beings, are not the depositors or account holders. We are only the signatory sureties for the named account holders, they being artifices, and ens legis, a.k.a. creatures of the STATE OF X________ (fill in the blank). The necessity of the Account holder's character as being an artifice is that the system in which it is engaged is not open to the participation of living beings. The "bank" is an artifice, dealing in artificial "money" in the character of a corporation (artificial person) under statutes and regulations (artificial law). I like to tink that their world is admiralty, of the sea; the sea being fatal to living man, a place where he cannot live. Man's place is on the nourishing land, on the shores of the sea. He may contact the sea and take from it, but never live there. We may contact the artificial world which we create and take from it (the fruits being those developed from others' contact and interaction) but we canot live in it or alter its very nature of being a hostile environment to us, the living. The accounts are named in the artificial person name and we are trying to extinguish the fiat money system which underpins the world in which the artificial persons function. Every transaction is one half money (or credit, with the transaction permanently in limbo). Artificial money cannot pay for an actual existing thing, it can only discharge the debt to another willing holder or surety. In the case of the FEDERAL RESERVE System, the NOTES and all data entries effectively denominated in notes, act as a pool of the discharged debts and place all property into a presumed limbo state wherein all property is encumbered by the entanglement of the banker's interests and claims. They get their grubby fingers on our property by getting us to label (register or otherwise restrict) the property ownership as being that of a numbered Person (individual, trust, corporation, association or other artifice.) It is a fantastic system by which most folks believe that they are protecting their assets, when in fact, they are volunteering them into bondage. SO you, living man, are only the operator of the account which is named to an artifice, and you speak for and act for the benefit of the artifice. Does that make you the trustee for the benefit of operating the account to the benefit of the artifice and its owner (the banker) ? The banker entered the artifice name on the account instead of your living being name. This was done at your directive by having provided the SSN as the primary identifier of the account.
So, I do hope that I am not on a rant here and off track. I always invite and look forward to correction. So, I believe the "redemption" happens when the qualifiedly endorsed check is accepted and processed by the bank, whether or not the process is crediting an account or exchanging NOTES.
The SSN is the hub of the wheel and the marker by which all "commerce" is recorded, regulated and taxed.

Question #2 asked about problems. I have had no problems relative to this process, but neither can I claim any benefit.

Thank you again Publius.

I looks to me like much of what you wrote may derive from the redemption/commerce ideas of people like Winston Shrout, Tim Turner, etc., which I do not understand very well and the results of which I have not been able to verify.

How long have you been attempting to redeem lawful money in terms of how many checks you have deposited, how many checks you have "cashed"?

freedave
02-05-12, 02:56 AM
Publius commented:




We have plenty of evidence but there is an element that prevents enough details for a proof over cyberspace. A comprehensive evidence package is not available. There are suitors who are tax preparers and even bankers/licensed tax preparers but they like to filter their experiences sanitized, even with other suitors. If a suitor broadcasts details, fine; that is why we call it a brain trust. We trust each other. If a suitor sends something interesting to me though, I will sanitize it and broadcast it with my commentary. If it is a success story about the IRS though, I will send the sanitized rendition and comment back to the suitor alone for approval before I broadcast it to the brain trust.

We do not have a lot of sanitized success stories because I just do not bother with the sanitizing process unless a better example comes along and since they are sanitized, they cannot be verified and you will just have to believe me... So it gets so no better success stories come along until somebody is willing to give their address and SSN over the Internet.

One of my favorites is this one where NY (METRO's Finest) pondered the state tax return carefully enough to add on the $125 School Tax Credit but did not flag that there are thousands of $$$ of withholdings on zero taxable income!


http://img807.imageshack.us/img807/3503/staterefund125adjustmen.jpg

http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/3503/staterefund125adjustmen.jpg


If you want to look at those figures awhile, you might be able to convince yourself I am not lying.

However on Quatloos I am moderated and forbidden to show examples like this because, If you are going to show examples boasting that you can break the law, they have to be verifiable!

I worked carefully with the suitor and have shown you exactly what he is comfortable with me showing you.

This is helpful.

On the other hand, Pete Hendrickson has lots of refunds posted on his site.

From what I understand, many times refunds are given, but many times years later the IRS takes actions against the person.

I know one such person personally whose success appeared on Pete's site -- he wound up filing conventionally rather than deal with the repercussions.

Can you give us an idea of approximately how many people have applied this remedy, for how long, and what is the degree of adverse consequences, if any, experienced by those people?

Publius
02-05-12, 03:35 PM
Notes to two people follow:

Note to David Merrill, In regard to your post #108, Thank you for posting that document. I do believe I had seen it elsewhere on the site.

Also, I offer my appologize to you if you felt that I was challenging the veracity of any claim you had made or evidence you had proffered relative to the claims of others. Your use of the word "lying" disturbed me. It is because of your presentations on the sui juris site and the occasional poor behavior of others on that site in response to your writings that I participate in this forum. I respect your opinions and value the extraordinary efforts you have made to provide us information and evidence that we may consider in arriving at our own decisions. Thank you for trusting us, essentially anonymous people, to know your thoughts and share in your discoveries. We are enriched by one anothers' sharing.

My calling for evidence was not a challenge to flush out liars, it was just a call for those who are holding bricks to came forth and offer them for us all to use to build a strong house. I believe that the very existence of this site and its sustained use indicates that not one of us can solve the challenges alone and that the concept and function of a brain trust, brain bank, brainstorming is fundamental to our success. Whether one labels it as a brotherhood or just a bunch of independents hollering into the valley doesn't really matter. The important matter is that we share what we find when it is known to us, by our best ability to determine, that it is truthful. Each is at his own risk to decides what he will depend on.

Note to Freedave, Regarding post#109; I have heard the name Winston Shrout but I know nothing more about him. I am aware of but have not studied Tim Turner's program either.
I have been using the "Deposited for credit on account or exchanged for non-negotiable FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES of face value" for three or more years. I have used it since whenever it was that I first became aware of it by way of D.M.'s posts elsewhere. And now I am close to changing what I stamp because of the refinements I have found on this site.

Regarding your post #110, If one can posture themselves so to not interact with the taxing entitles, I think is far superior to giving them something and then looking for a way to get it back. That "they" seem to be able to do, or simply go ahead and do, whatever they wish, makes them so corrupt that one cannot comfortably act in good faith with them. My father lost a nice home to "them" despite an excellent attempt at defense. I witnessed their lying and denial of good sound defenses. Their actions are plain old theft.

And, yes, it could seem as if some process "worked" now, only to find in a year or some years later that "they" then consider the relied upon process as improper, frivilous, protest. . . (and any other of the many villainizing prejudices they apply) and they move against you in a big way. Anything and all things which are connected with an SSN are at risk, whether you play by the rules or not (my belief). It is the SSN and all the regulations adherent to its use which entangle us in their revenue farming process. Best to stay off the farm if you don't wan't to be milked and brought to slaughter. or some, that means a great change in lifestyle. The outcome of their occupation of our halls of govermnent, institution of banking and schools is that America has become, functionally, a conquered nation.

So, do we recognize an enemy and attempt to fight, or do we recognize an enemy and lick its boots in the hopes of staying in its good graces ?
One's conscience and concern for our future generations might be the brightest guiding light. The cost of the fight, for many, outweighs any cost they might have coughed up to "them" in voluntary compliance. So, it must be that a greater prize is sought by those involved.

The occasional back bighting and bickering disturbs me. It is destructive beyond the intended target. I am pleased to have seen little of that on this site.

freedave
02-06-12, 02:04 AM
Notes to two people follow:

Note to David Merrill, In regard to your post #108, Thank you for posting that document. I do believe I had seen it elsewhere on the site.

Also, I offer my appologize to you if you felt that I was challenging the veracity of any claim you had made or evidence you had proffered relative to the claims of others. Your use of the word "lying" disturbed me. It is because of your presentations on the sui juris site and the occasional poor behavior of others on that site in response to your writings that I participate in this forum. I respect your opinions and value the extraordinary efforts you have made to provide us information and evidence that we may consider in arriving at our own decisions. Thank you for trusting us, essentially anonymous people, to know your thoughts and share in your discoveries. We are enriched by one anothers' sharing.

My calling for evidence was not a challenge to flush out liars, it was just a call for those who are holding bricks to came forth and offer them for us all to use to build a strong house. I believe that the very existence of this site and its sustained use indicates that not one of us can solve the challenges alone and that the concept and function of a brain trust, brain bank, brainstorming is fundamental to our success. Whether one labels it as a brotherhood or just a bunch of independents hollering into the valley doesn't really matter. The important matter is that we share what we find when it is known to us, by our best ability to determine, that it is truthful. Each is at his own risk to decides what he will depend on.

Note to Freedave, Regarding post#109; I have heard the name Winston Shrout but I know nothing more about him. I am aware of but have not studied Tim Turner's program either.
I have been using the "Deposited for credit on account or exchanged for non-negotiable FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES of face value" for three or more years. I have used it since whenever it was that I first became aware of it by way of D.M.'s posts elsewhere. And now I am close to changing what I stamp because of the refinements I have found on this site.

Regarding your post #110, If one can posture themselves so to not interact with the taxing entitles, I think is far superior to giving them something and then looking for a way to get it back. That "they" seem to be able to do, or simply go ahead and do, whatever they wish, makes them so corrupt that one cannot comfortably act in good faith with them. My father lost a nice home to "them" despite an excellent attempt at defense. I witnessed their lying and denial of good sound defenses. Their actions are plain old theft.

And, yes, it could seem as if some process "worked" now, only to find in a year or some years later that "they" then consider the relied upon process as improper, frivilous, protest. . . (and any other of the many villainizing prejudices they apply) and they move against you in a big way. Anything and all things which are connected with an SSN are at risk, whether you play by the rules or not (my belief). It is the SSN and all the regulations adherent to its use which entangle us in their revenue farming process. Best to stay off the farm if you don't wan't to be milked and brought to slaughter. or some, that means a great change in lifestyle. The outcome of their occupation of our halls of govermnent, institution of banking and schools is that America has become, functionally, a conquered nation.

So, do we recognize an enemy and attempt to fight, or do we recognize an enemy and lick its boots in the hopes of staying in its good graces ?
One's conscience and concern for our future generations might be the brightest guiding light. The cost of the fight, for many, outweighs any cost they might have coughed up to "them" in voluntary compliance. So, it must be that a greater prize is sought by those involved.

The occasional back bighting and bickering disturbs me. It is destructive beyond the intended target. I am pleased to have seen little of that on this site.

Thank you, Publius, for your responses to my posts and for all the very relevant points you made.

Yes, I agree that posturing oneself so as to not interact with the taxing entitles is a much better way to go.

Have you encountered any difficulties in using what you have been stamping?

David Merrill
02-06-12, 02:47 AM
I guess "lying" is a strong word. I think my sentiment is that you should not readily believe even me. What you should do is just what you are doing. Understand it by doing it. You are very likely to become a success story.

To reveal how many people would be to reveal other things I don't wish to reveal on a chat room.

allodial
02-06-12, 09:48 PM
FYI, just for clarification on a side note: the account at the SSA is separate from the account at the IRS. A connection between the SSN and the IRS is made by filing a W4, filing a 1040..things like that. It could be that a "social security account number" and a "social security number" might be different enough to warrant attention to detail.

freedave
02-06-12, 11:44 PM
I guess "lying" is a strong word. I think my sentiment is that you should not readily believe even me. What you should do is just what you are doing. Understand it by doing it. You are very likely to become a success story.

To reveal how many people would be to reveal other things I don't wish to reveal on a chat room.

OK, how does this look?

Deposited for credit on account #XXXXXXX
to be redeemed in lawful money by demand
USCA12 section 411
John Doe (signed)

David Merrill
02-07-12, 01:02 AM
FYI, just for clarification on a side note: the account at the SSA is separate from the account at the IRS. A connection between the SSN and the IRS is made by filing a W4, filing a 1040..things like that. It could be that a "social security account number" and a "social security number" might be different enough to warrant attention to detail.

I was thinking about this the other day.

The SSN is to identify an account and while it is never to be used for identification purposes the IRS calls it a Taxpayer Identification Number.



OK, how does this look?

Deposited for credit on account #XXXXXXX
to be redeemed in lawful money by demand
USCA12 section 411
John Doe (signed)

You are still talking about the check to the broker? I told you I have little experience with that. But it looks like a good demand; like you understand many aspects of paychecks that have been pointed out on this site.

allodial
02-07-12, 01:29 AM
The SSN is to identify an account and while it is never to be used for identification purposes the IRS calls it a Taxpayer Identification Number.

Yep. AFAIK the IRS does not 'see' "social security accounts numbers" they 'see' "tax ID numbers". My study of the IRS specifications for e-filing or the like revealed lack of any computational distinction between an "EIN" or an "SSN" entered on a form or into a database. Since a year or two such may have changed for some reason or another. The IRS, a bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, does appear to maintain some kind of link between the IRS and SSA for verifying whether an SSAN exists. AFAIK, the IRS and the US Department of the Treasury are wholly separate from the U.S. Social Security Administration. While the digits of the SSAN might generally be the same as that of a US tax ID or account # established with the IRS, they are not at all the same accounts and there is no inherent link between the two accounts. The IRS account would likely never, ever exist if a SS-4, 1040, W2 or W4 was never filed.

freedave
02-07-12, 07:25 PM
You are still talking about the check to the broker? I told you I have little experience with that. But it looks like a good demand; like you understand many aspects of paychecks that have been pointed out on this site.

Yes, I am still talking about the check to the brokerage firm.

Thank you, David, for your validation of my demand -- I think I may use it.

freedave
02-10-12, 03:26 AM
Is the validity of this remedy supported by anything more than the one sentence from the statute?

David Merrill
02-10-12, 03:00 PM
Is the validity of this remedy supported by anything more than the one sentence from the statute?

Yes. The 'saving to suitors' clause and structure of the districts on the states. If you choose to live in the fiction then that is your state - this state. It is all a state of mind anyway. We do not see a line between Colorado and Wyoming on the ground; only on the map. But you cannot grow a potato in a map!

I explained it yesterday: Click Here (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?150-can-you-prove-your-identity&p=6400&viewfull=1#post6400). If you choose to accomodate (http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/4388/accomodationincontextof.jpg)the district and Fed then your endorsement of their existence under your feet, between you and the land suae potestate esse is published.

freedave
02-11-12, 09:57 AM
Yes. The 'saving to suitors' clause and structure of the districts on the states. If you choose to live in the fiction then that is your state - this state. It is all a state of mind anyway. We do not see a line between Colorado and Wyoming on the ground; only on the map. But you cannot grow a potato in a map!

I explained it yesterday: Click Here (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?150-can-you-prove-your-identity&p=6400&viewfull=1#post6400). If you choose to accomodate (http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/4388/accomodationincontextof.jpg)the district and Fed then your endorsement of their existence under your feet, between you and the land suae potestate esse is published.

This is way beyond my familiarity with the subject.

David Merrill
02-11-12, 07:56 PM
This is way beyond my familiarity with the subject.

Then please try this.

Validate the one sentence with its context.

shikamaru
02-12-12, 01:03 PM
This is way beyond my familiarity with the subject.

http://admiralty.uslegal.com/saving-to-suitors-clause/



DISTRICT. A certain portion of the country, separated from the rest for some special purposes. The United States are divided into judicial districts, in each of which is established a district court; they are also divided into election districts; collection districts, &c. (Source (http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_d.htm))



ACCOMODATION, com. law. That which is done by one merchant or other person for the convenience of some other, by accepting or endorsing his paper, or by lending him his notes or bills.

2. In general the parties who have drawn, endorsed or accepted bills or other commercial paper for the accommodation, of others, are, while in the hands of a holder who received them before they became due, other than the person for whom the accomodation was given, responsible as if they had received full value. Chit. Bills, 90; 91. See 4 Cranch, 141; 1 Ham. 413; 7 John. 361; 15 John. 355, 17 John. 176; 9 Wend. 170; 2 Whart. 344; 5 Wend. 566; 8 Wend. 437; 2 Hill, S. C. 362; 10 Conn. 308; 6 Munfd. 381. (Source (http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_a.htm))

Hand-book of the Law of Bills and Notes (http://books.google.com/books?id=BVo9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA173&dq=accommodation+party&hl=en&sa=X&ei=b7g3T7KkHqjc0QG0ndipAg&ved=0CFIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=accommodation%20party&f=false)

Kinds of endorsement (http://books.google.com/books?id=RVoaAAAAYAAJ&dq=restrictive%20endorsement&pg=PA116#v=onepage&q=restrictive%20endorsement&f=false)

This getting deeper into several areas mainly American Admiralty/Maritime Law, negotiable instruments, and Lex Mercatoria.

David Merrill
02-13-12, 12:16 AM
The Secret Admiralty paper led me to Proctor WISWALL's paper. Click Here (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B1EaV_bU7VImMzUwZmIzYzQtMzUzZC00MGY3LTkzMjM tZDg0ZjQ5MTExN2U0). I kept seeing hits on WISWALL's paper but the actual papers were scrubbed. So I called him up and got his wife and a very peculiar reaction... Click Here (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImZDFkNjFmOWUtMzQwZC00NGYzLWEwO WEtZjM3OGJlY2M3NTMx).

Needless to say, I never received the paper from Mrs. WISWALL. Her behavior was as though the Bar Association was badgering her husband over what he said there about Erie Doctrine and One Form of Action (c. 1938 in the federal jurisdiction but the Masons show it (http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/6342/coloradolawbooks1935s.jpg)in 1935 here in Colorado (http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/8909/coloradolawbooks1935one.jpg)). After our conversation I probed with alternate search engines than Google and found it, as you see linked above.

There are reputation and other websites where you can pay a fee to get certain hits scrubbed off Google. I think somebody had done that to his paper.

Treefarmer
02-13-12, 01:21 AM
The Secret Admiralty paper led me to Proctor WISWALL's paper. Click Here (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B1EaV_bU7VImMzUwZmIzYzQtMzUzZC00MGY3LTkzMjM tZDg0ZjQ5MTExN2U0). I kept seeing hits on WISWALL's paper but the actual papers were scrubbed. So I called him up and got his wife and a very peculiar reaction... Click Here (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImZDFkNjFmOWUtMzQwZC00NGYzLWEwO WEtZjM3OGJlY2M3NTMx).

Needless to say, I never received the paper from Mrs. WISWALL. Her behavior was as though the Bar Association was badgering her husband over what he said there about Erie Doctrine and One Form of Action (c. 1938 in the federal jurisdiction but the Masons show it (http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/6342/coloradolawbooks1935s.jpg)in 1935 here in Colorado (http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/8909/coloradolawbooks1935one.jpg)). After our conversation I probed with alternate search engines than Google and found it, as you see linked above.

There are reputation and other websites where you can pay a fee to get certain hits scrubbed off Google. I think somebody had done that to his paper.

That's a great resource; thank you David for linking it here.

Treefarmer
02-13-12, 01:31 AM
http://admiralty.uslegal.com/saving-to-suitors-clause/





Hand-book of the Law of Bills and Notes (http://books.google.com/books?id=BVo9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA173&dq=accommodation+party&hl=en&sa=X&ei=b7g3T7KkHqjc0QG0ndipAg&ved=0CFIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=accommodation%20party&f=false)

Kinds of endorsement (http://books.google.com/books?id=RVoaAAAAYAAJ&dq=restrictive%20endorsement&pg=PA116#v=onepage&q=restrictive%20endorsement&f=false)

This getting deeper into several areas mainly American Admiralty/Maritime Law, negotiable instruments, and Lex Mercatoria.

Thank you shikamaru. That's interesting about the different endorsements.

I'm sure the "Hand-book" is interesting too, but I easily fall asleep even without trying to read it.
This is probably why most people would rather be enslaved than to have to read stuff like that in order to fight off the bankers and lawyers.

shikamaru
02-13-12, 11:53 AM
The Secret Admiralty paper led me to Proctor WISWALL's paper. Click Here (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B1EaV_bU7VImMzUwZmIzYzQtMzUzZC00MGY3LTkzMjM tZDg0ZjQ5MTExN2U0). I kept seeing hits on WISWALL's paper but the actual papers were scrubbed. So I called him up and got his wife and a very peculiar reaction... Click Here (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImZDFkNjFmOWUtMzQwZC00NGYzLWEwO WEtZjM3OGJlY2M3NTMx).

Needless to say, I never received the paper from Mrs. WISWALL. Her behavior was as though the Bar Association was badgering her husband over what he said there about Erie Doctrine and One Form of Action (c. 1938 in the federal jurisdiction but the Masons show it (http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/6342/coloradolawbooks1935s.jpg)in 1935 here in Colorado (http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/8909/coloradolawbooks1935one.jpg)). After our conversation I probed with alternate search engines than Google and found it, as you see linked above.

There are reputation and other websites where you can pay a fee to get certain hits scrubbed off Google. I think somebody had done that to his paper.

If you intend to dive down this hole (and it is deep), I suggest Bendict's on Admiralty (1850's) as a companion guide.
There are also a number of really good Supreme Court cases that essentially give you a compact history lesson on Admiralty/Maritime such as Delivio v. Boit (1815). There are many more as well.

shikamaru
02-13-12, 11:53 AM
Thank you shikamaru. That's interesting about the different endorsements.

I'm sure the "Hand-book" is interesting too, but I easily fall asleep even without trying to read it.
This is probably why most people would rather be enslaved than to have to read stuff like that in order to fight off the bankers and lawyers.

I can't wait to begin experimenting with this stuff in the future when I get hard core into commercial paper.
If you know what you are doing, you can have a lot of fun under Lex Mercatoria.

freedave
02-13-12, 07:41 PM
Then please try this.

Validate the one sentence with its context.

I assume you mean, "Validate one sentence with its context."

In a confusing text, I do normally try to do find one part I can understand enough to proceed forward.

I am not able to do that in this case.

I have found that in discussion groups similar to this one, there is not too high an importance on making the subject easily comprehensible.

If the subject is valid, that is a very great underestimation of importance.

I had hoped to give this a try on the check have been holding for two weeks...

stoneFree
02-14-12, 05:00 PM
Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.

Sir Winston Churchill

freedave
02-14-12, 06:33 PM
Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.

Sir Winston Churchill

I've probably confronted far more truth than anyone on this forum, and I could easily give you more truth than you are ready for -- and you would be running from it (figuratively).

It seems that you're confusing an inability to look at and accept truth because of preconceived ideas with an inability resulting from a convoluted presentation.

If this remedy is actually valid and workable, then anyone here who is not doing everything possible to ensure that I understand it, is, to some degree, betraying the purpose of creating freedom from suppression on this planet.

JohnnyCash
02-14-12, 07:51 PM
Oh, do tell. And can you provide us with any links to your handiwork?

Redemption of lawful money is working for me; no Income Tax paid since 2007 (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?358). You may want to just try it, as a skeptic. Except for the cost of taking a picture or copy of your demand, it costs nothing. It sounds like you're looking for Lawful Money for Dummies which hasn't been written yet. But you might just be the author.

freedave
02-15-12, 03:57 AM
Oh, do tell. And can you provide us with any links to your handiwork?

Redemption of lawful money is working for me; no Income Tax paid since 2007 (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?358). You may want to just try it, as a skeptic. Except for the cost of taking a picture or copy of your demand, it costs nothing. It sounds like you're looking for Lawful Money for Dummies which hasn't been written yet. But you might just be the author.

Thank you for responding, JohnnyCash.

Regarding giving you "more truth than you are ready for," I can't provide you with any links.

Giving you "more truth than you are ready for" would be a harmful thing, and I don't make a practice of intentionally creating harm.

Your "no Income Tax paid since 2007" link is interesting -- I see you have been a follower of Pete Hendrickson, as I have been.

My main concern is that if I try the redemption of lawful money endorsement it might trigger some kind of report to the IRS, which I don't need.

Yes, if I had a good understanding of it, I could write Lawful Money for Dummies.

JohnnyCash
02-15-12, 05:24 AM
Guess what? The IRS already knows what you're doing. You gave the SSN/ TIN when you started the bank account. If you mistakenly transpose that SS number, the bank will come back and say "that number has not been issued yet." Federal Reserve Banks and the IRS are fraternal twins of similar lineage. http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=IRS_Fed&refpage=issues

Send me your harmful truth via PM, ten to one you cannot damage me through cyberspace. I have an odd sense that I already know you, freedave, perhaps in a previous life.

David Merrill
02-15-12, 07:59 AM
I ponder lately how the SSN is not to be used for Identification Purposes, yet the IRS wants that same exact Number for a Taxpayer Identification Number?

JohnnyCash
02-15-12, 05:50 PM
'smatter freedave? Methinks you are more afraid of us. Of the "far more truth" that we could easily provide.

Hbert997
02-15-12, 06:00 PM
I ponder lately how the SSN is not to be used for Identification Purposes, yet the IRS wants that same exact Number for a Taxpayer Identification Number?

I have posted this here already a couple of times before but don't seem to engender any reaction...from anyone. However, I cannot find a better explanation to the connection between SSN / IRS / and citizenship domicile. http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Citizenship/citizenshipdiagrams.pdf

Hbert

freedave
02-15-12, 07:45 PM
Guess what? The IRS already knows what you're doing. You gave the SSN/ TIN when you started the bank account. If you mistakenly transpose that SS number, the bank will come back and say "that number has not been issued yet." Federal Reserve Banks and the IRS are fraternal twins of similar lineage. http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=IRS_Fed&refpage=issues

Send me your harmful truth via PM, ten to one you cannot damage me through cyberspace. I have an odd sense that I already know you, freedave, perhaps in a previous life.

The IRS may nave access to some of my data, but it would take some unusual efforts to find out what I'm doing -- I don't want to raise any red flags that might influence them to do that.

PM coming...

freedave
02-15-12, 07:47 PM
'smatter freedave? Methinks you are more afraid of us. Of the "far more truth" that we could easily provide.

Try me -- just make it simple to understand...

David Merrill
02-16-12, 04:44 AM
I have posted this here already a couple of times before but don't seem to engender any reaction...from anyone. However, I cannot find a better explanation to the connection between SSN / IRS / and citizenship domicile. http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Citizenship/citizenshipdiagrams.pdf

Hbert

Somebody put a lot of work into that treatise and diagrams! Have you been studying that a while? I don't want to get four hours into it and discover that it is full of errors...

Hbert997
02-16-12, 06:32 AM
Somebody put a lot of work into that treatise and diagrams! Have you been studying that a while? I don't want to get four hours into it and discover that it is full of errors...

David, I'm still studying their materials, as there is a tremendous amount of it on the site. However, I haven't yet found anything "that is full of errors..." in it! However, I continue to be a Berean and search and confirm.

I'm certainly no lawyer and I don't play one on t.v. (though I'm married to one from Mexico!)...but, this is how the treatise and associated diagrams ( http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Citizenship/citizenshipdiagrams.pdf ) boils down to me:

1. We have all signed a SS-5 form for a SSN card...and/or we have all at one time or another signed a bank card, an IRS form 1040 or a different IRS form, a Voter Registration Card, a Passport Application...or even a Juror's Summons. All of these forms we sign are as a "U.S. Citizen"...and this creates citizenship context NOT in nationality (as we believe)...but in DOMICILE. And that domicile is in the United States (Federal Zone, District of Columbia).
2. And as such, we are then in Franchise Agreement with the Federal Government and are also involved in a Trade or Business or Employment as it relates to taxation.
3. This creates a never-ending cycle of reporting from "employers", "payors" and the SSA all to the IRS and their file systems and we can never get out!
4. One must somehow change their domicile in respect to the legal definitions that are used against us to a legal domicile OUTSIDE the Federal Zone/D.C. (United States). This requires filing for a new passport with the correct national/domicile status...refiling a SS-5 form with the SSA to correct the original mistake and remove the U.S. Citizen status...and then to inform the IRS that you are no longer to be in their system as a U.S. Citizen and will file as a non-resident alien (in respect to the Federal Zone/United States) when needed and to remove your status as such.

And I realize I've simplified this down greatly but, this treatise and associated diagrams shows the path out...along with all of the other related material from their site.

...and I haven't yet found anything in error with it. And then again, I'm not a lawyer...I'm just a workin' stiff who's had enough and knows that somewhere there is a way out of this master-web of deception on a grand scale and will continue to search until I have succeeded PROPERLY and COMPLETELY and not TEMPORARILY as some have and claim to be.

I will continue to study and I encourage others reading this to read the link I've included and give me your opinion and analysis, but I believe it to compliment your efforts David.

Hbert

P.S. I only engage in constructive dialogue together with the exchange of ideas and intelligent opinions and I reserve the right to ignore those who don't possess these traits of gallant and courageous men/women. Time is quickly running out for us and to do anything else is a waste of precious time...of which we have very little of anymore!

martin earl
02-16-12, 02:05 PM
I've probably confronted far more truth than anyone on this forum, and I could easily give you more truth than you are ready for -- and you would be running from it (figuratively).

It seems that you're confusing an inability to look at and accept truth because of preconceived ideas with an inability resulting from a convoluted presentation.

If this remedy is actually valid and workable, then anyone here who is not doing everything possible to ensure that I understand it, is, to some degree, betraying the purpose of creating freedom from suppression on this planet.

Do it for your self, be your own proof. I have been using and redeeming lawful money since 2009. I have not filed for a tax return after my first year simply because I choose not to do so.

I know for a fact it does something because any study of Federal/International Bank money from the Civil War and the redemption of "green backs" after that war for lawful money is well documented and known. So impassioned were the people of this Nation on the subject that President Jackson was elected and his main issue was a ousting of International Bankers from control of the money. Even Abe considered international bankers a greater threat to this Nation then the Southern alliance, from his own personal writings.

As for you having truth that would make me run, well, that one did make me roll on the floor laughing, so thank you. Please, start some threads, because that is what I and others are here for.

How about a portable Nuclear power device feeding Israel in the wilderness for 40 years and the Priesthood built up to protect and maintain it (and its origin)?

Sabo
02-16-12, 03:38 PM
Do it for your self, be your own proof. I have been using and redeeming lawful money since 2009. I have not filed for a tax return after my first year simply because I choose not to do so.

Just out of curiosity, are you working for someone else, or in business for yourself? If the former, how did you limit your information returns? Did you cancel a W-4 pursuant to 26 CFR 31.3402(p)-1(a), or simply had a competent enough payroll department to understand when you didn't submit one when hired?

Any details about your work situation would be helpful to the rest of us. :)

martin earl
02-16-12, 05:18 PM
Just out of curiosity, are you working for someone else, or in business for yourself? If the former, how did you limit your information returns? Did you cancel a W-4 pursuant to 26 CFR 31.3402(p)-1(a), or simply had a competent enough payroll department to understand when you didn't submit one when hired?

Any details about your work situation would be helpful to the rest of us. :)

I was working for a corporation. After the first year of redeeming lawful money, I simply did a W-4 EXEMPT and put "paid in Lawful money per 12-USC 411" on it.

Just because I paid taxes the previous year (the year I was redeeming lawful money) did not mean I was not exempt from doing so.

From the w-4 form:

"Last year I had a right to a refund of all federal income tax withheld because I had no tax liability, and
• This year I expect a refund of all federal income tax withheld because I expect to have no tax liability.
If you meet both conditions, write “Exempt” here . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ▶"


That is the truth, I hade a "right to a refund of all federal income tax withheld because I had no tax liability". I redeemed lawful money, thus the right to a refund, I chose not to get that refund, does not mean I did not have that right. The following year(s) I "expect to have no tax liability".

The payroll department where I worked then really did not care that I was exempt and there was nothing really said about it when I did it.

Also, I lined out the "under penalties of perjury" and initialed above before signing True Name DBA ALL CAPS NAME. When asked about those sorts of things, I simply reply "my tax attorney (or accountant) told me to do that."

That usually ends any more discussion on the matter.

Not legal advise, just how I did it.

freedave
02-16-12, 06:43 PM
Do it for your self, be your own proof. I have been using and redeeming lawful money since 2009. I have not filed for a tax return after my first year simply because I choose not to do so.

I know for a fact it does something because any study of Federal/International Bank money from the Civil War and the redemption of "green backs" after that war for lawful money is well documented and known. So impassioned were the people of this Nation on the subject that President Jackson was elected and his main issue was a ousting of International Bankers from control of the money. Even Abe considered international bankers a greater threat to this Nation then the Southern alliance, from his own personal writings.

As for you having truth that would make me run, well, that one did make me roll on the floor laughing, so thank you. Please, start some threads, because that is what I and others are here for.

How about a portable Nuclear power device feeding Israel in the wilderness for 40 years and the Priesthood built up to protect and maintain it (and its origin)?

I am looking for more certainty before I do it for myself -- I'm supposed to be speaking soon with a "patriot" oriented person who I am told is very familiar with a lot of these types of games.

Good that you have not filed -- millions of people have successfully not filed without redeeming lawful money.

I know about President Jackson and about the Lincoln quote -- I don't know about the redemption of "green backs" after the civil war for lawful money -- I would appreciate a link if it would be pertinent.

I'm glad I gave you a good laugh -- I won't start a thread about what I know -- I did PM JohnnyCash a couple days ago, at his request, initiating something about it -- I haven't heard back from him.

The "portable Nuclear power device feeding Israel in the wilderness for 40 years and the Priesthood built up to protect and maintain it" sounds interesting...

David Merrill
02-17-12, 01:29 AM
David, I'm still studying their materials, as there is a tremendous amount of it on the site. However, I haven't yet found anything "that is full of errors..." in it! However, I continue to be a Berean and search and confirm.

I'm certainly no lawyer and I don't play one on t.v. (though I'm married to one from Mexico!)...but, this is how the treatise and associated diagrams ( http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Citizenship/citizenshipdiagrams.pdf ) boils down to me:

1. We have all signed a SS-5 form for a SSN card...and/or we have all at one time or another signed a bank card, an IRS form 1040 or a different IRS form, a Voter Registration Card, a Passport Application...or even a Juror's Summons. All of these forms we sign are as a "U.S. Citizen"...and this creates citizenship context NOT in nationality (as we believe)...but in DOMICILE. And that domicile is in the United States (Federal Zone, District of Columbia).
2. And as such, we are then in Franchise Agreement with the Federal Government and are also involved in a Trade or Business or Employment as it relates to taxation.
3. This creates a never-ending cycle of reporting from "employers", "payors" and the SSA all to the IRS and their file systems and we can never get out!
4. One must somehow change their domicile in respect to the legal definitions that are used against us to a legal domicile OUTSIDE the Federal Zone/D.C. (United States). This requires filing for a new passport with the correct national/domicile status...refiling a SS-5 form with the SSA to correct the original mistake and remove the U.S. Citizen status...and then to inform the IRS that you are no longer to be in their system as a U.S. Citizen and will file as a non-resident alien (in respect to the Federal Zone/United States) when needed and to remove your status as such.

And I realize I've simplified this down greatly but, this treatise and associated diagrams shows the path out...along with all of the other related material from their site.

...and I haven't yet found anything in error with it. And then again, I'm not a lawyer...I'm just a workin' stiff who's had enough and knows that somewhere there is a way out of this master-web of deception on a grand scale and will continue to search until I have succeeded PROPERLY and COMPLETELY and not TEMPORARILY as some have and claim to be.

I will continue to study and I encourage others reading this to read the link I've included and give me your opinion and analysis, but I believe it to compliment your efforts David.

Hbert

P.S. I only engage in constructive dialogue together with the exchange of ideas and intelligent opinions and I reserve the right to ignore those who don't possess these traits of gallant and courageous men/women. Time is quickly running out for us and to do anything else is a waste of precious time...of which we have very little of anymore!



Thank you. I disagree that there is no way out. If you believe that though, there is no way out.

I do not believe that government can control what I have and do not have. I get evidence in how if anybody, even government uses "my" Social Security Number without my approval and verification that is a crime of forgery, and usually identity theft too.

I have seen them stumped for over an hour at booking when they ask what my SSN is. Finally they just pretend I verified it.

Treefarmer
02-17-12, 05:07 AM
I have posted this here already a couple of times before but don't seem to engender any reaction...from anyone. However, I cannot find a better explanation to the connection between SSN / IRS / and citizenship domicile. http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Citizenship/citizenshipdiagrams.pdf

Hbert

Thank you for bringing this up again Hbert997.
I had meant to comment, but somehow never got around to it.

The first time I saw this material was about 2 years ago (SJC), and I couldn't figure it out. But I've kept trying ever since, and I've read a lot of the other SEDM material too, and it's begun to make sense to me.

I believe that there's a lot of truth conveyed in these diagrams and documents.
The fact that all the diagrams are ridiculously convoluted and nearly impossible to understand certainly mirrors the reality that we face in government interactions and legal affairs.
I have found the SEDM material to be very convincing, but then again I thought Pete HENDRICKSON was onto something too...so I keep studying.

Based on my study of the citizenship diagrams and other SEDM publications I have decided to phase out my use of my commercial vessel, FIRST M LAST + SSN, as quickly as possible.
IMHO, US citizenship is a trap. Once caught in that trap and loaded down with debt, one becomes enslaved for the rest of life; no more "pursuit of happiness" possible.

shikamaru
02-17-12, 10:49 AM
IMHO, US citizenship is a trap. Once caught in that trap and loaded down with debt, one becomes enslaved for the rest of life; no more "pursuit of happiness" possible.

I'm trying a different route. I'm separating my real, flesh and blood self and possessions from the commercial vehicle while maintaining the commercial vehicle solely as an interface for the public.

The vehicle should be breakaway in the event of financial collapse of a given system.

Remove as many commercial nexuses as possible to your hard, physical possessions.

JohnnyCash
02-17-12, 04:54 PM
Nice strategy Martin Earl.


I'm glad I gave you a good laugh -- I won't start a thread about what I know -- I did PM JohnnyCash a couple days ago, at his request, initiating something about it -- I haven't heard back from him.
...
I replied to you via PM on 02-15-12, 01:43 PM. Did you not receive it?

freedave
02-17-12, 09:27 PM
Nice strategy Martin Earl.


I replied to you via PM on 02-15-12, 01:43 PM. Did you not receive it?

Silly me -- I did not check my PM's -- I just replied.

Binbokusai Yagyuu
02-18-12, 05:54 AM
Rather than " Exempt ", ...Martin Earl...

I would prefer " Not Subject To " ;)

Treefarmer
02-19-12, 04:24 AM
I'm trying a different route. I'm separating my real, flesh and blood self and possessions from the commercial vehicle while maintaining the commercial vehicle solely as an interface for the public.

The vehicle should be breakaway in the event of financial collapse of a given system.

Remove as many commercial nexuses as possible to your hard, physical possessions.

Sounds like a similar route as I outlined, but different words to describe it:)

EZrhythm
02-19-12, 08:27 AM
..."Not subject to...", I LIKE that! Would make a nice change to my private plate.

freedave
02-23-12, 01:45 AM
I found somebody who is "endorsing" checks similarly to what is suggested here.

And he will actually talk to me and answer my questions, so I think I will now do it.

He recommends including "without prejudice."

David Merrill
02-23-12, 09:33 PM
Great! Maybe he can register and chat room with us?

freedave
02-25-12, 02:22 AM
Great! Maybe he can register and chat room with us?

I just emailed him about it...

freedave
03-02-12, 05:26 PM
The following is from this thread: Exactly what does the IRS agent think? Post of 03-29-11, 06:39 PM:

"I was pushing my friend to discuss our redemption of lawful money with his sister that works in a legal department at IRS. She was very resistant and she would not discuss it even privately. I think they have a policy there at IRS.

It has been 4 weeks since IRS has received my 1040 and my continuous insistence and questioning whether there are any new developments at the IRS regarding demanding lawful money per Title 12 USC 411; this Monday she finally said that typically IRS has 6 weeks to respond (sort of legal zone) and when someone is demanding lawful money he is considered out of the FR System. The IRS is creating a special file and that person's activities are being scrutinized by them."

What I need to know is this: Would the creation of a special file by the IRS and the scrutinizing of the person's activities be triggered by demanding lawful money or by the 1040?

JohnnyCash
03-02-12, 09:47 PM
That's the type of special IRS file I'd like to have. I imagine the IMF (individual master file) to say something like this:



filer indicates redemption of lawful money beginning 4/2005. Confirmed by bank inquiry. Status: non-taxpayer. Recommendation: no action. AGENTS: do not go there; this one knows too much about the central bank scam; can't risk the revelation of state secrets.

freedave
03-03-12, 03:23 AM
That would be great, but it doesn't answer the question.

JohnnyCash
03-05-12, 03:41 AM
[With some revision, I attempted to say the following at quatloos.com but the post was not approved]

START OF POSSIBLY DIFFICULT TO CONFRONT DATA

■ Lord James of Blackheath stood before parliament Thursday, February 16, 2012, providing evidence of an apparent $15 trillion theft; transfers to JP Morgan Chase for further credit to PureHeart Investments, LTD. http://tdarkcabal.blogspot.com/2012/02/february-27-2012-white-hats-report-37.html (with SWIFT codes)

■ 5 US banks (JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, HSBC) participate in derivatives with a notional value of $237 trillion yet with assets of only $4.9T http://www.occ.treas.gov/topics/capital-markets/financial-markets/trading/derivatives/dq311.pdf
(page 25)

■ These 5 U.S. banks have written 97% of all European CDS instruments (remember AIG?), and these 5 also control the ISDA (regulator). The odds of ISDA declaring Greece to be in default are essentially 0.

■ There's hardly been a government that's paid back its debt.

■ Greece has a debt payment due March 12th and Europe is PISSED at the banksters.

■ Banks loan new currency created by the borrower's own signature on the note; no consideration by the bank.

■ The commodities market (gold, silver, oil) is rigged, COMEX is broke as a joke, and the MF Global theft reveals who's running the show.

■ The stock market is a rigged game. Naked shorts, quote stuffing, HF trades &c; nobody rigs a game like the US. http://www.gata.org/node/11034

■ If your dollar-denominated investments made 10% last year you lost ground. John Williams shows inflation (http://demotivators.despair.com/inflationdemotivator.jpg) was 10.7% for 2011 using the govt's 1980 formula. http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts

■ The Income Tax is a central bank scam tied to ... use of private Federal Reserve privilege. I've not paid it since 2007. I redeem lawful money (http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/1867/slavefree.jpg) and have no IRS issues. To those who refuse to believe, just assume I'm writing this in jail and Famspear is harvesting it from the collective mind and posting it for me (thanks monkey).

■ The final chapter of every unbacked fiat currency in history has been collapse.

Fraud permeates Wall St. and the US financial sector. I've woken up to it, but you ain't seen nothing yet. You're witnessing little rivulets of freedom coming from the cracks. Cracks in the dam of oppression. Tons of anger has been building behind that wall, collecting into huge reservoirs. Not everyone will be as gracious as I towards the theft you've enabled. You may have heard: "We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us" (sounds a bit un-Christian to me). Or how about this?: http://www.halfpasthuman.com/lastdaysofyourlife.html
Those cracks are growing, quatloser. Our Greek cousins will not be harnessed. Soon the derivative implosion will bust the central banking scam wide open, and great rivers of liberty will cascade across the globe and annihilate the cabal & everything downstream. A great flood of TRUTH & FREEDOM is coming, baby! And there's nothing you bankster minions can do to stop it. Our MARCH to freedom cannot be stopped!

'bliged to ya for hearing on me. Ol Johnny han't more to say.

David Merrill
03-05-12, 09:16 AM
What I need to know is this: Would the creation of a special file by the IRS and the scrutinizing of the person's activities be triggered by demanding lawful money or by the 1040?


I doubt it. I have heard it on fairly good authority that the IRS puts nothing into your file that you have not seen in the mail. If you have been sending a lot of things to the IRS then your file is bulky with all the stuff that you have been putting into it.

Chex
03-05-12, 01:58 PM
Fools' names and fools' faces are often seen in public places. Then it's safe to presume that the IRS has this (n)idiot (http://dictionary.babylon.com/idiot/)(s)-(man) file congested with a simple questions asking * (of course they cannot answer) when addressed to me. Although now I sea (http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7klnxVRP0CwALMdXNyoA?p=sea%20%20le gal%20definition&fr2=sb-top&fr=b1ie7)why that they cannot answer me (i.e. live man) and they only correspond to the legal entity (http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7hivwlRP008AkBZXNyoA?p=legal%20ent ity%20legal%20definition&fr2=sb-top&fr=b1ie7). They assume under valuable consideration (http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7klnxVRP0CwALMdXNyoA?p=valuable%20 consideration%20%20legal%20definition&fr2=sb-top&fr=b1ie7)that the person is a lunatic (http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=lunatic+legal+definition&ei=utf-8&fr=b1ie7) and appoint one of their trustees (http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7hivwlRP008AkBZXNyoA?p=trustees%20 legal%20definition&fr2=sb-top&fr=b1ie7)to gain your trust (http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7klnxVRP0CwALMdXNyoA;_ylc=X1MDMjc2 NjY3OQRfcgMyBGFvA2FvBGNzcmNwdmlkAzl3X2xEMG9HN3Y0U2 NWTXhUMVRCUUF6c1JSblVRazlVeFhJQUNwcmMEZnIDYjFpZTcE ZnIyA3NidG4Ebl9ncHMDMgRvcmlnaW4Dc3JwBHBxc3RyA3RydX N0IGxlZ2FsIGRlZmluaXRpb24EcXVlcnkDdHJ1c3QgbGVnYWwg ZGVmaW5pdGlvbgRzYW8DMQR2dGVzdGlkA1ZJUDA0OQ--?p=trust%20legal%20definition&fr2=sb-top&fr=b1ie7&pqstr=trust%20legal%20definition)in them for you.