PDA

View Full Version : "Redeeming" Credit



jeffreydavid
03-04-12, 06:14 PM
Something interesting happened recently. For all of 2011 I redeemed lawful money for all transactions, but I used a credit card in TRUE NAME LAST to cover renewal of two websites in the fall of 2011. When the invoices/coupons came I paid the bill using PMO but made sure I stamped on the invoice/coupon "Deposited for Credit on Account or Redeemed in Lawful Money Per Title 12 U.S.C. 411." I believe I did that two or three times last fall for relatively small amounts (maybe $13-$20 per transaction).

Now understand I only paid the amount on the invoice/coupon - nothing more, nothing less. I received a new "invoice" yesterday which shows a zero balance paid or due from the previous pay period but now shows a "5.00-" balance due. I will have to dig out the old statements from last year to verify the invoices and payments again, but it seems strange to me that the card is being credited for $5.00 when no overpayment has occurred in the past.

Once I confirm that the statements in fact were as I believe I will comment again. I just thought it was interesting that a credit now shows and I wonder if it has to do with the endorsement stamped on their invoice/coupon.

David Merrill
03-04-12, 11:10 PM
That is very interesting!

Thanks for keeping a close look at what is going on. Here is some Crosstalk:


I had a lengthy discussion with a suitor, who is qualified as in tax preparation and we went into some of the fundamentals of credit. He might have been coming from a different perspective but as I got it, we were discussing after one has published Notice and Demand in the county clerk, USDC and served that same N&D on the nearest Fed Bank, on might continue using a Credit Card without endorsing private credit. Of course my take is that we should discard the Credit Cards and use Debit Cards. We covered this extensively so I will just bring out some points that stuck with me.



His notion was that since N&D is properly given it is incumbent upon the bankers to watch their P?s and Q?s about lending fractionally on any funds in your account, since you have clearly not bonded any increase in the money supply (you have not endorsed a credit to the national debt). If they bond without authorization from you, the creditor, then that is counterfeiting money. So without anybody to monitor that, they will probably get away with it but I am not ready to send suitors into banking oversight.



This leads me to take the perspective of any black-robed attorney supposing this issue gets into court. By having the preponderance of credit ? Credit Card ? one accepts private credit. The attorney in the black robe will suppose that one day you will need to replace your transmission and so by private emergency you will need to take your credit card company up on their offer that you can take another 30 days or more to pay up the CC bill? By asking for credit in other words, you provided your Personal Information as debtor. Information indicts! You have already submitted your Name as granting Power of Attorney (http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/6872/nameinagent.jpg) to the CC Company.

[I have amended my thought on that. As soon as you use a credit card you are getting credit. If you do not pay it off in the grace period, you get penalized.]

This really got fascinating from there though! We described the distinction between FRNs and USNs and decided that a loan is always granting credit. So one needs to provide Information if one wants a loan ? consistently ? whether elastic currency or not. So with the N&D in place properly served, is there any difference in the taxability of credit? Since you are specifying non-elastic currency with the N&D are transactions by the Credit Card considered taxable income?



We brought up the Atlanta Fed suit (http://img808.imageshack.us/img808/9716/frbsuedreport6811.pdf) last year. I tried to convince BEACH that he needed to describe his injury, a class action for us all that the US notes are tied in value to the Fed notes that depreciates them both! He gave me no credit if you like the pun. Get a look though (http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/3416/doc1complaint.pdf). If a suitor with understanding tried suing the Fed, then maybe a proper description of the Injury could be lodged.

jeffreydavid
03-05-12, 01:14 AM
Another suitor and I talked about the use of credit cards at length just before I began complete redemption of lawful money and stopped using the credit cards. What we never determined was the following - at the time we spoke he believed you could use up to $6,000 since he was under the assumption that is the minimum amount of credit you needed to use to be "forced" to "file a return." I don't believe the amount is correct as I believe the current minimum amount of "credit" one needs to use is about $13,000 (give or take) to have to file a return. But his thought, which makes total sense, was why give them any reason at all to come through the gate? Just don't use them.

But as a follow up on that thought, since my car accident two weeks ago I am in need of renting a car. But the rental agencies only use credit or debit, no cash. Yes, one can use a debit card and they will pull an extra $200 or so off the top "just in case" but what a pain. Then you have to hope no one takes that number and drains any cash from the account (side note: I keep a minimum balance in that account just in case something like that happens).

But anyway, it would be nice to be able to use up to a predetermined amount on a credit card each year without issue. But thus far I am not sure how one can. Thanks for the Xtalk above. I find it very interesting but without knowing more of the situation they speak of I am not completely confident I comprehend exactly the point they are making.

Sabo
03-05-12, 02:31 AM
There's something I don't understand with this, though.

Your private credit is with an issuing lender - which not all are Fed banks, correct? It certainly must be possible to have private credit with a private entity without involving fractional lending (on what?) or other federal 'privilege'. I enter a contract with you, and you tell me you'll pay for up to $10,000 of anything I want, as long as I simply pay you back, including any interest if I haven't squared up with you by the end of each month.

But in any event, it's not like you have "money", even on paper, with a credit card. You're in the hole if you use it. It's not 'income' (IRS definition or otherwise), and you don't ever report it on a return (assuming you're subject to a return, that is).
I'm just having trouble following the logic on how every instance of a 'private credit' would subject you to any sort of income tax. You pay for my things, and I pay you back in lawful money.

jeffreydavid
03-05-12, 09:50 PM
As far as I comprehend it every time you endorse private credit it is use. And the "tax" is nothing more than tribute. Therefore, there should be no difference between someone who doesn't work at all (think of a non-working spouse) who uses credit cards compared to their spouse who endorses private credit. Now what if the spouse who works converts to lawful money but the other continues to buy on credit cards, let's say, $40,000 per year. My bet is the IRS will be knocking down their door to collect on use of that private credit. Others can clarify this much better than I, but using credit is the taxable event, and every credit card is backed by the system so therefore it is endorsing private credit when one is used.

jeffreydavid
03-08-12, 05:43 PM
Update - "Redeeming Credit" confirmed. On December 18, 2011 a charge was placed for $22.16. I didn't notice this before but there was already a $0.10 credit balance from my prior payment that also had my demand stamped on it. The resulting balance due was $22.06 which was paid via PMO on or after January 5, 2012 for the same amount. On the coupon I stamped "DEPOSITED FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUNT OR REDEEMED IN LAWFUL MONEY PER TITLE 12 U.S.C. 411" in red letters.

On the new statement I recently received the Previous balance shows "$0.00" but shows Other Credits as "5.00." Under New Balance it shows "$5.00-"

Go figure. Definitely something interesting there.

Sabo
03-08-12, 07:50 PM
Update - "Redeeming Credit" confirmed. On December 18, 2011 a charge was placed for $22.16. I didn't notice this before but there was already a $0.10 credit balance from my prior payment that also had my demand stamped on it. The resulting balance due was $22.06 which was paid via PMO on or after January 5, 2012 for the same amount. On the coupon I stamped "DEPOSITED FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUNT OR REDEEMED IN LAWFUL MONEY PER TITLE 12 U.S.C. 411" in red letters.

On the new statement I recently received the Previous balance shows "$0.00" but shows Other Credits as "5.00." Under New Balance it shows "$5.00-"

Go figure. Definitely something interesting there.

You should call and ask first. I have a lot of trouble believing a webhost would have some sort of federal ties that would adjust your balance just for redeeming lawful money.. or even know what that means.

David Merrill
03-08-12, 11:43 PM
Update - "Redeeming Credit" confirmed. On December 18, 2011 a charge was placed for $22.16. I didn't notice this before but there was already a $0.10 credit balance from my prior payment that also had my demand stamped on it. The resulting balance due was $22.06 which was paid via PMO on or after January 5, 2012 for the same amount. On the coupon I stamped "DEPOSITED FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUNT OR REDEEMED IN LAWFUL MONEY PER TITLE 12 U.S.C. 411" in red letters.

On the new statement I recently received the Previous balance shows "$0.00" but shows Other Credits as "5.00." Under New Balance it shows "$5.00-"

Go figure. Definitely something interesting there.

Indeed, that is interesting. This is classical coupon redemption and it appears there is an account to draw from when there is not. It is a mechanism of credit I am sure of it. I have used POMC's long ago and observed this too. The real mechanism is that if you offer legal tender and the creditor refuses it, then the debt is waived. The coupon is legal tender.

About the Credit Card confusion.

It is difficult to ponder about. I spent over an hour discussing this with a very informed suitor the other day and a couple hours later it became clear. The moment you pay for something with a credit card you have accepted private credit. The confusion - in my mind at least during the conversation was that the credit started in 30 days! That is when the penalties begin, not the credit.



I hope that helps.

David Merrill.

freedave
03-10-12, 03:07 AM
Today I sent to my brokerage firm the check I have been holding onto.

On the back it has
Deposit for credit on account
to be redeemed in lawful money
USCA12 section 411
above my signature.

Lawful
03-10-12, 06:00 PM
When it comes to credit card use, I have never received any paperwork (1099's) for my credit cards. I have one with the bank I currently use and they send me a 1099 for the interest I made on my interest bearing account (all of 2 dollars) nothing to do with the ccard. Just my experience.

David Merrill
03-11-12, 12:59 AM
Today I sent to my brokerage firm the check I have been holding onto.

On the back it has
Deposit for credit on account
to be redeemed in lawful money
USCA12 section 411
above my signature.

Everything will go smoothly I bet. Thanks for letting us know.

Lawful;

Thank you too.

Chex
03-11-12, 03:17 AM
(a) In this section?
(1) ?gold clause? means a provision in or related to an obligation alleging to give the obligee a right to require payment in?
(A) gold;
(B) a particular United States coin or currency; or
(C) United States money measured in gold or a particular United States coin or currency.

(2) ?public debt obligation? means a domestic obligation issued or guaranteed by the United States Government to repay money or interest.
(b) The United States Government may not pay out any gold coin. A person lawfully holding United States coins and currency may present the coins and currency to the Secretary of the Treasury for exchange (dollar for dollar) for other United States coins and currency (other than gold and silver coins) that may be lawfully held. The Secretary shall make the exchange under regulations prescribed by the Secretary.

(c)
(1) The Government withdraws its consent given to anyone to assert against the Government, its agencies, or its officers, employees, or agents, a claim?
(A) on a gold clause public debt obligation or interest on the obligation;
(B) for United States coins or currency; or
(C) arising out of the surrender, requisition, seizure, or acquisition of United States coins or currency, gold, or silver involving the effect or validity of a change in the metallic content of the dollar or in a regulation about the value of money.

(2) Paragraph (1) of this subsection does not apply to a proceeding in which no claim is made for payment or credit in an amount greater than the face or nominal value in dollars of public debt obligations or United States coins or currency involved in the proceeding.

(3) Except when consent is not withdrawn under this subsection, an amount appropriated for payment on public debt obligations and for United States coins and currency may be expended only dollar for dollar.

(d)
(1) In this subsection, ?obligation? means any obligation (except United States currency) payable in United States money.
(2) An obligation issued containing a gold clause or governed by a gold clause is discharged on payment (dollar for dollar) in United States coin or currency that is legal tender at the time of payment. This paragraph does not apply to an obligation issued after October 27, 1977.

American_National
03-12-12, 09:56 PM
When it comes to credit card use, I have never received any paperwork (1099's) for my credit cards. I have one with the bank I currently use and they send me a 1099 for the interest I made on my interest bearing account (all of 2 dollars) nothing to do with the ccard. Just my experience.

As food for thought and a sanity check in regards to the above mentioned scenario . . . When one places their demand for Lawful Money of Exchange in all transactions within the cognizance of the federal reserve districts, cities, and their resultant service area member financial institutions who handle their FRN's - wouldn't the regulation below apply in any token interest amounts generated by one keeping a "regular deposit of lawful money as the credit of identical money to account only" on hand and available within one's checking account established at a local financial institution?

Per 31 USC 3124
(a)Stocks and obligations of the United States Government are exempt from taxation by a State or political subdivision of a State. The exemption applies to each form of taxation that would require the obligation, the interest on the obligation, or both, to be considered in computing a tax, except -

(1) a nondiscriminatory franchise tax or another nonproperty tax instead of a franchise tax, imposed on a corporation; and

(2) an estate or inheritance tax.

I have been pondering this over most of the weekend . . .

If one is not among the list of PERSONS who are classified as being:

1. A (federal) State (not a foreign state) chartered corporation who has a nondiscriminatory franchise/non-property tax imposed on it's commercial activities.
2. A U.S. PERSON owning an estate generating token-interest income from a taxable source, or;
3. One who acts in filling the role as a fiduciary for a DECEASED U.S. PERSON's estate presently generating token-interest income from a taxable source.
4. A qualified heir to a deceased U.S. PERSON's estate that benefits from generated token-interest income from a taxable source.

Then wouldn't 31 USC 3124 make any resultant token-interest amounts generated by one's use of Lawful Public Money of Exchange exempt from any extra-Constitutional taxation, as such amounts physically received would originate from an income source not taxable by the federal "United States"? (such interest would be lawful money as well per one's prior Notice and Demand)

Also;

26 CFR 1.312-6(b) "Earnings and Profits" plainly speaks of THREE different types of income:

1) "all income exempted by statute";
2) "income not taxable by the Federal Government under the Constitution";
3) "income which is "includible in gross income under section 61."

And further . . .

"The United States Government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state." [N.Y. v. re Merriam 36 N.E. 505; 141 N.Y. 479; affirmed 16 S.Ct. 1073; 41 L. Ed. 287]

28 U.S.C 3002 (15) (A-C) defines "United States" as
(A) A federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of [U](a federal corporation d.b.a.) the "United States"; or
(C) an instrumentality of (a federal corporation d.b.a.) the "United States".

Thoughts? Suggestions? Counter-points?

Rock Anthony
03-13-12, 12:11 AM
Update - "Redeeming Credit" confirmed. On December 18, 2011 a charge was placed for $22.16. I didn't notice this before but there was already a $0.10 credit balance from my prior payment that also had my demand stamped on it. The resulting balance due was $22.06 which was paid via PMO on or after January 5, 2012 for the same amount. On the coupon I stamped "DEPOSITED FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUNT OR REDEEMED IN LAWFUL MONEY PER TITLE 12 U.S.C. 411" in red letters.

On the new statement I recently received the Previous balance shows "$0.00" but shows Other Credits as "5.00." Under New Balance it shows "$5.00-"

Go figure. Definitely something interesting there.

I'm probably drawing at straws here, but Gold stock is valued at $42.22 per fine troy ounce. If you double the amount of the charge, $22.16, and then deduct that earlier $0.10 credit, you get $42.22. Coincidence?

;)

David Merrill
03-19-12, 01:39 AM
Good eye, Rock!

That is very interesting indeed.

freedave
03-23-12, 10:06 PM
Everything will go smoothly I bet. Thanks for letting us know.

Lawful;

Thank you too.

Hello David,

I just saw your response.

The check now shows online as being credited to my account.

I also sent out another one a few days ago -- I added "without prejudice" above the signature.

I forgot to make a copy of the front and back like I did for the first one, but I have another one ready to go, with copy already made, when I see that the second one has cleared

David Merrill
03-24-12, 01:16 PM
I have never credited much to "without prejudice". Especially since you are handling financial instruments. "Without Recourse" makes more sense to me, but I never handle anything but cash so I sign very little.

freedave
03-26-12, 01:10 AM
I have never credited much to "without prejudice". Especially since you are handling financial instruments. "Without Recourse" makes more sense to me, but I never handle anything but cash so I sign very little.

OK, would adding "Without Recourse" provide any additional advantage?

David Merrill
03-26-12, 03:49 PM
I don't think so. If you are redeeming lawful money then the obligations are set out by the signatures.

freedave
03-27-12, 05:23 AM
I don't think so. If you are redeeming lawful money then the obligations are set out by the signatures.

Thank you, David.

My second check has cleared, a third is ready to be mailed...

Freed Gerdes
04-30-12, 04:38 AM
What about just using a Debit Card? No credit is involved: your account (which hopefully contains lawful money which you previously redeemed into it by demand) is immediately debited the full amount. This cannot be construed as 'use' of fed credit, as the transaction is completed immediately, with lawful money.

Freed Gerdes

David Merrill
04-30-12, 06:07 AM
What about just using a Debit Card? No credit is involved: your account (which hopefully contains lawful money which you previously redeemed into it by demand) is immediately debited the full amount. This cannot be construed as 'use' of fed credit, as the transaction is completed immediately, with lawful money.

Freed Gerdes


Very true. However a lot of times you will be conditioned to bill yourself; as in bill of indictment. Did you give any billing information with your debit card?

I can buy a debit card for $200 for example. But when I make a purchase on PayPal or otherwise on the Internet I have to "activate" the card and they want my SSN. I do not have a SSN so that starts to kluge up the process for them, not me. I explain that I do not owe them any Information because it is already paid up in lawful money. I usually have to spend 40 minutes doing this until I get the ear of the attorney for VISA. I explain that the only obligations in the transaction are met by the Secretary and US Treasurer who have already signed the bills I paid down at Safeway - the $210 I tendered lawful money.

Do you start to understand Redemption?

It is difficult to see through the conditioning but it behooves you to take a moment and examine that a clear much more lucid description is held in the fact that VISA formed a new policy around my demand that they honor the bills without carrying any presumption I ever applied for their private credit. I must have to say ten times: It is a debit card, not a credit card!


So get the New David Merrill Policy:

I have six months to use up the entire $200 on the debit card. After that time I have to call VISA and spend a half hour to activate the card for the remainder of the day until midnight. If I fail to use the remainder of the value left on the card by then I get to do that again the next time I want to use the card.


One way to do this is to simply say, Use the shipping address. But the underlings are trained to get your endorsement, I need for you to give me the billing information.

David Merrill: I do not owe you any information.

And so it starts all over again...

I have many recordings of such calls. Maybe I will get one available for you here. I cringe listening to them myself because I have to behave like such a horse's ass while they cycle through their programmed loop over and over before they can hand me up to the manager, then the attorney...

Finally with an attorney he understands and politely clears me because I already paid in lawful money. I have to brace myself and have an hour on my hands with every new debit card.

I cannot recharge a debit card too. It has to be activated to recharge and my cards never get "activated". [That is a whole new mess because they already accept my cash before they realize that the Recharge didn't go through and try getting my Information for the Refund which takes the Store Manager while the Customer Service line backs up to the block the doors...] So it is a whole new experience every debit card and if I don't spend it all within six months the time-extensive David Merrill Policy kicks in for me to spend the remaining balance online so I usually spend the remainder at Checkout on groceries after making my online purchase, before midnight.


If you are patient enough you can lead an interesting and very edifying life around this issue. For a while though, it really did seem to be becoming my life. Now I like to keep a few friends in the system who don't mind at all making more purchases and bolstering their credit for an $8 lunch at Village Inn.

Freed Gerdes
06-09-12, 02:58 AM
I can see how the prepaid debit card can become a full-time distraction. However, I have a bank account, which will soon be holding only lawful money, and the debit card draws directly against that account. So, no FRN's, no debt obligations involved. The FRN's were redeemed before the account was funded. I also have a credit card with the same bank. I will try to get the bank to consider part of the deposited lawful money as funding the credit card, ie it becomes a defacto debit card. The difference is that many vendors will not take a debit card. I note the other commenters here concerned that use of a credit card assumes Federal Reserve credit, and that the IRS might want to come after the tax on its use. So far, IRCode identifies income, and sets the amount of tax on the amount of income. Use of a credit card cannot be construed as income under present IRS policy (could that change? - hell, yea), particularly if you pay it off in full when billed, as you will note that while the 'credit' begins with the date of purchase, charging you for the credit used does not begin until you establish an unpaid balance, ie, use is free if paid off in full when billed.

David Merrill
06-09-12, 03:54 AM
I can see how the prepaid debit card can become a full-time distraction. However, I have a bank account, which will soon be holding only lawful money, and the debit card draws directly against that account. So, no FRN's, no debt obligations involved. The FRN's were redeemed before the account was funded. I also have a credit card with the same bank. I will try to get the bank to consider part of the deposited lawful money as funding the credit card, ie it becomes a defacto debit card. The difference is that many vendors will not take a debit card. I note the other commenters here concerned that use of a credit card assumes Federal Reserve credit, and that the IRS might want to come after the tax on its use. So far, IRCode identifies income, and sets the amount of tax on the amount of income. Use of a credit card cannot be construed as income under present IRS policy (could that change? - hell, yea), particularly if you pay it off in full when billed, as you will note that while the 'credit' begins with the date of purchase, charging you for the credit used does not begin until you establish an unpaid balance, ie, use is free if paid off in full when billed.

You sound very informed.

You present some "facts" though, that I am unsure about.

I am unaware that venders will not accept debit cards. Don't you run a debit card like a credit card? It seems that a debit card is an immediate guaranteed transfer of funds.

Also when you give billing information you indict yourself. So the credit card is the situation where you must provide the billing information, not the debit card. I went through a drama with T-Mobile (keyword for a search around here) and revealed by deduction how they wanted Information and finally relented to getting none. - Possibly they even came up with the Pre-Paid Plan I am now on just for me.

I sure like the way you have tied lawful money demand into the credit system!

Moxie
04-25-13, 02:24 PM
Very true. However a lot of times you will be conditioned to bill yourself; as in bill of indictment. Did you give any billing information with your debit card?


Hi,

Just wondering if a solution would be to create a business name to use with the billing address so the fiction takes the heat and not the living soul. Would that work?

Moxie
04-25-13, 02:38 PM
I can buy a debit card for $200 for example. But when I make a purchase on PayPal or otherwise on the Internet I have to "activate" the card and they want my SSN.

You're talking about those reloadable debit cards, right? The ones sold on the kiosk along with the gift cards? The Visa Vanilla card does not require a SS# in order to activate it to use on the internet. The activation process only asks for a zip.

However, if one wants to reload that same card or make recurring payments with that card, they want a SS#. Perhaps one can put all 9's or 0's if one doesn't have a SS#?

David Merrill
04-25-13, 03:24 PM
You're talking about those reloadable debit cards, right? The ones sold on the kiosk along with the gift cards? The Visa Vanilla card does not require a SS# in order to activate it to use on the internet. The activation process only asks for a zip.

However, if one wants to reload that same card or make recurring payments with that card, they want a SS#. Perhaps one can put all 9's or 0's if one doesn't have a SS#?


Yep. Thanks for the tip. I might try one of the Vanilla cards!

I believe that there are some of the audio files attached around here. The most annoying part is getting through the lower phone operators to an attorney who realizes it is a debit card - I do not owe anything at all - not even a ZIP code. That takes about 45 minutes typically.



P.S. When I buy it, I will ask the store what the ZIP code is there and use that.

amosfella
11-16-13, 09:06 AM
I've been redeeming lawful money with one non-endorsement or another since 2007. I've had credit cards since 2005. Now, I've paid them off immediately as a rule. Then I needed to carry a balance for my then GF to have a lawyer. She was too scared to do anything in the court without a lawyer.... Anyways, I'm still paying that off. However, I'm not insolvent. I can pay it. Note to self, don't be a borrower to be a lender.......... It was stupid...

Some of the places I deal with will only take credit cards for orders. Something about they get insurance if there's fraud, whereas debit purchases, etc offer no protection to them... Maybe it's different in Canada than the US. I do a lot of mail order to buy hard to find parts, bulk group orders, etc. I also have a lot of wholesale accounts, and all except one demand credit card payments, unless picked up in person... I'm not about to drive 3 12 hour days to get something I can ship for $50. I asked about money orders or postal money orders, and they refused those as well saying that those could be sent with fraud... A lot of my orders to the US require a credit card to verify shipping address.... In this regard, I'm not just paying bills for cell service and internet, it's trying to maintain my life, and as these things are not at all available locally, I have to look further.....

I see the credit card as being an agent that you are directing for you to do things in the person's name... If it's paid with lawful money, I don't believe that a taxable event has been created... Maybe I should start depositing the coupons at the bottom of the statement With the lawful money stamp affixed, and signed as certified.

I'm just thinking in the echo chamber.

David Merrill
11-16-13, 02:57 PM
Note to self, don't be a borrower to be a lender...


Thanks for that!



You make me think; I like that.

The credit card as a trust person (agent)...

I find it convoluted in the world of credit card and identity theft that companies are finding credit cards more secure? ANSWER: It is an insurance scam.

It is a direct reflection of what I call The Convolution. My BoE convolutes The Convolution.

You reveal a credit generating machine based in theft. You pay off the credit with lawful money demanded but it is absorbed back into the system as credit currency. I say that Congress renaming US notes to US currency notes (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5115?quicktabs_8=1#quicktabs-8) is the real problem of honesty, not you. However I might insist on more honest currency, at least a little bit.

allodial
11-16-13, 07:00 PM
I find it convoluted in the world of credit card and identity theft that companies are finding credit cards more secure? ANSWER: It is an insurance scam.

Having a name and an SSN associated with the card allows them at least to develop the card as an unsecured (i.e. secured by no particular thing but but everything of the person) credit card as if they actually lent something. It seems rather silly to ask for SSN's and other information for prepaid debit cards when the FRNs in the system are already underwritten by assets.It might also be helpful to consider that the notion of separation between the world of bankers and that of actuaries might only be mythical and misleading. Actuaries might be "king" rather than serf.


However I might insist on more honest currency, at least a little bit.

Perhaps through knowledge and application of knowledge we have the power to make that happen with or without Congress.

David Merrill
11-18-13, 03:47 AM
Originally Posted by David Merrill

I find it convoluted in the world of credit card and identity theft that companies are finding credit cards more secure? ANSWER: It is an insurance scam.


Having a name and an SSN associated with the card allows them at least to develop the card as an unsecured (i.e. secured by no particular thing but but everything of the person) credit card as if they actually lent something. It seems rather silly to ask for SSN's and other information for prepaid debit cards when the FRNs in the system are already underwritten by assets.It might also be helpful to consider that the notion of separation between the world of bankers and that of actuaries might only be mythical and misleading. Actuaries might be "king" rather than serf.


Yes! Search out "debit card" here and you will find my experiences a couple years back with VISA. I have phone recordings showing how they would finally relent that I did not owe them a SSN for a debit card. But certainly so if I wanted any credit.

That is an eye-opener how all credit goes back to social security as an insurance policy.



Originally Posted by David Merrill

However I might insist on more honest currency, at least a little bit.

Perhaps through knowledge and application of knowledge we have the power to make that happen with or without Congress.

Trebilcock v. Wilson comes to mind. If you can insist that legal tender is enforceable then the converse is that nobody can refuse legal tender.

David Merrill
11-18-13, 03:55 AM
I'm just thinking in the echo chamber.

Great post but I really like your insight. Even though you are not a suitor you understand what a great well of knowledge we have going in brain trust. We build as we go.

This article has shown me a lot (http://img860.imageshack.us/img860/3474/goldrequirements.pdf), especially about how Canada performed shock testing for 50 years prior to Congress forming the elastic currency here in 1913. The Crown Dominion Notes are for all intents and purposes your current Bank of Canada notes. Your central bank has been dealing in reserve banking and fractional lending so long you probably have no sense of it in the academic teachings as being criminal syndicalism.

I noted your other post about the non-endorsement stamping. I will address that there.

amosfella
11-18-13, 07:07 AM
I read that article before. It's basically what I read about in a book called "Tragedy and Hope".
I was reading about the British history of fractional reserve banking, and how Barclays (?) began the fractional reserve process that was used to build the British empire in the 1600s. According to the book, the had core gold holdings, and then they issued pledges 10x the amount of gold that they had in the reserves. After that, they issued more paper that was redeemable in gold certificates only to the tune of 10X the amount of the gold certificates issued. They effectively multiplied their gold reserves for pay of soldiers and other military items by 100X what a strict gold standard would have allowed them to build. Their ability to beat the French and Spanish in wars was built around this as was their wars of conquest that made it possible to way "The sun never sets on the British Empire."

David Merrill
11-25-13, 11:42 PM
Yes. I doubt Congress will do anything. I watched Ronald Ernest PAUL try three times and all he got were a few colorful labels.

Amosfella;

I heard a great quote from Deepok CHOPRA - If you like material things, teach others to be prosperous.

amosfella
11-26-13, 07:01 PM
"Without recourse" looks like it would be handy to put on the back of a check that the payee is afraid might bounce. It looks like it would make the bank liable to collect on it, rather than clawing back funds from the payee....

amosfella
12-25-13, 02:15 AM
If what you're trying to do is hold oneself ataint, one could set up a company, and get the company to handle the credit cards in your place... As your agent. Was a technique taught by a group that were using common law trusts...

allodial
12-25-13, 05:09 PM
Also when you give billing information you indict yourself. So the credit card is the situation where you must provide the billing information, not the debit card.

Perhaps they need confession of being in a corporate venue where they can charge you twice and get way with it?

Moxie
05-29-14, 02:14 AM
Very true. However a lot of times you will be conditioned to bill yourself; as in bill of indictment. Did you give any billing information with your debit card?


What's the worst that can happen?

David Merrill
05-29-14, 09:26 AM
By giving the Information, against yourself you are identified in the same manner as if you are carrying a credit card. Overall, the metaphysics is quite astounding, but you might just tend to fit in with the crowd; and therefore not notice a thing. Everybody is in debt who is conditioned to think that debt is money.

Moxie
05-29-14, 03:03 PM
By giving the Information, against yourself you are identified in the same manner as if you are carrying a credit card. Overall, the metaphysics is quite astounding, but you might just tend to fit in with the crowd; and therefore not notice a thing. Everybody is in debt who is conditioned to think that debt is money.

What about when men/women fill out a W-4 or other gov form with an employer and fill it out correctly so as to be employable and not rock the boat with HR? Seems like the same type of information is being revealed there too. This is what I don't get. Any stories about what monsters come out when this happens?

Plus I thought this ID info was for the monopoly game piece name used in commerce, in the two-dimensional world, not the actual man or woman.

David Merrill
05-31-14, 10:25 AM
I prefer to stick with the basic truth.

It became so I dread the 45-minute phone calls in order to use my debit card funds without Information. I have to convince an attorney at VISA that since I have already paid for the card funds - debit card - and VISA is not extending me any credit, I do not owe VISA anything, even credit information.

selenahill21
12-29-14, 07:15 AM
Thanks for the helpful information. For those credit card users, I have always had a single recommendation. The PenFed (http://personalmoneynetwork.com/moneyblog/2013/01/07/penfed-promise-visa/) Promise has become the credit card for people who hate banks besides, it is a rarity among charge cards. How so? Try its no-fee structure, for starters. If you or a member of your household is a member of the U.S. armed forces or affiliated group, you are eligible to join Pentagon Federal Credit Union and make an application for the card.

David Merrill
12-29-14, 03:15 PM
Welcome Selena; Thanks for that kind of insight.

This is a long shot, but in context of the post above it would be inspirational to get a PFC debit card without giving information.