PDA

View Full Version : My first steps to redeeming Lawful Money are underway, but I need guidance.



DebasedCurrency
01-12-13, 08:57 AM
I stopped by my Credit Union to put the restricted endorsement on my signature card. The branch manager wanted to know why I was requesting such an unusual thing, so I told her. Naturally, she had absolutely NO idea what I was talking about. Befuddled, she wanted the request in writing. I told her I would comply with that.

The following is the actual text of the letter that I drafted up. It is written by hand. It is yet to be sent, but when I do send it, it's going by way of certified mail with return reciept.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I, The Suitor, DBA THE SUITOR, am hereby this letter making my official demand that all withdrawals and deposits, by whatever means, for the accounts opened under my person, are to be redeemed for lawful money pursuant to Title 12 U.S.C. subsection 411. My account signature card needs to reflect the new restricted endorsement. I do not endorse private credit from the Federal Reserve.

THE SUITOR
Account #: XXXXXXXXXX

In good faith,
The Suitor's true name
The Suitor's address (-zip)
Phone #
Email Address

Signed, and Dated,

My Signature, & the date it was signed (NOTARIZED IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK)


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After it was notarized, I stopped by the courthouse to open an evidence repository, but was unsuccesful. None of the clerks had any idea what I was talking about. Apparently opening an evidence repository is extremely uncommon.

Before I send this letter to the Credit Union, I would like to first enter it into an evidence repository, but I need help on this part.

Am I doing this all correctly? I feel like such a novice. I think the following adage is appropriate: "We only learn new things when we step outside of our comfort zone"

David Merrill
01-12-13, 09:26 AM
I stopped by my Credit Union to put the restricted endorsement on my signature card. The branch manager wanted to know why I was requesting such an unusual thing, so I told her. Naturally, she had absolutely NO idea what I was talking about. Befuddled, she wanted the request in writing. I told her I would comply with that.

The following is the actual text of the letter that I drafted up. It is written by hand. It is yet to be sent, but when I do send it, it's going by way of certified mail with return reciept.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I, The Suitor, DBA THE SUITOR, am hereby this letter making my official demand that all withdrawals and deposits, by whatever means, for the accounts opened under my person, are to be redeemed for lawful money pursuant to Title 12 U.S.C. subsection 411. My account signature card needs to reflect the new restricted endorsement. I do not endorse private credit from the Federal Reserve.

THE SUITOR
Account #: XXXXXXXXXX

In good faith,
The Suitor's true name
The Suitor's address (-zip)
Phone #
Email Address

Signed, and Dated,

My Signature, & the date it was signed (NOTARIZED IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK)


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After it was notarized, I stopped by the courthouse to open an evidence repository, but was unsuccesful. None of the clerks had any idea what I was talking about. Apparently opening an evidence repository is extremely uncommon.

Before I send this letter to the Credit Union, I would like to first enter it into an evidence repository, but I need help on this part.

Am I doing this all correctly? I feel like such a novice. I think the following adage is appropriate: "We only learn new things when we step outside of our comfort zone"

Basically you have been conditioned to be subservient.

You just want to correct your signature. That is all. You do not need to request to correct your signature. The non-endorsement is part of your signature now. You want to integrate your demand for lawful money into your signature.

The clerks at the federal courthouses are becoming tight about opening Miscellaneous Case files ($46). The Fed banks seem to have shut down to professional process servers too. It is inconvenient but an affidavit of due diligence (attempt to serve) works as well. What all this shows is that we have the same inherent right to redeem lawful money demonstrated in MILAM:

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/6635/publicmoneycase1title.jpg

DebasedCurrency
01-12-13, 10:19 AM
I've made great strides to break the bonds that hold me, or at least change my attitude to one of non-acceptance.
I can see the matrix for what it is now.

If you read the letter carefully, I am not asking for permission; I am exercising my Right.

I feel the letter serves a dual purpose; It is my official demand as required in 12USC411, which will be on record at the court house, and it is also a way to get my signature card changed.

I want my signature card changed as notification to my Credit Union that they are dealing with an inelastic money, and cannot use my monies as reserves for fractional reserve lending. I prefer to give them a heads up.

Perhaps I was asking the wrong question. I'll have to try opening a Miscellaneous Case file instead. Thanks.

Also, I comprehend the importance of the Milam case.

David Merrill
01-13-13, 12:28 AM
I've made great strides to break the bonds that hold me, or at least change my attitude to one of non-acceptance.
I can see the matrix for what it is now.

If you read the letter carefully, I am not asking for permission; I am exercising my Right.

I feel the letter serves a dual purpose; It is my official demand as required in 12USC411, which will be on record at the court house, and it is also a way to get my signature card changed.

I want my signature card changed as notification to my Credit Union that they are dealing with an inelastic money, and cannot use my monies as reserves for fractional reserve lending. I prefer to give them a heads up.

Perhaps I was asking the wrong question. I'll have to try opening a Miscellaneous Case file instead. Thanks.

Also, I comprehend the importance of the Milam case.

You are doing far more than most. I apologize for coming off critical. You are doing great; thanks for explaining your objectives. I don't know why I did not see it as record-forming.

If you can manage it get the $46 withdrawn by demanded lawful money like below, when it was $39:


http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/4149/nonendorsementredemptio.jpg

Go do that at your bank so that the manager might better understand when you show a certified copy from the USDC. It will have that Demand on it from her bank.

Next, suitors are indicating that the US clerks of court are becoming unwilling to open Miscellaneous Case files for evidence repositories. You might be better to hire a professional process server to go file it for you. Give him the money and basic instructions and the clerk will likely file it because he will be recording testimony.



Regards,

David Merrill.

DebasedCurrency
01-14-13, 05:56 PM
Thank you for the compliments.

I'll go to the Credit Union today to withdraw the $46 in Lawful Money to open the Misc. Case File.

I know where to go now :) ...There is a District Court across the river; I was in the wrong Court, making an incorrect demand.

I'll enter a copy of that withdrawal into the misc. case file after it's opened. I'll get everything notarized.

Of note, I also cross through the "the order of" when I write a check. I just started doing it a few checks ago. I'm not forwarding credit anymore; I'm actually paying people.

I'll try to do this myself without the process server, but if need be I'll go that route.

Again, thank you,

Debased

Ambientlght
01-15-13, 01:13 AM
IN the MILAM case where it says he was entitled to redeem the note but not entitled to redeem it in precious metal, how do you get that this was to mean entitled to redeem in lawful money or precious metal? To me it reads was entitled to redeem the note only in money or currency that the US borrowed from the federal reserve on their credit.
Clarification in this matter is appreciated.

Tom

martin earl
01-15-13, 03:05 AM
IN the MILAM case where it says he was entitled to redeem the note but not entitled to redeem it in precious metal, how do you get that this was to mean entitled to redeem in lawful money or precious metal? To me it reads was entitled to redeem the note only in money or currency that the US borrowed from the federal reserve on their credit.
Clarification in this matter is appreciated.

Tom

Tom, US treasury notes are not 'borrowed money' they are, in fact, backed directly by gold reserves at face value. While you and I cannot actually get our hands on the gold coins, they were in circulation in the past. Those coins are now held in trust and back up to 300 million in redeemed money.

The demand for lawful money per 12 USC 411 is a demand for backed, lawful US Notes, when 300 million +/- get redeemed in one year, then the US has an issue. I have wondered what would happen if a MEGA lotto winner demanded lawful money for a check over 300 million, since it would take the entire yearly supply of lawful money with one demand/restricted endorsement!!!

DebasedCurrency
01-15-13, 01:29 PM
*Update-

I went to the District Court yesterday to open up that misc. case file, but the clerk said I needed a case(?) to do so. Apparently, I have to actually be pursuing an action to open up a case file; They will not just hold my papers on file simply because I might need them as evidence in the future for an unspecified(in their view) reason. I may file the LoR, or something else, in order to accomplish my goal of opening an evidence repository. We'll see what is the most appropriate way to proceed...

In any event, I spoke to another suitor on the phone, someone much more knowledgable about these matters than myself, and it looks like I may be hiring a professional process server to deliver my notice/demand. I'll do whatever it takes to accomplish my goal.

For clarification, I'll photograph the actual letters, along with any other pertinent papers, and post them to this thread for reference.

DebasedCurrency
01-18-13, 12:34 AM
10581059
Images of the redemption process

David Merrill
01-18-13, 12:41 AM
Isn't that something! The bank teller would not give you copies of a financial instrument!

It is of couse a good idea to arrive with a copy in case you get that same teller. I would request in the future and I think they will have corrected that. I think that a teller refusing to give you copies of instruments is inappropriate.

DebasedCurrency
01-18-13, 12:59 AM
I stopped in the Credit Union today to withdraw some cash, and the same teller was there; Her and I had a nice chat as the exchange took place. I think she is more receptive to the idea now. She asked me if I was studying to be a lawyer. Haha.

NO1UNO
01-18-13, 11:01 PM
I have a question please forgive if this is the wrong thread for this. I have not had a bank acct in over 8 years due to IRS issues. I currently cash my paychecks directly at the credit union from which they are drawn and take the money with me. My question is, is there any reason legally or otherwise that I can not or should not immediately start demanding lawful money when I cash these? As I am new to this process I do not yet have an evidence repository but would like to start dealing in lawful money and start creating a record with the photocopied checks. So far in what I've read on the site everything involving the banks centered around the signature card statement. As I have no acct I'm a little confused as whether or not it makes any difference.

Thank you for your time and consideration.
Rick

David Merrill
01-20-13, 02:35 PM
I have a question please forgive if this is the wrong thread for this. I have not had a bank acct in over 8 years due to IRS issues. I currently cash my paychecks directly at the credit union from which they are drawn and take the money with me. My question is, is there any reason legally or otherwise that I can not or should not immediately start demanding lawful money when I cash these? As I am new to this process I do not yet have an evidence repository but would like to start dealing in lawful money and start creating a record with the photocopied checks. So far in what I've read on the site everything involving the banks centered around the signature card statement. As I have no acct I'm a little confused as whether or not it makes any difference.

Thank you for your time and consideration.
Rick

Yes. If you support a growing national debt and like the IRS as a collection arm for the Fed.

About the evidence repository - it seems more and more that the US clerks have 'gotten the memo' about people opening a $46 evidence repository. They are utilizing a rule that there must be a case file. [However I have seen where the IRS does not need a case to get a judicial summons (http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/1001/bobschulzrevealingappea.jpg) via a Miscellaneous Case file.] I have been using an evidence repository since 2008 and the clerk still puts my R4C's on the Basel Accord final rule etc. into it without question. I use a professional process server every time. Usually a Certificate of Mailing - that is the service ($30).

That adds up pretty fast though. However having a published paper trail is important to me. I suggest that you use that if you do not want to file a $350 LoR. Try getting a process server to file your Miscellaneous Case file, with your Notice and Demand.

NO1UNO
01-27-13, 08:07 AM
I was referring more to say identity issues such as do I need to have my DL changed to true name versus legal or just any other this is critical do this first sort of items that I may not be aware of.

I also have what may be another dumb or misguided question. Is a notary public a court of record? If so this could possibly provide a less expensive way of creating an record of evidence.

Thank you for time and consideration.
Rick

shikamaru
01-27-13, 10:58 AM
Is a notary public a court of record?
Rick

A notary public is an office(r). A notary public is administrative, not even a court to hold.

A court of record, at common law, was/is a court with the ability to hold participants in contempt and fine or at least one of its criteria.

drbradb1
01-30-13, 12:44 AM
Hi I just went to Chase Bank where I have a private account. I had two requests one that the original signature card be amended and that the account would now draw 0 interest. Well after about 50 minutes and the "commercial" banker and the Bank supervisor both admitting the had no clue as to what fractional reserve banking is I figured I was stuck.But I persevered to the point that on a computer screen in the general comments section of my account page I had typed in " All Transactions in this Account are deemed to made in Lawful Money; Title 12 section 411." I had the word deemed not redeemed in the statement. Is this a fatal flaw David? Also I had the account changed to a zero interest account. Any comments on deemed v redeemed?
Brad

Franco
02-22-13, 02:48 AM
Mr. Merrill
I did as you told us all to do. I went to a bank today and I told them I want to open a non-bearing interest checking account.
The lady told me she could do that for me. I then told her that my practice in all business contracts was to get copies of everything I signed.
She told me she couldn’t give me copies. I told her than we wouldn’t be able to do business.
She told me she would talk to her manager. She came back and told me her manager said I could get copies.
To make things short, when
it got time for to sign the signature card , I pulled out two stamps.
The first had “all transaction and deposits demanded in lawful money pursuant to 12 USC sec 411.I stamped the signature card with it.
The second stamp had my signature (true name in cursor First and Middle only) and below it “dba lawful name all in caps) and stamp that below true name.
She asked me what those extra stamps was for? I told her it was to stop taxation on by benefits. That’s why I was asking for no interest bearing accounts. She didn’t question me any more.
I saw I was being lucky, so I opened a second account and did exactly the same on the second signature card. Then I asked to transfer my social security account from another bank to her bankand she did do so. I Signed that signature card.
I stamp the checks on the back Demanding lawful money pursuant to 12USC sec 411 signed true name and dba all caps my lawful name.
I cashed all my checks got copies of all three signature cards. I also got Copies of all my checks front and back .
She went to her manager to make sure that my signature would be accepted. Took a while. So I was thinking well here it comes (the denial).
The Manager came over to her cubicle to talk to me. He said the signature stamp if stolen or lost and some one else came in and used it fraudulentely, I cannot claim my moneys.
I asked what he wanted me to do he said just sign over the stamped signature in ink pen. So that is what I did. True name(First Middle) and below dba lawful name all in caps).
However after I got home I discover an error on my part. On the middle paragraph of signature card titled certification: it had paragraphs 1,2, and 3. It’s paragraph “3” I am worried about. It states , “I am a U.S. citizen or other U.S. person (as defined in the form W-9 instructions)
I have already signed twice on each signaturecard on each of the three accounts. And on all three I forgot to correct this error.
Actually when they told me to sign my name in ink pen I got another set of 3 copies for that correction in the signature card.
I plan to go back tomorrow and ask them to call OPM and the VA to put the checks directely into my opened accounts. And ask if another change can be made to signature card. Where it says I am a U.S. Citizen, I plan to strike out the “a” in “I am “a” U.S. Citizen” and write “not” below it.
If they don’t allow me to alter the signature card then I plan write out an amendment to signature card. Explaining the error. The error being that “I am not a U.S. Citizen or person . and add that that amendment to my bank accounts. I also plan to add IRS cannot inspect my accounts without a Form 6014 signed by me.
Any better ideas on how to go about doing this are welcome.
If I cannot change it on my signature card how detrimental will it be to use it in my fight against IRS? And can IRS collect for CTC liabilities owed for past years from my lawful money in my bank accounts?
Thank you very much. Franco



Mr. Merrill
I did as you told us all to do. I went to a bank today and I told them I want to open a non-bearing interest checking account.
The lady told me she could do that for me. I then told her that my practice in all business contracts was to get copies of everything I signed.
She told me she couldn’t give me copies. I told her than we wouldn’t be able to do business.
She told me she would talk to her manager. She came back and told me her manager said I could get copies.
To make things short, when
it got time for to sign the signature card , I pulled out two stamps.
The first had “all transaction and deposits demanded in lawful money pursuant to 12 USC sec 411.I stamped the signature card with it.
The second stamp had my signature (true name in cursor First and Middle only) and below it “dba lawful name all in caps) and stamp that below true name.
She asked me what those extra stamps was for? I told her it was to stop taxation on by benefits. That’s why I was asking for no interest bearing accounts. She didn’t question me any more.
I saw I was being lucky, so I opened a second account and did exactly the same on the second signature card. Then I asked to transfer my social security account from another bank to her bankand she did do so. I Signed that signature card.
I stamp the checks on the back Demanding lawful money pursuant to 12USC sec 411 signed true name and dba all caps my lawful name.
I cashed all my checks got copies of all three signature cards. I also got Copies of all my checks front and back .
She went to her manager to make sure that my signature would be accepted. Took a while. So I was thinking well here it comes (the denial).
The Manager came over to her cubicle to talk to me. He said the signature stamp if stolen or lost and some one else came in and used it fraudulentely, I cannot claim my moneys.
I asked what he wanted me to do he said just sign over the stamped signature in ink pen. So that is what I did. True name(First Middle) and below dba lawful name all in caps).
However after I got home I discover an error on my part. On the middle paragraph of signature card titled certification: it had paragraphs 1,2, and 3. It’s paragraph “3” I am worried about. It states , “I am a U.S. citizen or other U.S. person (as defined in the form W-9 instructions)
I have already signed twice on each signaturecard on each of the three accounts. And on all three I forgot to correct this error.
Actually when they told me to sign my name in ink pen I got another set of 3 copies for that correction in the signature card.
I plan to go back tomorrow and ask them to call OPM and the VA to put the checks directely into my opened accounts. And ask if another change can be made to signature card. Where it says I am a U.S. Citizen, I plan to strike out the “a” in “I am “a” U.S. Citizen” and write “not” below it.
If they don’t allow me to alter the signature card then I plan write out an amendment to signature card. Explaining the error. The error being that “I am not a U.S. Citizen or person . and add that that amendment to my bank accounts. I also plan to add IRS cannot inspect my accounts without a Form 6014 signed by me.
Any better ideas on how to go about doing this are welcome.
If I cannot change it on my signature card how detrimental will it be to use it in my fight against IRS? And can IRS collect for CTC liabilities owed for past years from my lawful money in my bank accounts?
Thank you very much. Franco

Franco
02-22-13, 05:41 AM
this is added statement and question to previous post
when i go back to the bank to request to alter my signature card. in other words to change certification which states 'i am a U.S. Citizen " to " I am not a U.S. citizen" how do i explain this to banker so it will make sense? an if denied will the "all transaction demanded in lawful money pursuant to title 12 sec 411" and my signature in truth overcome this error?
thanks to any one who can help me in this problem. Franco

Darkmagus
03-30-13, 12:02 AM
I missed something... crossing out ..."the Order Of" on a check was alluded to. What's the rational or objective behind that?

Darkmagus
03-30-13, 12:06 AM
Also, my bank and many others now have ATMs that will take deposits without an envelope. These deposits don't require any signature/endorsement on the back, so why can't a demand for lawful money be made on the front? That way when your receipt, which includes a picture of the checks, is issued you have an instant record of that deposit with lawful money demand.

David Merrill
03-30-13, 09:26 AM
Also, my bank and many others now have ATMs that will take deposits without an envelope. These deposits don't require any signature/endorsement on the back, so why can't a demand for lawful money be made on the front? That way when your receipt, which includes a picture of the checks, is issued you have an instant record of that deposit with lawful money demand.

The deposit slip is your domain in my opinion. It is like a withdrawal slip. Make your demand whenever you are required to sign for cash but it is also good to do so wherever possible. When you get a paycheck though, the front side is the domain of your employer or client.

EZrhythm
03-31-13, 08:31 AM
Then there is issuing NOTICE to the bank, CC: IRS and not even being concerned on a per deposit basis.

Freed Gerdes
03-31-13, 03:52 PM
Franko, you are trying too hard. See how easy EZ makes it look? It is that easy. The bank signature card is your agreement to a contract. The bank, being a corporation, can only contract with another corporation, in this case, your cestui que vie trust, that is your three names in all caps. The bank agreement contains a lot of legal text intended to trap you into an adhesion contract with the IRS (another corporation). But all of that is predicated on your use of FRN's, because the bank's lending against your credit is what triggers the duty to pay income tax. When you redeem lawful money, which is an inelastic currency, actually backed by silver, the bank cannot lend against it, cannot use your deposit as reserves for fractional reserve lending. So now you are outside the purview of Title 26; the transaction in lawful money is not affected by Title 26. So whether you are a US citizen, which makes you a 'taxpayer,' ie, one who must pay income tax, is unimportant, as you have no taxable income. The US citizen has also given up his common law rights and agreed to be bound by Roman law (jurisdiction in Article I courts), but those municipal laws only apply to corporations, such as your CQV trust, not to you as a human person. So the most you need to put on a bank account agreement is "all transactions redeemed in lawful money per 12 USC §411," and "All rights reserved per UCC 1-207" Or as EZ puts it: just notice your bank with your demand, and leave the signature page alone.

Finally, Bentley, you say only the employer has a duty (and I agree, where you file a W-4, asking him to withhold), but what about other things than wages being taxed? Such as capital gains? What is that tax on, being there is no employer? So the demand for lawful money covers anything the IRS wants to include, all based on the use of Federal Reserve credit. Don't use the credit, don't be liable for the tax. This is tax avoidance, not evasion.

Freed

Moxie
04-01-13, 09:06 PM
Then there is issuing NOTICE to the bank, CC: IRS and not even being concerned on a per deposit basis.

So you're saying it's a simple as making any other NOTICE, for example:

NOTICE: USC Title 12 Section 411, Demand For Lawful Money

Any other vitals I missed?

David Merrill
04-02-13, 04:02 AM
There are suitors serving Notice and Demand on their local Federal Reserve Bank and then serving that on their bank. We start by getting a commission certificate from the Secretary of State on the notary. Then we file for an evidence repository in the US District Court - either a $46 Miscellaneous Case File or a $350 Libel of Review (civil counterclaim). Then the Notice and Demand is served on the Fed bank so to get a proof of service. That marked up Notice and Demand with the proof of service is finally served on the bank.

Whenever signing for cash it is wise to make the Demand though.



P.S. The more effective approach is to be the court of record.

Franco
04-12-13, 07:10 AM
Franko, you are trying too hard. See how easy EZ makes it look? It is that easy. The bank signature card is your agreement to a contract. The bank, being a corporation, can only contract with another corporation, in this case, your cestui que vie trust, that is your three names in all caps. The bank agreement contains a lot of legal text intended to trap you into an adhesion contract with the IRS (another corporation). But all of that is predicated on your use of FRN's, because the bank's lending against your credit is what triggers the duty to pay income tax. When you redeem lawful money, which is an inelastic currency, actually backed by silver, the bank cannot lend against it, cannot use your deposit as reserves for fractional reserve lending. So now you are outside the purview of Title 26; the transaction in lawful money is not affected by Title 26. So whether you are a US citizen, which makes you a 'taxpayer,' ie, one who must pay income tax, is unimportant, as you have no taxable income. The US citizen has also given up his common law rights and agreed to be bound by Roman law (jurisdiction in Article I courts), but those municipal laws only apply to corporations, such as your CQV trust, not to you as a human person. So the most you need to put on a bank account agreement is "all transactions redeemed in lawful money per 12 USC §411," and "All rights reserved per UCC 1-207" Or as EZ puts it: just notice your bank with your demand, and leave the signature page alone.

Finally, Bentley, you say only the employer has a duty (and I agree, where you file a W-4, asking him to withhold), but what about other things than wages being taxed? Such as capital gains? What is that tax on, being there is no employer? So the demand for lawful money covers anything the IRS wants to include, all based on the use of Federal Reserve credit. Don't use the credit, don't be liable for the tax. This is tax avoidance, not evasion.

Freed
Mr. Gerdes , thank you for answering my questions . I appreciate it.
I did read you statement. I found you statement , “The bank, being a corporation, can only contract with another corporation, in this case, your cestui que vie trust, that is your three names in all caps.” Interesting. I wonder I you can help with following:
Question: (1). I have already opened 3 accounts. Each account has a signature card with my true name; First and Middle name; and dba FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL and LAST NAME. all three signature card are stamped all transaction and deposits demanding lawful money pursuant to title 12 section 411. On or about the 3 day after I had signed the signature card I went back to the bank to request that I be allowed to cross out words “under penalty of perjury” and add the words “signed for” with an arrow pointing to “U.S. Citizen and “U.S. person” . she told me she could not allow me to do that , because it would make the signature card void.
(2). About 3 weeks ago I wrote a certified mail document to chase bank who I now do business with. I stated: that the IRS cannot inspect any of my bank records unless I have specifically authorized such inspection by executing IRS Form 6014. I will not sign a W-9. If I did sign W-9 form it was through coercion.I also said, I AM also NOT a U.S.Citizen or other U.S. PERSON (as defined in the Form W-9 instructions.) However, I am signing for the U.S. Citizen or other person.
(3) About a week later after I mailed the certified letter I walked into the Bank to make a deposit. The Bank manger Mr. Rodriguez said he needed to talke to me. His question was concerning the citizenship question. He asked if I was a U.S. citizen? I told him I was born in Texas . he said but you are a U.S. Citizen? I said I was born in the U.S. but…” he didn’t let me finish .
(4). So I would say it’s my statement in my certified mailing versus He verbal statement to me at the bank. So I have the edge. I have written evidence, he doesn’t.
(5). In your reply to me, you said “The bank signature card is your agreement to a contract.
(6). The bank, being a corporation, can only contract with another corporation, in this case, your cestui que vie trust, that is your three names in all caps.”
(a) So if the bank is contracting with my cestui que vie trust(another corporation)then its signing the contract with the “U.S. Citizen or other U.S. person” not me?
(b) I have been over this cite and the familyguardian cite concerning the U.S. Citizen definition AND this cite and familyguardian cite are confusing.
(c) I just want to know that if I am not a U.S. Citizen , what am I? a Constitutional citizen.
(d) The “signing for” the U.S. citizen was a recommendation by Mr. Merrill.
I would appreciate any answers you can help me with . Franco

Franco
04-12-13, 07:32 AM
Franko, you are trying too hard. See how easy EZ makes it look? It is that easy. The bank signature card is your agreement to a contract. The bank, being a corporation, can only contract with another corporation, in this case, your cestui que vie trust, that is your three names in all caps. The bank agreement contains a lot of legal text intended to trap you into an adhesion contract with the IRS (another corporation). But all of that is predicated on your use of FRN's, because the bank's lending against your credit is what triggers the duty to pay income tax. When you redeem lawful money, which is an inelastic currency, actually backed by silver, the bank cannot lend against it, cannot use your deposit as reserves for fractional reserve lending. So now you are outside the purview of Title 26; the transaction in lawful money is not affected by Title 26. So whether you are a US citizen, which makes you a 'taxpayer,' ie, one who must pay income tax, is unimportant, as you have no taxable income. The US citizen has also given up his common law rights and agreed to be bound by Roman law (jurisdiction in Article I courts), but those municipal laws only apply to corporations, such as your CQV trust, not to you as a human person. So the most you need to put on a bank account agreement is "all transactions redeemed in lawful money per 12 USC §411," and "All rights reserved per UCC 1-207" Or as EZ puts it: just notice your bank with your demand, and leave the signature page alone.

Finally, Bentley, you say only the employer has a duty (and I agree, where you file a W-4, asking him to withhold), but what about other things than wages being taxed? Such as capital gains? What is that tax on, being there is no employer? So the demand for lawful money covers anything the IRS wants to include, all based on the use of Federal Reserve credit. Don't use the credit, don't be liable for the tax. This is tax avoidance, not evasion.

Freed

Mr. Gerdes , I apologize, you already gave me the answers . you said
“So whether you are a US citizen, which makes you a 'taxpayer,' ie,
one who must pay income tax, is unimportant, as you have no taxable income.
The US citizen has also given up his common law rights and agreed to be bound by Roman law
(jurisdiction in Article I courts), but those municipal laws only apply to corporations,
such as your CQV trust, not to you as a human person.”
I thank you , it 3 in the moring. Making mistakes.”
Franco

David Merrill
04-12-13, 09:51 PM
Franko;


I feel that once you have the remedy understood - demanding lawful money - which you accomplished on the signature cards the citizenship issue becomes moot. If you understand the cestui que vie trust law then the legal entity becomes a tool for your use.

From what I read the bank manager was Refusing for Cause your novation to the signature card. He just did it verbally in front of the bank's security cameras. - Not in writing.

Bentley
04-13-13, 06:01 AM
There are suitors serving Notice and Demand on their local Federal Reserve Bank and then serving that on their bank. We start by getting a commission certificate from the Secretary of State on the notary. Then we file for an evidence repository in the US District Court - either a $46 Miscellaneous Case File or a $350 Libel of Review (civil counterclaim). Then the Notice and Demand is served on the Fed bank so to get a proof of service. That marked up Notice and Demand with the proof of service is finally served on the bank.

Whenever signing for cash it is wise to make the Demand though.



P.S. The more effective approach is to be the court of record.

Hi David,

As this is new to me and I am still learning, is the civil counterclaim filed when an IRS levy is filed against a soon to be suitor?

Thanks,
Bentley

David Merrill
04-13-13, 10:13 AM
Hi David,

As this is new to me and I am still learning, is the civil counterclaim filed when an IRS levy is filed against a soon to be suitor?

Thanks,
Bentley

For years we (suitors) have been enjoying success with the Libel of Review (http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/9462/libelofreview52012.pdf). It evolves and this rendition is from May of 2012. For over five years we have integrated Lawful Money Demand into the LoR and that has greatly augmented successful results in the brain trust.

The LoR itself is always dismissed but review the 'saving to suitors' clause (www.savingtosuitorsclub.net) itself. The Judiciary Act (1789) guarantees a suitor the "exclusive original cognizance" of the US government regarding any seizures on land. I developed the LoR from direct experience of (one of) the authors (http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/2149/libelinreview.pdf) from Are You Lost at C? (http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_AreYouLostAtSea.pdf) - c. 1995.

As the time went on I found myself repeating answers to questions so I collected the early suitors together in an Open-Faced Email Broadcast. This launched an era of echo chambers for me. I began utilizing chat rooms on the Internet to form ideas and theories and refining them in conversations on this "brain trust" of suitors. Soon it became necessary to define and describe what a suitor is.

In order to groom the quality of ideas exchanged on the brain trust we set up a rule early on. One would need to have a default judgment published before they could broadcast. This still works well for a general rule but the actual rule has since been discarded because there have never been any problems with new suitors broadcasting before they have the default judgment in place. All those conversations are quite intelligent and civil with an inherent understanding of how one will develop remedy by projection/reflection as they complete the Lesson Plan impelled by the LoR process.

This website is the next evolution into a more public access than the brain trust. StSC here has been a guidestone that there is access to the law and remedy can be successfully applied. The outward sign of the remedy is a full refund of withholdings but you may notice that I do not tout that much. A 35% pay raise though, that is the edge needed to logically ward off the effects of a diminished value stock certificate system (of the central bank) known as Federal Reserve notes. This seems to be what captures the imagination. When one is getting back these funds loaned to the IRS in withholdings then one starts to encounter an evolution of mental models. Think about what I just wrote - instead of being the debtor, one becomes the creditor. Somebody discovered that in those terms here on StSC just a couple days ago! Ergo you might get a glimpse of echo chambers. Ideas bounce around and either die off or are developed based in filters we apply naturally to protect our beliefs.

That is probably enough for you to develop an understanding. Thanks for asking.



Regards,

David Merrill.

Franco
04-14-13, 12:28 PM
Once again thank you Gerdes, for the breakdown on the subject and clarifying it for me.
David thank you for your added helping hand. After taking a look at what I wrote down in my reply to Gerdes, I can understand what you are telling me I need more under standing concerning lawful monies. That is why I apologized to Gerdes. He had wrote the answer very plainly. And in my reply I was still going on about the “U.S. citizen”.(but that letter had already been mailed)
I hadn’t look at the cite because no one had responded. That night I saw his reply . I read half of what he said; I was in such a hurry to respond, I didn’t read through the whole reply. Anyway this is what I understand.
(1). I already signed an agreement(signature card) with the bank where I stated, “all transaction and deposits demanded in lawful monies pursuant to title 12 section 411.” I signed with my true name First Middle dba FIRST, LAST, which is the Cestui Que (Vie) Trust .Because of this signed agreement , I can only receive lawful monies in all my transactions with Chase Bank. The lawful money is not fractionalized because it’s not taxable. On the other hand, FRN’s are an elastic currency which does create an interest(taxes) through fractionalization and are therefore taxed.
(2).The property in the cestui que trust(corporation) is granted to myself(true name)to use for the cestui que.
(3). In fact , I have been cashing my benefit checks with Title 12 section 411 verbiage stamped on the back of every check, and signing true name;First Middle; dba FIRST MIDDLE LAST.
(4). And like Gerdes advised me, even if I am declared a U.S. citizen it doesn’t matter because I only receive lawful monies, which is not fractionalized and not taxable. U.S. Treasury Notes are lawful monies, not legal tender(FRN’s ). That makes me not a taxpayer. A non-taxpayer is not a U.S. Citizen.
(5). The trust of the banks are based on fraud, just like the IRS (corporation);
(6). The bank and myself have already signed an agreement that “all transaction and deposits are demanded in lawful monies pursuant to title 12 section 411.”
(7). Additionally, if the Bank Manager was verbally refusing for cause my novation in direct view of a viedo camara, to the signature card, he is not on solid ground.
1. I already have a signed agreement with the bank that I will be redeeming only lawful monies.
2. Under the four corners rule – intention of parties, "Absent ambiguity, the parties’ intentions must be discerned from the four corners of the document, and extrinsic evidence may not be considered." KY Supreme Court 2007-CA-000498
3. He will also have the additional problem of banks dealing based on fraud.
Thanks for the education. FRANCO or FRANKO
p.s. I have another question but I will put in the proper cite

David Merrill
04-14-13, 02:18 PM
Another way to view it is that remedy is designed for state banks. FRNs are issued solely for state banks. If you order them - Pay to the Order of - typically on your paycheck, then you are acting like a state bank. So you have your remedy as defined here.

Being a US citizen (or not) just brings up side issues and trouble. I am surprised that your bank has not come back on you for your non-endorsement (restricted endorsement).

Freed Gerdes
04-15-13, 04:17 AM
You have accomplished the basics, Franco. You have signed bank account agreements with the redemption demanded. Ignore the banker's verbal abuse, and don't try to change your existing bank contracts; they are sufficient. That should be all you need. Now when it is time to file income taxes, since you are a US citizen and a taxpayer, you will not need to file, since you will have no taxable income (unless you have income taxes withheld by your 'employer') . Note that taxpayer is a category that you choose when you sign up for Social Security, and also an adhesion contract that the bank tries to trick you into on their 'standard' account agreement. This is entirely for the benefit of the Federal Reserve (who issues the private money) and their bulldog, the IRS (who collects the 'interest' on their private credit notes - FRN's). But you can be a US citizen and a taxpayer, and still pay no tax, if you have no taxable income. And transactions conducted in public money are outside the purview of Title 26, which is private law, dealing with private money, so are not taxable income.

There is a lot of information on this forum, and it takes a while for people to realize how screwed up our country is, what with foreign agents seizing the assets of Americans who do not understand how they were tricked into owing taxes which were never levied by Congress, and all without due process. But once you understand that you, as a living person, have access to the district courts, all that is easily stopped, and you can bravely start asserting your rights. Keep at it.

David Merrill
04-15-13, 10:16 AM
I got about twenty seconds in and realized Tami is obviously describing an illusion.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmd9BganHhs


So I shut it off and got back about truth and reality.

I have instructed people trying to avoid getting a birth certificate and SSN for their newborn children. I instruct them to educate the child thoroughly by age 13-14 about their true name and contract/trust law. After all, that is when the illusion Tami is describing would become effective isn't it? So let the child, upon coming into maturity dispel the illusion for him or herself.

Bentley
04-16-13, 01:00 AM
Thanks Freed for your reply.

I'm still trying wrap my brain around this whole concept of lawful money and it's beginning to make sense. What I was trying to point out about only the (federal) employer being liable for withholding is that the whole damn enslavement system is based on the 16th amend. So, the other income taxes, i.e.e social security, fica, self-employment, are all based on the poison fruit of chapter A income tax. Without that, I do not believe 20th century Americans of early last century would have accepted any other 'piggy back' income taxes such as mentioned above.

Bentley

shikamaru
04-16-13, 07:59 PM
What I was trying to point out about only the (federal) employer being liable for withholding is that the whole damn enslavement system is based on the 16th amend.

There was taxation prior to the 16th Amendment.
Income has always been an object of taxation since the Revenue Act of 1861.
Check out Springer v. U.S. (1881) for more details.

One of the primary purposes of the Constitution was to tax.

Bentley
04-17-13, 03:24 AM
There was taxation prior to the 16th Amendment.
Income has always been an object of taxation since the Revenue Act of 1861.
Check out Springer v. U.S. (1881) for more details.

One of the primary purposes of the Constitution was to tax.

I'm assuming you mean 'income' taxation prior to the 16th amendment. Income tax hasn't always been part of our history since the Civil War however. It was the Tax of 1862 which gave a wartime income tax through the creation of the Office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue within the Treasury dept, and then it was eliminated in 1872. It saw a revival in the 1880's but declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court until passage of the 16th amendment in 1913. Thus we have our present day scourge.

Bentley

shikamaru
04-17-13, 08:03 PM
I'm assuming you mean 'income' taxation prior to the 16th amendment. Income tax hasn't always been part of our history since the Civil War however.

Income tax was first done in Britain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax#United_Kingdom). It was implemented in the US via the Revenue Act of 1861 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1861).


It was the Tax of 1862 which gave a wartime income tax through the creation of the Office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue within the Treasury dept, and then it was eliminated in 1872.

Would happen to have any literature on this? My reference above conflicts with the beginning of your statement.



It saw a revival in the 1880's but declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court until passage of the 16th amendment in 1913. Thus we have our present day scourge.


Would you happen to have the Supreme Court case that says that income tax was unconstitutional?

Bentley
04-17-13, 08:53 PM
Another way to view it is that remedy is designed for state banks. FRNs are issued solely for state banks. If you order them - Pay to the Order of - typically on your paycheck, then you are acting like a state bank. So you have your remedy as defined here.

Being a US citizen (or not) just brings up side issues and trouble. I am surprised that your bank has not come back on you for your non-endorsement (restricted endorsement).
Hello David,

My credit union did not accept my deposit precisely because it stated they could decline any deposit they chose in the agreement pamphlet, and they claimed that the 'redeem' wording was a restrictive deposit. What's my next step then, a generic notice and demand to them?

Thanks,
Bentley

Bentley
04-17-13, 11:13 PM
Chrysler v. Brown 1979
[Footnote 23]
There was virtually no Washington bureaucracy created by the Act of July 1, 1862, ch. 119, 12 Stat. 432, the statute to which the present Internal Revenue Service can be traced. Researchers report that, during the Civil War, 85% of the operations of the Bureau of Internal Revenue were carried out in the field, "including the assessing and collection of taxes, the handling of appeals, and punishment for frauds" -- and this balance of responsibility was not generally upset until the 20th century. L. Schmeckebier & F. Eble, The Bureau of Internal Revenue 8, 40-43 (1923). Agents had the power to enter any home or business establishment to look for taxable property and examine books of accounts. Information was collected and processed in the field. It is, therefore, not surprising to find that congressional comments during this period focused on potential abuses by agents in the field, and not on breaches of confidentiality by a Washington-based bureaucracy.

Also, try googling "Pollock v Farmers loan-1895"










Chrysler v. Brown 1979

[Footnote 23]
There was virtually no Washington bureaucracy created by the Act of July 1, 1862, ch. 119, 12 Stat. 432, the statute to which the present Internal Revenue Service can be traced. Researchers report that, during the Civil War, 85% of the operations of the Bureau of Internal Revenue were carried out in the field, "including the assessing and collection of taxes, the handling of appeals, and punishment for frauds" -- and this balance of responsibility was not generally upset until the 20th century. L. Schmeckebier & F. Eble, The Bureau of Internal Revenue 8, 40-43 (1923). Agents had the power to enter any home or business establishment to look for taxable property and examine books of accounts. Information was collected and processed in the field. It is, therefore, not surprising to find that congressional comments during this period focused on potential abuses by agents in the field, and not on breaches of confidentiality by a Washington-based bureaucracy.

Also, try googling "Pollock v Farmers loan-1895"

shikamaru
04-17-13, 11:17 PM
Chrysler v. Brown 1979
[Footnote 23]
There was virtually no Washington bureaucracy created by the Act of July 1, 1862, ch. 119, 12 Stat. 432, the statute to which the present Internal Revenue Service can be traced. Researchers report that, during the Civil War, 85% of the operations of the Bureau of Internal Revenue were carried out in the field, "including the assessing and collection of taxes, the handling of appeals, and punishment for frauds" -- and this balance of responsibility was not generally upset until the 20th century. L. Schmeckebier & F. Eble, The Bureau of Internal Revenue 8, 40-43 (1923). Agents had the power to enter any home or business establishment to look for taxable property and examine books of accounts. Information was collected and processed in the field. It is, therefore, not surprising to find that congressional comments during this period focused on potential abuses by agents in the field, and not on breaches of confidentiality by a Washington-based bureaucracy.



It was the Tax of 1862 which gave a wartime income tax through the creation of the Office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue within the Treasury dept, and then it was eliminated in 1872.

How does the passage which you've provided support any of the assertions in your statement above?



Also, try googling "Pollock v Farmers loan-1895"


Pollock v. Farmers (1895) is very lengthy. What passage in the this case states that income taxes are unconstitutional?

Franco
04-17-13, 11:24 PM
1. Yes, my first two initial fed checks I cashed I did not cross out “the order of” and one check paid to me by apartment mgr. for a refund. The rest I have crossed out “order of”.
However I have a question, wouldn’t it be an alternation of a government document? See below: § 3-407. ALTERATION.
•(a) "Alteration" means (i) an unauthorized change in an instrument that purports to modify in any respect the obligation of a party, or (ii) an unauthorized addition of words or numbers or other change to an incomplete instrument relating to the obligation of a party.
(b). also in the past when I did cross out wordings , I crossed it out, initial it and dated it. However doing that on a govt. check would clearly draw attention to bank clerk.
2. You stated, .” I am surprised that your bank has not come back on you for your non-endorsement (restricted endorsement).” In this case wouldn’t the following apply?
§ 3-104. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT.
•(e) An instrument is a "note" if it is a promise and is a "draft" if it is an order. If an instrument falls within the definition of both "note" and "draft," a person entitled to enforce the instrument may treat it as either. (note: I signed it with First,Middle ;dbaFIRST LAST Title 12 sec 411 redeem in lawful money. That would show my intentions for the Bank to pay in lawful money.) so wouldn’t they have to treat it as a restricted endorsement?
3. The day I opened the account with Chase bank and signed the signature card to have all my transactions and deposits redeemed in lawful monies Title 12 USC 411, I requested a non-interest bearing checking account. The bank Rep who opened my account and later the bank manager stated my account is non-bearing interest checking account. So if I a have a non-interest checking account I am paying no interest. If paying no interest my monies are lawful monies because they are not been fractionalized.
4. In one of my certified letters to the Chase Bank Mgr. I also included a “Notice and Demand” letter as you have posted on you cite. I include the wording like, “notice to agent is also notice to principal”. Also made sure it included : Be it now known to any and all parties forevermore that I amFirst Middle and the PERSON known to others as FIRST LAST, have made and still do make, my demand for lawful money for any and all dealings and transactions, including transactions on all my bank accounts. Also to include : No contractual obligations shall be construed to act or operate in any way or manner to eliminate, diminish, supersede, or otherwise modify any provision contained within this Notice and Demand.(do I still have to fill notice and demand with Federal Reserve Bank as well?)
5. I will very soon have to change to direct deposit in accordance with the law.
(a). I will not be able to cross out “the order of” because I will no longer see the check.
(b). so when I fill out an account check and cross out “the order of” on the account check to take out my monies , will that also solve the problem on “pay to the order of ” on the fed. Check that was transferred directly to chase bank.?
© Dave . As for the “being a U.S. citizen (or not) just bring up side issue and trouble” I am not clear on what you mean without specifics.
Thank you David and once again appreciate your response
, Franco

Bentley
04-18-13, 12:00 AM
I answered your questions. Re-read your posts and you'll see why.

David Merrill
04-18-13, 03:33 PM
Hello David,

My credit union did not accept my deposit precisely because it stated they could decline any deposit they chose in the agreement pamphlet, and they claimed that the 'redeem' wording was a restrictive deposit. What's my next step then, a generic notice and demand to them?

Thanks,
Bentley

Yes. More likely notify the Fed and then serve that process on the credit union. There are samples around here.

Bentley
04-18-13, 06:03 PM
Yes. More likely notify the Fed and then serve that process on the credit union. There are samples around here.

Would one do that by using the generic notice and demand?

Thanks,
Bentley

shikamaru
04-18-13, 07:48 PM
I answered your questions. Re-read your posts and you'll see why.

Actually, you haven't answered anything, hence the further questioning.

So far, you are off by 1 year as to the absolute beginning of income taxes in America.
You have cites that don't support what you claim and your cites are without any linkage to sources of anyone to review.
You have yet to substantiate a single point of your assertions.

At this point, I'm unsure if you could find anything on the Revenue Act of 1862.

I've got a feeling you've been wrapping yourself in Internet yarn ....

Freed Gerdes
04-19-13, 04:55 AM
1. Yes, my first two initial fed checks I cashed I did not cross out “the order of” and one check paid to me by apartment mgr. for a refund. The rest I have crossed out “order of”.

If you did not 'non-endorse' by putting your demand for LM on the back, they were paid in FRN's and are taxable

However I have a question, wouldn’t it be an alternation of a government document? See below: § 3-407. ALTERATION.
•(a) "Alteration" means (i) an unauthorized change in an instrument that purports to modify in any respect the obligation of a party, or (ii) an unauthorized addition of words or numbers or other change to an incomplete instrument relating to the obligation of a party.

The party here is the drafter, ie, the govt. Your demand for LM comes after negotiating the instrument; your bank obtains FRN's or credit from the drafter's bank. Then they redeem these for LM, then deposit the LM in your account. There is no need to alter the instrument on the front; all your choices are on the back.

(b). also in the past when I did cross out wordings , I crossed it out, initial it and dated it. However doing that on a govt. check would clearly draw attention to bank clerk.
2. You stated, .” I am surprised that your bank has not come back on you for your non-endorsement (restricted endorsement).” In this case wouldn’t the following apply?
§ 3-104. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT.
•(e) An instrument is a "note" if it is a promise and is a "draft" if it is an order. If an instrument falls within the definition of both "note" and "draft," a person entitled to enforce the instrument may treat it as either. (note: I signed it with First,Middle ;dbaFIRST LAST Title 12 sec 411 redeem in lawful money. That would show my intentions for the Bank to pay in lawful money.) so wouldn’t they have to treat it as a restricted endorsement?

Most banks can and will treat that as a restricted endorsement. BofA says they will ignore anything you write on the back! This is why you need to get your demand on the signature card, or notice them for the entire account.

3. The day I opened the account with Chase bank and signed the signature card to have all my transactions and deposits redeemed in lawful monies Title 12 USC 411, I requested a non-interest bearing checking account. The bank Rep who opened my account and later the bank manager stated my account is non-bearing interest checking account. So if I a have a non-interest checking account I am paying no interest. If paying no interest my monies are lawful monies because they are not been fractionalized.

A no-interest account means the bank is paying you no interest, because you are not letting them loan against your credit. Deposits in FRN's can be used as reserves for fractional reserve lending (means the bank lends out more money than they have in deposits). Used to be the bank paid you interest for the privilege of lending against your credit, but under the current financial repression scheme, banks don't pay (significant) interest on any accounts. By not letting the bank use your deposit as reserves for fractional reserve lending, you avoid the 'use' of FRN's, and thus avoid the obligation to pay income taxes on the deposit (which is assumed to be income for tax purposes; this is why the account agreement wants you to admit to being a US citizen (hence 'taxpayer'), and providing a SS#, so the IRS can track your taxable income).

4. In one of my certified letters to the Chase Bank Mgr. I also included a “Notice and Demand” letter as you have posted on you cite. I include the wording like, “notice to agent is also notice to principal”. Also made sure it included : Be it now known to any and all parties forevermore that I amFirst Middle and the PERSON known to others as FIRST LAST, have made and still do make, my demand for lawful money for any and all dealings and transactions, including transactions on all my bank accounts. Also to include : No contractual obligations shall be construed to act or operate in any way or manner to eliminate, diminish, supersede, or otherwise modify any provision contained within this Notice and Demand.(do I still have to fill notice and demand with Federal Reserve Bank as well?)

If the bank accepted your account with the demand for LM on the signature card, you should be good. Be sure to keep copies of your signature pages somewhere safe.

5. I will very soon have to change to direct deposit in accordance with the law.
(a). I will not be able to cross out “the order of” because I will no longer see the check.

see above; your account is redeemed in LM before deposit

(b). so when I fill out an account check and cross out “the order of” on the account check to take out my monies , will that also solve the problem on “pay to the order of ” on the fed. Check that was transferred directly to chase bank.?

see above; your account contains LM. Should you wish to purchase some asset and acquire legal title, as well as equitable title, you need to prove that you are paying in LM; a copy of your signature page should suffice. Then write on the front of your check, on the For line, Paid in Full in Lawful Money. You can do this even when cashing a check against your account for cash; this proves that you have LM in the form of FRN's. David stamps his LM FRN's with the "Redeemed" stamp. This is helpful when paying for District Court services, but you can also pay by check from a LM account.

© Dave . As for the “being a U.S. citizen (or not) just bring up side issue and trouble” I am not clear on what you mean without specifics.

You are a 'US citizen' if you have a SS#, or if you are accepting any other government benefit. Claiming you are not a US citizen will be a flag for the IRS, and will cause conflicts if you have a SS#. As discussed earlier in this thread, it is your cestui que vie trust which is the US citizen (it is a legal, fictional entity, a corporate 'person' which holds title to assets in your estate, for your (the live person's) benefit). You are signing the contract with the bank as an accomodation party for your trust; the bank cannot contract with you, the live person (since the bank is not a live person).

Thank you David and once again appreciate your response
, Franco

There is a lot to learn on this site, and you can get into trouble if you start doing new stuff without understanding the legal underpinnings of why you are doing it. As Stevie says: "When you believe in things that you don't understand, then you suffer. Superstitution ain't the way."

Franco
04-19-13, 09:17 AM
Gerdes after reading what you said, I am doing fine. I got it covered, thanks to your explaination. I am still at the basics. As a matter of fact, I did my taxes for 2012; I came out owing a small amount.
1. I didn’t file with a demand for lawful monies; I am not ready, maybe next year. I fill burned out, and all the V.A. medication doesn’t help either.
2. My next step, if new information doesn’t come out, looks like it will be filing the criminal complaint form (not signed), with a cover letter in an evidence depository. I will need to open one.
3. I see on some threads in the forum, where some people say they filed Evidence reposiotory in a United States District Court (federal) and other say they filed in a county recorder. Actually I have never being able to find information explaining why and when you file in a county recorder, local District Court, etc. Do you file there before opening the evidence repository in the U.S.D.C. and why?
3. I am also one of the people who filed the CTC process. Went to tax court 3-times. I lost three times. No collections yet.
4. However, my last Tax court case was for 2006. It was held in 2010. Court didn’t rule until 2011. I went to CDPH in 2012.
5. The CDPH last ruling was in May 2012. They denied my motions. This presentament is a about a year old. I can’t use it. My next one will be the garnishment letter if they sent one.
I filed my last document with CDPH, telling them I had exhausted all administrative remedies, so I was filing in District Court under equity law. It has a two year filing time limit.
6. Through all this years I have not been garnished, except for about 6-months for small amounts, then it abruptly stopped. (it was grace) Now they are starting again; it’s close to $50,000.00.
7. My main issue is stopping the collection, whenever it happens. That’s why I got interested in this cite. So far, I have read that the filing of “omission by fraud” procedure will only stop the frivolous penalties. I am ok with that.
I am taking my time to keep reading through this cite’s threads, and other cites. I am also having to use my “black’s law” and “Webster’s” quite a bit lately.
Gerdes , once again thank you, for the lesson. Your support is appreciated. Franco“There is no such thing as gratitude unexpressed. If it is unexpressed, it is plain, old-fashioned ingratitude.” ~Robert Brault

David Merrill
04-19-13, 09:52 AM
Thank you for your input Franko.


Do you file there before opening the evidence repository in the U.S.D.C. and why?

In the Libel of Review process (http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/9462/libelofreview52012.pdf) one publishes the Summons at the county clerk and recorder. This is done by getting two summonses authorized and if the clerk and recorder can return one original quickly that is the one used for service on the Defendant - usually the US Governor for the UN's IMF - Secretary of the Treasury. This "primes" the clerk and recorder for publishing the Default Judgment which is signed and sealed by the suitor.

It is a true judgment res judicata. - Meaning that it stands until overturned by the facts. Publication establishes the new suitor as a court of record. Courts of record are courts of authority and albeit not always recognized by the officials it helps the new suitor to get remedy as intended in America wrapped up in mental understanding. The actions and processes of becoming a court of competent jurisdiction in light that all the federal judges are taxpayers (recused for conflict of interest) and all "judges" in general are in an association called the Bar, means that this position is available by becoming trustee for that resulting trust.

This in a nutshell is why suitors remain satisfied with the Lesson Plan and its products. The LoR produces a published foreign judgment signed and sealed in the "exclusive original cognizance" of the United States.

When helping a new suitor through this process I only focus on the Lesson Plan, not the details of the situation.


1. I didn’t file with a demand for lawful monies; I am not ready, maybe next year. I fill burned out, and all the V.A. medication doesn’t help either.

If I delved into the private details I would likely in your case prod you into filing for a refund before you have your mind wrapped around the concept of remedy. The "remedy" reflected back to you might not be anything but you having to deal with a $5K fine - albeit that only happened one time in reality and the suitor knows where he invited that FrivPen - in a phone call that he made to the IRS.

One can establish a good understand in the simplicity of the law - which is the Lesson Plan. There is a little indication that refunds are coming in freely, no FrivPens. - Like the IRS knows now that this is remedy as intended. [Looking at rough statistics - general impression - the IRS is at a stage where they are sitting on lawful money refunds, like they do not know what to do this year. Also a lot of people are getting their full refunds and not talking about it (much) which is the 'don't jinx it' approach.] But I still advise an evidence repository through the Libel of Review process. The evidence repository proves you are keeping a record.


Regards,

David Merrill.

P.S. The Lesson Plan is still:

1) True Identity
2) Record Forming
3) Redeeming Lawful Money

I explain this from where the new suitor can understand it. For example yesterday a new suitor was describing his experience with the STRAWMAN REDEMPTION and Pete's Cracking the Code. He already has a smattering in 2) and 3) so I explained in depth about 1), around the STRAWMAN theory:


If you believe your name is John H. Doe then you are easily convinced to be trustee for the JOHN HENRY DOE constructive trust. If you behave like you are the trustee then you are the trustee. If you know your name is John Henry then you can Refuse for Cause any fresh presentments intended to prod you into becoming John Henry Doe, the trustee and responsible fiduciary (for settling any charges) for the JOHN HENRY DOE.

By speaking in terms and symbols he understands he was able to see the benefits in proceeding with the Lesson Plan.

Franco
04-23-13, 02:24 AM
David first of all thank you for the creation of this cite to help other people , it is much appreciated.
I have not respondent to your detailed information on your last reply because I got hit with garnishment a few days ago.
I am figuring out on how to reply. I received a letter from the Chase Bank :
1. The envelope is not dated: the document only shows: March 07,2013 through April 4, 2013.
2. Now I know the presentment came from IRS. However the Chase Bank did not include a copy of the IRS levy. So does presentment 72 hour rule begin when I get a copy of IRS levy(presentment) from the following:
(a). the IRS (b) the social security admin. Telling me my benefits have been garnished/Levied.
Or © does the bank notice suffice? I am going to bank tomorrow to see if they can provide a copy of IRS notice of garnishment to them.
3. The document from Chase Bank stated: We have reduced our legal processing fee.
On March 24,2013 we reduced the legal processing Fee to a maximum of $75.00 per order.
This fee is assessed for the processing of any garnishment, tax levy, or other court or administrative order against an account. This change will be reflected in your account agreement; all other terms remain the same. If you have questions, please call us at the telephone number listed on this statement or visit your nearest Chase branch.
Consolidated balance summary
Assets
Checking and savings account beginning balance this period ending balance this period
Chase premier plus checking xxxxxxxx $25.00 $25.00
Chase premier plus checking xxxxxxxx $596.00 $126.00
Chase premier plus checking xxxxxxxx $25.00 $25.00
TOTAL $646.00 $176.00
TOTAL ASSETS $646.00 $176.00
ALL summary balances shown are as of April 4, 2013 unless otherwise stated. For details of your retirement accounts, credit accounts or securities accounts, you will receive separate statements. Balance summary information for annuities is provided by the issuing insurance companies and believed to be reliable without guarantee of its completeness or accuracy.
This monthly service fee for this account was waived as an added feature of chase premier plus checking account.
Thank you for your military service and commitment to our country. Your monthly service fee was waived as a benefit of Chase Military Banking.
I do have an account for the other checks , but I haven’t transferred my other accounts to the bank yet.
Reason is because the OPM or VA have to give me notice before my account is garnished. Without a notice its unlawful, but then it’s the IRS. So if they go after my V.A. and Office of Personnel Management (OPM) account , they will need to notify me and get a written approval from me or else they will have to take me to court.
I am going to publish the summons with the county clerk and recorder
and open the evidence repository as soon as I can.
I am going to have to work on this. Will let you know how its going along.
Once again thanks for all the help and support you have provided.
Franco.

David Lyn
04-23-13, 03:15 PM
The bank will charge you $100 or so for the privilege of having your funds stolen

David Merrill
04-23-13, 04:38 PM
I find it encouraging when people find this Website edifying enough to proceed. Thanks Franco!

Franco
04-24-13, 04:48 AM
Thanks for the Tip david Lyn. Franco

Franco
04-24-13, 05:14 AM
I think that when you take your time to help people like me, who are having trouble understanding by breaking down specific issues, you are not only helping me but many other's ,who come here for learning what this is all about.
Sometimes you say a lot in one "word" or "more". Speaking for myself ,If i take the time to look it up in Blacks Law or on the web, most of the time it will clarify what David is saying to me. I don't take words for granted or assume i know what it means, just because i hear or read their usage various times. if you look at the numbers reading this beginners thread, the numbers are high.
Once again thank you for the uplifting support and the help. Franco

Franco
04-24-13, 05:16 AM
Sorry , the above thread was a reply to David Merrill's Thread above. Franco

Bentley
04-25-13, 05:01 PM
Income tax was first done in Britain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax#United_Kingdom). It was implemented in the US via the Revenue Act of 1861 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1861).



Would happen to have any literature on this? My reference above conflicts with the beginning of your statement.

Here's the Wiki link for Pollock. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollock_v._Farmers%27_Loan_%26_Trust_Co.



Would you happen to have the Supreme Court case that says that income tax was unconstitutional?

I did answer your questions, but I'll try again. In your quote above, you referenced (through wikipedia) the income tax act of 1861. Wiki's got some good info in it but it is not always correct. Here's a case where it is not correct. Click on your referenced link to the Tax act of 1861 and scroll down to the bullet item for property tax. You will find this statement.

Property Tax: The Revenue Act of 1861 instituted a tax on real estate, levied in proportion to each state’s population. While the act’s enforcement mechanism was limited, it formally established a system of tax districts, assessors, and collectors, laying the groundwork for the Internal Revenue Service's formation on July 1, 1862.

with a link to Internal Revenue Service.

This is a false statement... the IRS was not formed by the Tax Act of 1862 and has never been created by statute. That's what my previous post regarding footnote 23 of Chrysler V. Brown was about. Only the Commissioner of Internal Revenue was created by the Tax Act of 1862, not the Internal Revenue Service, as the Wiki article claims. The IRS doens't legally exist.

The Tax Act of 1862 repealed the Act of 1861 anyway, and income tax was the eliminated in 1872. Congress passed the Wilson-Gorman Tarriff Act in 1894 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson-Gorman_Tariff_Act that was delcared unconstitutional by the Pollock decision in 1895. I hope this helps.

Bentley

shikamaru
04-25-13, 09:42 PM
This is a false statement... the IRS was not formed by the Tax Act of 1862 and has never been created by statute. That's what my previous post regarding footnote 23 of Chrysler V. Brown was about. Only the Commissioner of Internal Revenue was created by the Tax Act of 1862, not the Internal Revenue Service, as the Wiki article claims.

Noted.



The IRS doens't legally exist.


Not so sure on this one.



The Tax Act of 1862 repealed the Act of 1861 anyway, ...


This is incorrect. The Tax Act of 1862 only repealed the income tax sections (Sections 49, 50, and 51) of the Revenue Act of 1861. Not the entire thing.



... and income tax was the eliminated in 1872.

The income tax at that time was a wartime tax and temporary.
According to Wikipedia, the act which expired was the Revenue Act of 1864 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1864)which expired in 1873.



Congress passed the Wilson-Gorman Tarriff Act in 1894 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson-Gorman_Tariff_Act that was delcared unconstitutional by the Pollock decision in 1895.


Revenue Act of 1861 or Act of August 5, 1861, Chap. XLV, 12 Stat. 292 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=012/llsl012.db&recNum=323)

Revenue Act of 1862 or Act of July 1, 1862, Ch, 119, 12 Stat. 432 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=012/llsl012.db&recNum=0463)

I'll review the Pollock decision, but I don't believe it says what you are claiming.
I'll respond later with some dicta from early Supreme Court cases concerning taxation including Springer v. U.S. and Pollock.

Franco
04-25-13, 10:47 PM
Can someone help clarify this for me?
1. I have received letters from chase bank addressed to FIRST M. LAST; instead of in name: First Middle.
2. I sent a certified mail letter to Chase Bank Mgr. I explained that when I signed the signature cards, I signed in my name and not in the CQV trust. I stated that FIRST M. LAST was my trust and I am the beneficiary to the trust.
I also told the Mgr. in my letter I wanted all future correspondence in my name, and not in the trust’s name.
3. After receiving the letter he called me, concerning my letter. He told me he could take the “M” initial out of the CQV name. I explained to him again, that I am First Middle, and I am not the trust name; FIRST I. LAST name. I cannot be both beneficiary and Trustee.
Then he told me the equipment did not have the capability to send me my correspondence in caps and small letter, that it can only be done in caps.
He’s solution was still addressing to my CQV trust without MIDDLE initial, or my name all caps.
4. I told him I would not accept either. I did it in amicable manner. He told me to come in and he would see what do. I don’t like me sending all my issues and solutions in certified mailing, and he not responding in writing. He is getting in the habit of waiting till I come in and discuss it in person or give me a phone call. Like Dave told me in one of his responses, he is probably recording.
5. My solution for now is writing again and tells him to have the courtesy to answer me in writing. And if he stops me at the bank to question me, just to tell him to please put his questions in writing and send them to me and I will be glad to response. (I need to get evidence in writing).
I will request that he provide to me the law, rule or regulation he is tracking the language of, in telling me he cannot send me correspondence in my name, but send it instead in CQV Trust name. or send it in my name all in caps.(maybe discrimination; treating me different than other customers.).
6. Another way to look at it would be, that even though I open the letters addressed to the CQV trust, instead of my name, I am the beneficiary of the trust so I can legally open the letters. (trying to use here what I read from Gerdes information, if I understood correctely)
7. Any opinions would be appreciated. Thank you Franco

David Merrill
04-25-13, 11:17 PM
Glancing at items 1-2 it sounds as though they sent a letter to the trust presuming there is a trustee. That is all.

Keyser Soze
04-25-13, 11:54 PM
If you had to hold one person accountable for being the trustee, for example the Secretary of the Treasury, who would it be? Maybe I can start forwarding the mail for FIRST M LAST so they can do their job.

Bentley
04-26-13, 04:58 AM
Noted.



Not so sure on this one.



This is incorrect. The Tax Act of 1862 only repealed the income tax sections (Sections 49, 50, and 51) of the Revenue Act of 1861. Not the entire thing.



The income tax at that time was a wartime tax and temporary.
According to Wikipedia, the act which expired was the Revenue Act of 1864 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1864)which expired in 1873.

Revenue Act of 1861 or Act of August 5, 1861, Chap. XLV, 12 Stat. 292 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=012/llsl012.db&recNum=323)

Revenue Act of 1862 or Act of July 1, 1862, Ch, 119, 12 Stat. 432 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=012/llsl012.db&recNum=0463)

I'll review the Pollock decision, but I don't believe it says what you are claiming.
I'll respond later with some dicta from early Supreme Court cases concerning taxation including Springer v. U.S. and Pollock.

I think the important thing here, (and so does the IRS for that matter - see http://www.irs.gov/uac/Today's-IRS-Organization) is that most authorities, and the IRS, claim that the IRS was created with the Tax Act of 1862. As I have illustrated via footnote 23, Chrysler v. Brown, only the Commissioner of Internal Revenue was created by the law, not the IRS. They only wish they were. I have no idea what 'roots of the IRS' have to do with law, as stated on the IRS site. It simply has never been created by statute.

There are also references to the repeal of income tax 10 years later, and the Supreme court ruling that income tax was declared unconstitutional in 1895 (that was Pollock.) So with that in mind, my points were, many posts ago..., that income tax was not contigous after the Civil War up to 1913, and also that the IRS was never created by statute, as illustrated via Chrysler v. Brown. I have certainly enjoyed the back and forth discussion but I've got to move on.

Bentley

David Merrill
04-26-13, 09:26 AM
I believe the foundation for the IRS is in war code - which I think may be considered statute. More like Executive Order? - Presidential Declaration? Whatever you want to call extraordinary occasion:




http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/6479/conventionextraordinary.jpg



The fact that no state or confederation of states are allowed to secede from the Union even today is evidence that the extraordinary occasion is still in place (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImdVBGcmJWTGdsTHM/edit?usp=sharing). We find that the United States is considered a singular entity (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImN2NiNTQ5ZjYtMzA5NS00MzM1LTllMDItNDY3N 2EwYzcxNWNk/edit?usp=sharing) while prior to 1861 it was obviously (Thirteenth Amendment) thought of in the plural.

Traditionally a Preamble preceeds a Statute so the Constitution where we find the Extraordinary Occasion clause might be considered Statute? I do not like being reduced to bickering semantics but that is how I see it Bentley.


Regards,

David Merrill.

Franco
04-26-13, 10:27 AM
David, you are right it’s just a presumption. Because my name is John Henry, not John H. Doe. Therefore I am not the trustee for JOHN HENRY DOE. appriciate the tip. Franco

Franco
04-26-13, 10:56 AM
David, you are right it’s just a presumption. Because my name is John Henry, not John H. Doe. I am not the trustee for JOHN HENRY DOE. My name John Henry is on my signature card agreement. I appriciate the tip.thank you Franco

Franco
04-26-13, 11:40 AM
My understanding is the Secretary of Treasury is the trustee. And we are the beneficiaries of the trust. Keser soze Thank you for the tip I appreciate it. Franco

David Merrill
04-26-13, 01:36 PM
My understanding is the Secretary of Treasury is the trustee. And we are the beneficiaries of the trust. Keser soze Thank you for the tip I appreciate it. Franco

You are welcome. May I propose that the trustee is whoever steps up. If you think your name is John H. DOE then you are likely to be the trustee. If you R4C the trustee position then it would logically fall back to the Secretary. If the Secretary is in breach of trust however that forms a resulting trust and you can pick that up on authority as (resulting) trustee. This authority can be demonstrated (expressed) by showing faults in the oath of office (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImNGU0YWJmOGUtZDQ5Ni00NGU3LWE5NjMtZWQ4N WM1NmQwYWY0/edit?usp=sharing) process.

View the trust as a circuit - IN GOD WE TRUST is on the money supply while SO HELP ME GOD is on the oath. If the official breaches oath then that opens the money (http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/4721/uccart9securityagreemen.jpg)supply (authority of first lien (http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/6443/purposescapitalfinancec.jpg)).


Regards,

David Merrill.

Franco
04-29-13, 03:26 AM
David, like always in appreciation of your comments. I went through what you stated in your thread. In the first part I didn’t have trouble with the part, about R4C the trustee position.
On the second part, if the Secretary is in Breach of trust is a different story.
I do have some questions. But first I have to tell you my research went out the window when I went back to your thread today and saw the definitions you put out there for us. The one that I found most important is the “Oath of Office” video. The other material I haven’t had the time to read it carefully yet. I had the definition of the “Oath of Office” but I had no idea of the procedure and most of all what the consequences are for failure to follow the procedure explained on video. Makes me feel as if I am in safe beach waters ; I think I am walking through safe waters when they are really full of sharks and I don’t even know it. That information is really appreciated.
My questions are the following:
1. It appears to me that the Federal government agency who created the trust is the Office of personnel management, (agency paying my benefits) so they would be the settlor. Or is the Federal Government the settlor, since agency is their creation?
2. The Secretary of Treasury is the trustee. But then who is the bank? Another trustee?
3. If the Trustee breaches trust by failure to do his obligations or duties he is then personally liable to make good on any losses to the plan. And by operation of law that makes me the resulting trustee. But what becomes of my being the beneficiary of the trust? I can’t be both trustee and beneficiary. Or are they joint trustees?
9. When you said,” the official breaches oath, then that opens the money supply (authority of first lien)”
I interpreted what you stated as:
(a). The court will allow me an action against the trustee because of his breach of contract (“K”), under operation of law.
(b). The court will also allow me the beneficiary a right of action against the property of assets of the trust.
©. Additionally, I can seek enforcement of the “Res” of the trust or a personal judgment against the Secretary of the Treasury for the value of the “Res” (lien or pledge)
11. Where you stated, “If the secretary is in breach of trust however that forms a resulting trust and you can pick that up on authority as (resulting trustee). This authority can be demonstrated (expressed) by showing faults in the oath of office process.” I did have trouble understanding it.
12. However, after watching that short video, on the “Oath of office” I had a better understanding of what you are saying. I am glad you put that information up there.
a. I need to file an action to foreclose a lien or their pledge, which is a lien against their fidelity bond. Because he violated his guaranty of personal honesty. And I am putting a lien on his property for a debt owed due to his breach of duty(oath).
b. I didn’t quite understand what he meant on the part about, “they don’t have files” and “we declare their office vacant”.
13. Can you direct me to some place(s) where I can see more videos or more material on this issues for more reading on this subject?
Franco