PDA

View Full Version : Resistance and Refusal by Banks



itsmymoney
01-12-13, 07:12 PM
Greetings, all.

David, and all in general,

I and many others have been experiencing resistance or downright refusals to change our signature card or open new accounts as such with a declaration that the account be redeemable in lawful money. I have a theory but I do not have proof one way or the other why these 'member banks' have been rejecting us.

USC 411 states that 'The said notes shall be obligations of the Unites States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal Reserve Banks...They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, DC, or at any Federal Reserve Bank.'

Here goes my theory based on the language in USC 411...

1) 'The said notes...shall be receivable by all '.

To me, receivable means they can accept Federal Reserve notes (with no talk of lawful money redemption at this point). So they can receive FRN's into virtually all banks.

2) 'They shall be [B]redeemed in lawful money on demand at the [Treasury Dept, DC, or any Federal Reserve bank].

What strikes me is that 'member banks' are not included in the 'redeemable entity' list. The language could be interpreted in this manner by the 'member banks': any bank can receive FRN's into an account, but only the ones in the 'redeemable entity' list shall as obligated by law, redeem them in lawful money. So they are interpreting 'Federal Reserve bank' to mean the 12 known banks as such. Therefore, they (private, FDIC members, that ilk) interpret that they can receive your FRN's but are under no obligation to redeem in lawful money because they are not one of the '12 Federal Reserve banks'.

Although remedy exists via USC 411, the thinking is that if these 'member banks' are somehow excluded from the obligation, one would need to redeem in lawful money at one of the 12 Federal Reserve Banks or at the Treasury Department. Which for almost all of us would be incredibly impractical and frankly, incredibly unfair and not in good faith per USC 411.

Is there supporting law or documents for USC 411 that would clarify the above interpretation one way or another?

Thank you for any clarification or thoughts on this.

David Merrill
01-12-13, 08:31 PM
The signature card is an agreement. You make a novation (innovation) and that means they have three days to R4C your novation. Another method might be to put the demand on your payroll authorization for direct deposit. That involves your employer though and that is never wise.

I think you are right on about the specifications of which banks may be redeemed but you do not get to bank at the Federal Reserve banks. They do not open accounts for people like you. So you either have the right to redeem or not. According to MILAM you do.


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

Which presents the question - Where do I go, if not my bank?

If your banker says you have to go to the Fed or that this only applies to state banks and not you and if he were correct then it would not make any difference and he should allow you to sign as you please. If you have no such remedy then it is just a fanciful addition - meaningless. We have the suitor who found employees being fired though, for making general deposits when they were to be special deposits to it does indeed matter.

My experience (through the brain trust) tells me that if the suitor knows what he is doing he will get the novation in place mostly because the bank has fiduciary responsibility to do business with you. In other words they may try convincing you to close down your account and if you are conditioned to obey, you will. They will not close down your account unless you are costing them like with the suitor where the employees were fired. That cost a lot so they shut down the accounts.

Rock Anthony
01-13-13, 08:48 AM
Greetings, all.

David, and all in general,

I and many others have been experiencing resistance or downright refusals to change our signature card or open new accounts as such with a declaration that the account be redeemable in lawful money. I have a theory but I do not have proof one way or the other why these 'member banks' have been rejecting us...

I've had success opening a 'lawful money' checking account at Bank of America (see front (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/dynamics/attachment.php?do=fullview&attachmentid=20)and back (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/dynamics/attachment.php?do=fullview&attachmentid=21) of signature card, my novation is on the back). And it seems that I'm not the only one.

When I opened the account, I was initially met with resistance. The banker did not comprehend my demand for lawful money. I remember her assertively telling me, "You will not stamp that on my signature card!" I had to remind myself that, yeah, in her role as agent of BofA, it really is her signature card.

I requested that she not reject the application for a new checking account, but rather run this by the BofA legal department. I very graciously expressed concern for her well being, that I would not like to see her get in trouble for practicing law without a license. She agreed, and asked that I contact her the following Tuesday.

Well, upon contacting her the following Tuesday, she invited me to come in and open the account, demand for lawful money and all!!!

I type all of this to say, go to BofA. They seem to have better a better legal department than many other banks. :D

David Merrill
01-13-13, 10:12 AM
Thanks for that Rock. Bank of America seems to come highly recommended for this.

Keith Alan
01-13-13, 02:55 PM
Greetings, all.

David, and all in general,

I and many others have been experiencing resistance or downright refusals to change our signature card or open new accounts as such with a declaration that the account be redeemable in lawful money. I have a theory but I do not have proof one way or the other why these 'member banks' have been rejecting us.

USC 411 states that 'The said notes shall be obligations of the Unites States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal Reserve Banks...They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, DC, or at any Federal Reserve Bank.'

Here goes my theory based on the language in USC 411...

1) 'The said notes...shall be receivable by all '.

To me, receivable means they can accept Federal Reserve notes (with no talk of lawful money redemption at this point). So they can receive FRN's into virtually all banks.

2) 'They shall be [B]redeemed in lawful money on demand at the [Treasury Dept, DC, or any Federal Reserve bank].

What strikes me is that 'member banks' are not included in the 'redeemable entity' list. The language could be interpreted in this manner by the 'member banks': any bank can receive FRN's into an account, but only the ones in the 'redeemable entity' list shall as obligated by law, redeem them in lawful money. So they are interpreting 'Federal Reserve bank' to mean the 12 known banks as such. Therefore, they (private, FDIC members, that ilk) interpret that they can receive your FRN's but are under no obligation to redeem in lawful money because they are not one of the '12 Federal Reserve banks'.

Although remedy exists via USC 411, the thinking is that if these 'member banks' are somehow excluded from the obligation, one would need to redeem in lawful money at one of the 12 Federal Reserve Banks or at the Treasury Department. Which for almost all of us would be incredibly impractical and frankly, incredibly unfair and not in good faith per USC 411.

Is there supporting law or documents for USC 411 that would clarify the above interpretation one way or another?

Thank you for any clarification or thoughts on this.
I'm looking for an easier more direct way as well. I can't shake the question that, if I demand lawful money, what's in it for the bank? Near as I can tell, there is no benefit at all to them, except possibly better public relations.

It also raises another question: since I'm holding FRN's, and if by default that makes me a state Bank, why can't I simply exercise my own demand? As Beneficiary - True Name - I can demand my Trustee - LEGAL NAME - to make good the demand. The Trustor, Congress and the Federal Reserve System, has made this provision in the law.

Unless I'm wrong about the Trustor being the Congress and the Fed (persons of yet another trust).

All of this begs for documentation, which is why it appears necessary for a third party to keep a record, in the event of a controversy. All of tbhis is contingent on me having received a bank draft or check. What if I simply cash the check? What then? Haven't I avoided the entire controversy? Has anyone explored the idea of simply cashing checks with the restrictive endorsement on the back?

David Merrill
01-13-13, 03:27 PM
I'm looking for an easier more direct way as well. I can't shake the question that, if I demand lawful money, what's in it for the bank? Near as I can tell, there is no benefit at all to them, except possibly better public relations.

It also raises another question: since I'm holding FRN's, and if by default that makes me a state Bank, why can't I simply exercise my own demand? As Beneficiary - True Name - I can demand my Trustee - LEGAL NAME - to make good the demand. The Trustor, Congress and the Federal Reserve System, has made this provision in the law.

Unless I'm wrong about the Trustor being the Congress and the Fed (persons of yet another trust).

All of this begs for documentation, which is why it appears necessary for a third party to keep a record, in the event of a controversy. All of tbhis is contingent on me having received a bank draft or check. What if I simply cash the check? What then? Haven't I avoided the entire controversy? Has anyone explored the idea of simply cashing checks with the restrictive endorsement on the back?

That is the issue of the interest. There is really nothing in it for the bank. Except to adhere to responsibility to the public. If you are reducing the national debt then you are a minister of the Public Trust - Article VI of the Constitution.

Cashing checks with the restrictive endorsement on the back? What is the difference between a check and a withdrawal slip?


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


http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/4149/nonendorsementredemptio.jpg


Strike through Pay to the order of...

Keith Alan
01-13-13, 03:46 PM
That is the issue of the interest. There is really nothing in it for the bank. Except to adhere to responsibility to the public. If you are reducing the national debt then you are a minister of the Public Trust - Article VI of the Constitution.

Cashing checks with the restrictive endorsement on the back? What is the difference between a check and a withdrawal slip?


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


http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/4149/nonendorsementredemptio.jpg


Strike through Pay to the order of...
Yes, that looks very simple to me. Strike through, restrictively endorse, photocopy and cash. The difference is convenience. I get multiple checks from people, so it follows I would need to spend an afternoon every week going to each bank and cashing them. Here in California (I don't know about other states) it's a pain, since they want fingerprints, and there are restrictions on receiving too large of an amount. But this appeals to me more than notice and demand and evidence repositories, even though those are probably wise things to do.

KnowLaw
01-13-13, 04:25 PM
I type all of this to say, go to BofA. They seem to have better a better legal department than many other banks. :D
Wells Fargo has never given me any trouble about this matter, either. It seems the top or major five or six U.S. banks may be aware of this and will adjust their accounting to reflect the demand.

Within the past two years they (Wells Fargo) required different stipulations for their accounts which required my opening a personal savings account in connection with the checking account already opened in order to avoid incurring additional fees. I did so at that time, making the demand for lawful money on the signature application form. The "banker/clerk" helping me didn't seem to understand anything about the novation and let it pass without comment.

Well, for the first year or so there were interest payments being added to the account (pennies really, but an interest payment nonetheless). Then just within the past three months, those interest payments stopped showing up on my monthly statements for that account. I figured that someone at the bank must have finally noticed the demand and rearranged the bank's acknowledgement to reflect the demand.

itsmymoney
01-13-13, 06:54 PM
Thanks to all for the options out there. I am waiting word on my bank as to whether they will allow a change to the current account.

David, regarding your prior post below of 'where to go' if the banks refuse you, I believe a little moxy as you say in standing firm. If in fact lawful money can only be redeemed by a Federal Reserve Bank (if you read USC 411 that way), then I would think the member bank could simply pass on your demand to their neighborhood FRB as a credit to the member bank in that amount. If the bank is still resistant to the demand, then I would perhaps ask their legal department to provide me a remedy to their contention that they are not required to redeem in lawful money, as remedy to not honoring my demand is required by law, correct?


My experience (through the brain trust) tells me that if the suitor knows what he is doing he will get the novation in place mostly because the bank has fiduciary responsibility to do business with you. In other words they may try convincing you to close down your account and if you are conditioned to obey, you will. They will not close down your account unless you are costing them like with the suitor where the employees were fired. That cost a lot so they shut down the accounts.

David, as an aside to your above post, were the bank employees fired because they were not submitting the lawful money notes into their accounting properly?

Thank you.

David Merrill
01-13-13, 09:45 PM
Thanks to all for the options out there. I am waiting word on my bank as to whether they will allow a change to the current account.

David, regarding your prior post below of 'where to go' if the banks refuse you, I believe a little moxy as you say in standing firm. If in fact lawful money can only be redeemed by a Federal Reserve Bank (if you read USC 411 that way), then I would think the member bank could simply pass on your demand to their neighborhood FRB as a credit to the member bank in that amount. If the bank is still resistant to the demand, then I would perhaps ask their legal department to provide me a remedy to their contention that they are not required to redeem in lawful money, as remedy to not honoring my demand is required by law, correct?



David, as an aside to your above post, were the bank employees fired because they were not submitting the lawful money notes into their accounting properly?

Thank you.

First point;

That is probably going on anyway. There must be remedy.

Second point;

That is a vicarious experience by a suitor who reported it. So I don't know much about the details. The bank closed down accounts though.

itsmymoney
01-14-13, 12:31 AM
I think USC 411 could have been written better (IMHO) to include the member banks in the 'redeemable list' [1) at the Treasury Dept; 2) in the city of DC; 3 at a Federal Reserve bank]. As I stated in my original post, the member banks could interpret 'Federal Reserve Bank' to literally mean one of the big 12 (and not them).

But, as David aptly pointed out by the original Act, there must be remedy for redeeming in U.S. notes. I believe 'Federal Reserve bank' in the language implies that member banks are 'agents' of the Federal Reserve big 12 and therefore must honor the remedy associated as such with the big 12. But if I can read 411 it on its face and 'pick it apart', then we know they can. And, they will spin it in their favor if we are ignorant to the law and intent of that law.

itsmymoney
01-14-13, 10:27 PM
Ok, here's an update from my bank...

The liason person (very nice) forward the following to me in response to my request to change my sig card (in quotes):

'This is an urban myth and periodically circles the financial world. Due to regulatory approval and customer volume, we do not deviate from our standard account agreement upon individual customer requests. Therefore, we are not allowed to modify the terms and conditions of the contract (signature card) established with Marine Bank. [followed by the actual languge of USC 411]'.

Urban myth...really?
Customer volume...what does that mean?
What regulatory approval...bank, State or Fed and where can I find it to confirm/debunk?

As an aside, they won't let me open a new account either.

I sent back an email asking the following:

1) Please forward the following question to the person responsible for this matter:

Is the bank now intending to deny me redemption in lawful money currently being executed on my paper check deposits, as per the statute they have provided below (USC 411), which is the law I have been citing as the basis for this lawful money remedy-obligation in the first place?

2) I would like the name and number of the Treasury or Financial officer at Marine who would be able to respond to my inquiries in this matter.


The one I'd really be curious about is if they continue to let me deposit restricted paper checks. I currently have direct-deposit but I will need to change to restricted paper checks. I have only deposited a few paper checks but all were restricted w/o issue.

On that note (restricted paper checks), does anyone have an opinion on whether this would supercede or override a non-restricted sig card on the account? My thinking is, all restricted paper deposits, withdrawals and merchant checks written from a non-restricted sig card account are the actual transactions of redeeming that money, therefore you have avoided endorsing the "person" (statutory) on the sig card.

All thougths and clarifications are welcome.

Michael Joseph
01-14-13, 11:35 PM
its like my daddy used to say, if one girl says no, ask another.

furthermore, I am not in the business of asking anyone if I can place a restrictive endorsement in front of MY signature. And unless I asked for legal advise, I am not going to listen to some clerk dispense unwanted advise.

"Are you giving me legal advise / are you an attorney?"

Shalom,
MJ

Ambientlght
01-14-13, 11:39 PM
I opened an account at a local bank here in the Chicagoland area in June of 2012, I wrote on the signature card "All transactions on this account are intended by demand to be done in lawful money per 12 USC 411." I had the administrator make copies of it with no problem, she asked what it was about and I told her it was part of my constitutional rights to demand lawful currency in lieu of the existing fiat currency in place in our country, she said oh, okay and proceeded to make me a copy of the signature card.
A week later I walked into the bank and the same lady that processed the signature card walked up to me and said "I looked up the 12 USC 411 thing and it says something about lawful money being of gold and silver, well I am here to tell you our money is not backed by any gold or silver anymore!" I looked at her and smiled and said "My point exactly" ..... she walked away with a bewildered look on her face.
The bank refused to cash the checks I presented with my stamp "Deposit for credit on account or exchange for federal reserve notes of equal value" but they did let me deposit them and with drawl the funds after 2 or 3 days.
My dilemma, if you can call it a dilemma, is that every month since I opened the account they have sent a letter stating that there is no signature card on file and that I should come in to file one. I laughed because how is the account even opened and an account # issued without a signature card? Did they lose it? are they afraid to put that one on file?
I read somewhere in one of these threads about a 3 day rescission right of the bank to with drawl the signature card, is that true?
I have wrote a nasty letter and a nice letter but would like some input before I send one of them off to them, also curious if I should mail it certified w/proof of service?
I can post scrubbed copies of the signature card and the letter from hte bank if that will help in assessing my situation.

Thanks in advance for your input into these matters,
Tom

Michael Joseph
01-15-13, 12:41 AM
Well I suppose that might be confusing language to a bank teller, but i find the law says one needs to make a DEMAND for lawful money so why not make the DEMAND known on the instrument such as:

DEMAND IS MADE FOR LAWFUL MONEY PER 12USC411.


If some ignorant clerk asks why the language I used to say "its for tax purposes" - say goodnight Gracie....

Shalom,
MJ

itsmymoney
01-15-13, 12:50 AM
its like my daddy used to say, if one girl says no, ask another.

furthermore, I am not in the business of asking anyone if I can place a restrictive endorsement in front of MY signature. And unless I asked for legal advise, I am not going to listen to some clerk dispense unwanted advise.

"Are you giving me legal advise / are you an attorney?"

Shalom,
MJ

Point well taken. I may end up going elsewhere. However, I want to gain some experience in how these officers respond (not the clerk) to legal matters of which may be denying me Constitutional rights. They actually forwarded me the very law (USC 411) of which I am citing as my right for lawful money, as THEIR reason for NOT meeting that obligation. Now, unless they are (as this thread implies may be happening) spinning the definition of 'Federal Reserve bank' to mean only the big 12, then I do not see how they can defend their argument.

The officer (or lackey subordinate to) will supposedly call me to discuss this.

itsmymoney
01-15-13, 12:54 AM
Well I suppose that might be confusing language to a bank teller, but i find the law says one needs to make a DEMAND for lawful money so why not make the DEMAND known on the instrument such as:

DEMAND IS MADE FOR LAWFUL MONEY PER 12USC411.


If some ignorant clerk asks why the language I used to say "its for tax purposes" - say goodnight Gracie....

Shalom,
MJ


Did you mean to say if you (customer) stated the novation was for 'tax purposes' then no way would they honor it?

Inhisimage
01-15-13, 01:48 AM
I think the language wording in the law says, "shall" and in a legal sense, shall means MUST.

MY SS check is direct deposit as well as my retirement and my salary! Now I want to, as nice as is possible, use the word "demand", as is required by the law, that -ALL- transactions of my account be in lawful money.
Should I file a "Libel of Review" before I start this?

I want to understand How to force the bank to comply

itsmymoney
01-15-13, 02:11 AM
I think the language wording in the law says, "shall" and in a legal sense, shall means MUST.

MY SS check is direct deposit as well as my retirement and my salary! Now I want to, as nice as is possible, use the word "demand", as is required by the law, that -ALL- transactions of my account be in lawful money.
Should I file a "Libel of Review" before I start this?

I want to understand How to force the bank to comply

Yes, 'shall' means MUST. USC 411 states that they shall receive and they shall redeem. However, as noted, the 'redeeming' sentence in the statute does not include 'member banks' as obligators unless the they are to be implied in the same class as a big 12 'Federal Reserve bank' as it is listed. David Merrill points out that there must be a remedy for redeeming in U.S. Notes (previously gold, silver) outside the Federal Reserve private Banksters, therefore 'Federal Reserve bank' would by law include 'member banks', UNLESS there is another law providing remedy for lawful money other than USC 411. If there is neither remedy in 411 or an otherwise law we are not aware of, then it would be repugnant to the Constitution I believe because it would be illegal to force us into a private contract in that regard.

As for the demand on your account. If you cannot change the sig card then in my opinion, you would need to open a new account with the novation on the sig card, or if they (or any bank) won't allow it, you might ask all the debtors (SS, salary) to issue checks instead of direct-deposit and then stamp the novation on the checks. This gives you control and ownership of the money and how you would like to redeem it into your account.

Michael Joseph
01-15-13, 04:17 AM
Did you mean to say if you (customer) stated the novation was for 'tax purposes' then no way would they honor it?

I don't know anything about anybody honoring anything I say. All I am saying is that these days men and women are D U M B as stumps. And if you even mention it is FOR tax purposes that is enough to overload the hamster wheel powering the few brain cells that they are actually using. And that is a shame. But the public fool system gets what it pays for and these days that is a source of cheap labor that is very skilled at parroting orders and getting them filled within the scope of their OJT.

"It's for tax purposes" works BECAUSE taxes are Voluntary and my taxes are MY business. And how I might pay my taxes is my business ONLY. And if some clown will not accept my signature including my restrictions, then I will find someone who will. There is no shortage of banks.

Keith Alan
01-15-13, 02:18 PM
I apologize in advance for posting yet another odd question, but can banks use money that is on deposit in non-interest bearing accounts as reserve currency?

- Update - I believe the answer is no. My thinking is, since the funds are in a non-interest bearing account, and since a person would make his demand upon depositing a check, then the funds in the account would already be lawful money, and no signature card novation is necessary.

Chex
01-15-13, 08:03 PM
They actually forwarded me the very law (USC 411) of which I am citing as my right for lawful money, as THEIR reason for NOT meeting that obligation.

I am curious what they said in their response, can you explain that.

Keith Alan
01-15-13, 08:54 PM
Point well taken. I may end up going elsewhere. However, I want to gain some experience in how these officers respond (not the clerk) to legal matters of which may be denying me Constitutional rights. They actually forwarded me the very law (USC 411) of which I am citing as my right for lawful money, as THEIR reason for NOT meeting that obligation. Now, unless they are (as this thread implies may be happening) spinning the definition of 'Federal Reserve bank' to mean only the big 12, then I do not see how they can defend their argument.

The officer (or lackey subordinate to) will supposedly call me to discuss this.

For what it's worth, the way I understood what you wrote was, they denied your signature card novation, not your demand to receive lawful money.

David Merrill
01-15-13, 10:55 PM
Perhaps it might be simpler to view things in a different light. All you are doing is making a demand. You can demand anything you want all day long. It is up to law and maybe more principles of metaphysics, including your mastery of natural law that obligates the bank or the other party, spouse, child or preacher, plumber etc. to perform.

Why does the bank care one way or the other about your demand? If there is nothing to Title 12 USC §411 then why would the bank give a hoot about your demand?

itsmymoney
01-15-13, 11:40 PM
Chex,

This is what the bank agent forwarded from the person (officer I suppose) responsible for denying me, verbatim...

'This is an urban myth and periodically circles the financial world. Due to regulatory approval and customer volume, we do not deviate from our standard account agreement upon individual customer requests. Therefore, we are not allowed to modify the terms and conditions of the contract (signature card) established with Marine Bank. The actual ACT is below

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

Now obviously (as David M pointed out) they are deterring me, obfuscating, and bascally lying to me becase they and I know what's going on here. I find it laugable that she cited the very language (USC 411) that rebuts her position. Or, she has misinterpreted USC 411 incorrectly (that would be a shame considering her title). The agent said the officer was going to call me but I'm sure I'll wait until the end of time to hear from her. Also, has anyone seen Title 12 USC 342? Clear distinction between currency: lawful money, Federal Reserve notes.

I will try another bank for the sig card novation, but I am thinking of writing the officer and providing her with the laws she supposedly knows already. Maybe she thought it was ME who did not understand USC 411 and was trying to bet on my ignorance of the statute.

Keith Alan, you are correct. They have not actually said I could NOT deposit or redeem in lawful money. Which leads to my next question to David and everyone else...

If I deposit restricted checks (or notes) into that non-restricted account, and withdrawal all monies as lawful money from that account (novation on withdrawal slips) and subsequently purchase money orders with those withdrawals to pay merchants for goods and services, will this execution override the 'generic' signature card language and the future debt obligation of those transactions?

David Merrill
01-16-13, 12:41 AM
Keith Alan, you are correct. They have not actually said I could NOT deposit or redeem in lawful money. Which leads to my next question to David and everyone else...

If I deposit restricted checks (or notes) into that non-restricted account, and withdrawal all monies as lawful money from that account (novation on withdrawal slips) and subsequently purchase money orders with those withdrawals to pay merchants for goods and services, will this execution override the 'generic' signature card language and the future debt obligation of those transactions?

Why purchase money orders? The cash works better than the money orders in my opinion.

By making your demand you simply presume the cash you get is lawful money. The objective is that the cash does not hold a silent first lien on anything that you buy with it being private credit (in part) from the Fed.



http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/83/stanekvwhite3.jpg

itsmymoney
01-16-13, 01:54 AM
David,

Thank you for the court cite. It takes a bit to adopt yourself to all the legal-speak there. I think you (and the cite) is saying that once the lawful notes are withdrawn as such from your account and then transferred to another party, the debt is paid at that instance and no lien or obligation remains. If I'm off here, please set me straight.

As for cash and money orders:

I'm trying to avoid sending for example, $100 in cash via mail to pay my cable bill. A money order eliminates that (other than the fee). What am I missing here?

David Merrill
01-16-13, 03:10 AM
I am sorry. For mailed funds postal money orders are fully lawful money. Look for "Pay to" rather than "Pay to the Order of".

I do not feel that you are off. The cite is basically to make the point that there is a residual first lien on credit. You cannot truly buy anything with credit. You only discharge the obligation. It is like both you and the Fed have bought it together if you use the Fed's credit.

That is another way to say the same thing you said.

itsmymoney
01-16-13, 04:05 AM
DM, no apologies necessary. Grateful for the education and clarification. :)

David Merrill
01-17-13, 12:44 AM
DM, no apologies necessary. Grateful for the education and clarification. :)


Somebody mentioned to me the other day that they are waiting for some checks to come in with lawful money verbiage and the Pay to: rather than Pay to the Order of:


That will be interesting.

Chex
01-17-13, 02:53 PM
G search on Pay to vs Pay to the Order of.

Pay to order is a finance term that means a single individual, business or group has direct ownership over a specific financial instrument. This means that the specified person or representative must be the person to handle the transfer or dissolution of the document. This is in direct opposition to a pay to barer document, which allows anyone in possession full financial control over the contents. In modern finance, the most common pay to order documents are personal and business checks.

Both pay to order and pay to barer have been around since the early days of banking and large-scale trade. Each of the methods has its own purposes and risks, giving each of them a strong presence all the way to modern day. These terms describe the basic way the end receiver of the payment document approaches the situation.

Pay to barer documents are the less common of the two. Using this method, the ownership of a document gives full legal and financial control over the terms within. Originally, these were used when travel was longer and more difficult. The original issuer wouldn’t necessarily know who the person presenting the document to the payer would be. To prevent any possible payment issues, the payee was left open. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-pay-to-order-mean.htm

Former bank teller here...

(1) "Pay to the order of " means that you are signing the check over to the bank. Why would you want to give the bank your money? You wouldn't. I don't recommend this endorsement.

(2) You can endorse a check with only your signature. This is acceptable. However, if you lose it, someone else may attempt to endorse it below you and cash it.

(3) Adding "for deposit only" is designed to prevent the above situation, restricting the check for deposit. This is not required, but it is the safest endorsement, assuming you want to deposit your check.

(4) A bank can stamp an endorsement. If you want to deposit money into my account, just write a check to me, take it to my bank, and tell them that you want to put it in [b]Bearflag's checking account. The teller will stamp the back of the check "for deposit only" with my account number.

Adding your account number with your endorsement tells the bank where the money went or is supposed to go. If your deposit slip and check get separated at the bank, then the bank can still put the check where it's supposed to go by the account number on the back.

Every time you write a check to pay a bill or at a store, you give a stranger your account number, address, name, and signature. The risk of identity theft from an endorsement seems minimal.

Lastly, don't endorse checks until you are about to negotiate them. You don't want to lose endorsed checks. See (2) above.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-119108.html

SPECIAL DEPOSIT. A deposit made of a particular thing with the depositary: it is distinguished from an irregular deposit.

2. When a thing has been specially deposited with a depositary, the title to it remains with the depositor, and if it should be lost, the loss will fall upon him. When, on the contrary, the deposit is irregular, as where money is deposited in a bank, the title to which is transferred to the bank, if it be, lost, the loss will be borne by the bank. This will result from the same principle; the loss will fall, in both instances, on the owner of the thing, according to the rule res perit domino. See 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 1 054.

REGULAR DEPOSIT. One where the thing deposited must be returned. It is distinguished from an irregular deposit.

irregular deposit (http://www.google.com/search?q=irregular+deposit&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-ContextMenu&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7MEDA)

Nobody taught me that in school.

David Merrill
01-17-13, 03:38 PM
Thank you Chex;


It is good to have such experience on the board.

Lastly, don't endorse checks until you are about to negotiate them.

The key to understanding your post in relation to non-endorsement (demand for lawful money) is in the word negotiate. Pay to... is intended as said, to pay. Pay to the Order of... in the context of lawful money opens the instrument up to be a negotiable instrument. That means it can be traded for a variety of various items as in US notes (in the form of FRNs since 1971) or for Federal Reserve notes.

This is probably something that you would never think about even as a bank teller unless you were discussing somebody's non-endorsement demand for lawful money.

Do you think the fellow ordering the checks will get them "Pay to..."?

mikecz
01-17-13, 04:08 PM
If not for anything else, just having "pay to" also more correctly stated pay to bearer, doesn't require the current holder of the check to produce identification. The check could be written to anyone, and anyone could cash it. If the check is lost, whoever may pick it up can cash/deposit it. If the check was a Pay to the order of, then the payee were to endorse it, it becomes "bearer paper" and acts similar to "pay to", as any person who picks up the check is now able to complete a transaction with it.

I have a few hired hands that don't have identification, lets say they are Canadians. They hate checks because of this reason, id needs to be shown. I will frequently write checks to a brother, or sister or closest of kin who has a valid id. The kin will cash and forward the money to the hired hand.

As I understand it, and my next check I will complete this process, I will cross out "pay to the order of" and change it with initials to "pay to bearer". The hired hand should have no problem. As I see it, the check with this statement becomes the same as cash. A good way to add anonymity to checks. (I could also write a check to myself, endorse it, and give it to him, the check has now become bearer paper, really as good as cash)

What I don't quite understand is where the lawful money angle comes into play? I understand the negotiation part of your description, but, pay to really means pay to bearer. It doesn't have to do with the execution as it only defines who may complete a transaction with the instrument. I believe that step comes with the endorsement or non-endorsement of said check. Thinking of it another way, having a Pay to bearer on the check, then a signature on the back is completed with an endorsement then allows the check to become used by the bank a a FRN correct? Did I mention this forum is awesome.

mikecz
01-17-13, 04:51 PM
Read this. It is incredibly enlightening.

http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/08/fractional-reserve-banking-contracts-of-deposit-and-the-title-transfer-theory-of-contract/

It has to do with title transfer. Boiling it down, there are three types of deposits described.

1. Regular deposit - You have 10 lbs of gold with your initials on it, the bank stores it for you, you pay a fee for said storage, then at any time, request 10lbs of gold, you get the gold with your initials
2. Irregular deposit - You have 10 lbs of gold with your initials on it, the bank stores it for you, you pay a fee for said storage, then at any time, request 10lbs of gold, you get the gold, but in any form, as long as it is equivalent in value. It could be 10lbs of 10 gram bars. The key is it doesn't have to be the same thing you deposited. (I originally thought this was what happens at a bank.)

Also, in these deposits, there is no transfer of title, they are merely custodians for your goods, which you pay them a fee.

3. Fractional-Reserve deposit - here more specifically described...

"which is not really a deposit, but rather a loan to the bank, the entire analysis changes. In this case, the FRB does acquire title to the customer’s property; in exchange the customer acquires a future, conditional title-transfer from the FRB: title to a certain sum of money in the future at a certain time (say, when the customer makes a “demand”), but of course, only if the bank owns at that time assets to which title can transfer to the customer. If the FRB is bankrupt, due to a run (as some of believe is inevitably the case), then when the customer demands money, the bank simply has no money. This situation is then analogous to that of the deadbeat debtor discussed on pp. 32-33 of A Libertarian Theory of Contract."

I believe demanding lawful money demands a irregular deposit, more specifically employs the bank as merely a custodian of your money, not title to it.

David Merrill
01-17-13, 05:10 PM
If not for anything else, just having "pay to" also more correctly stated pay to bearer, doesn't require the current holder of the check to produce identification. The check could be written to anyone, and anyone could cash it. If the check is lost, whoever may pick it up can cash/deposit it. If the check was a Pay to the order of, then the payee were to endorse it, it becomes "bearer paper" and acts similar to "pay to", as any person who picks up the check is now able to complete a transaction with it.

I have a few hired hands that don't have identification, lets say they are Canadians. They hate checks because of this reason, id needs to be shown. I will frequently write checks to a brother, or sister or closest of kin who has a valid id. The kin will cash and forward the money to the hired hand.

As I understand it, and my next check I will complete this process, I will cross out "pay to the order of" and change it with initials to "pay to bearer". The hired hand should have no problem. As I see it, the check with this statement becomes the same as cash. A good way to add anonymity to checks. (I could also write a check to myself, endorse it, and give it to him, the check has now become bearer paper, really as good as cash)

What I don't quite understand is where the lawful money angle comes into play? I understand the negotiation part of your description, but, pay to really means pay to bearer. It doesn't have to do with the execution as it only defines who may complete a transaction with the instrument. I believe that step comes with the endorsement or non-endorsement of said check. Thinking of it another way, having a Pay to bearer on the check, then a signature on the back is completed with an endorsement then allows the check to become used by the bank a a FRN correct? Did I mention this forum is awesome.

There is a thread going about David Wynn MILLER and he is completely into sytax and the power of words. Trying to follow his parsing give me a headache so I still say there is something terribly wrong with his technology but that might be me, not him. I wonder if he sees this Burning Bush (http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/2104/burningbush.jpg) like I do. I see it inverted, as though somebody punched a fist into soft clay. - Rather than the bush coming off the page toward me. We do math in our heads and interpret complex information in our own way, and sometimes in common too.

Pay to the Order of...

To me that means the person following has an option about ordering currencies. Currencies are negotiable instruments. The check is a negotiable instrument. Currencies are traded all the time - we just don't think about that at the grocery cash register. We trade one form for chicken tenders etc. But we shirk our fiduciary responsibility to our household (estate) finances when we trade down. We are obligated as trustees of our financial health (and this especially goes for our family as shareholders in and beneficiaries of our estate) to always trade up. We have a treatise by the Informer floating around here where the non-endorsement demand was:

Exchanged for Credit on Account or Non-Negotiable (sometimes it was Non-Redeemable) Federal Reserve Notes of Equal (Face) Value.

It is illegal to create stock that is designed to depreciate in value. That is against the fundamental nature of fiduciary responsibility. However Congress did exactly that in 1913 creating the Fed to furnish elastic currency. This is the basis for my assertion that endorsing Fed notes is completely voluntary. It is the American people being duped into making a charitable donation to save the Fed when the 20-year charter expired in 1933. If I was wrong I doubt I could get so many people to agree with me. So try to understand the irony I see in people complaining about the Fed while they endorse its private credit?

The Pay to Bearer works fine in theory. I believe most bank tellers will require ID anyway. I have tried this I seem to recall in one form or another. If the manager is called though, I am sure Loss Management will be satisfied with the video and audio of the Bearer. I have a $50 Lottery ticket setting on my desk for weeks now. It was a gift and I scratched it and it is a winner! All tickets, transactions and winners are subject to Lottery Rules and State Law. I am assured that I do not need to sign anything but I am figuring the fellow who gave it to me will cash it in for me... If I subject my agent to State Law I feel removed by not being on 7-11 video, even though notice to the agent is notice to the principal and vice versa.

What I don't quite understand is where the lawful money angle comes into play? I understand the negotiation part of your description, but, pay to really means pay to bearer.

My assertion is that due to not being in the criminal syndicalism (Congress - 1913) until you show evidence you are - Innocent Until Proven Guilty - Pay to... specifies that inelastic and the most valuable currency available is the topic. - US notes. Those come in the form of FRNs since January of 1971 as specified by the Treasury, NOT CONGRESS. If you find a US note and take it to the grocery you will only get the face value in groceries though. Ergo my current gripe.

I am saying that pegging the US note to the FRN, a depreciating stock certificate in circulation, Congress overstepped the line between honest and dishonest. It was not until then that it happened. To reenact Title 31 into positive law they had to commit this act of forgery. I really think I have arrived at this crux of American financial history with the truth intact. This is where the rubber meets the road. It is the fraud and forgery that causes the IRS attorneys to back down every time.

By the way I have inquired into the brain trust and we only have one actual FrivPen bill and that was a suitor who started integrating Ed RIVERA's patriot mythology (example attached) into his Refusal for Cause US clerk instructions. It is like an inadvertant Sting, or borderline entrapment. He told the IRS attorneys that he is on dog food and all over the map and they decided to indict themselves with a $10K bill (of indictment against themselves). Maybe it is time to file a Criminal Complaint?


http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/1845/criminalcomplaintformfe.jpg

mikecz
01-17-13, 07:57 PM
David,

Today I went to my credit union and deposited my checks as usual. But, I began to ask the teller a series of questions related to our discussion.

Have you ever had anyone in here demand lawful money, or to hold their account in US bank notes?

Do you have any special accounts that aren't interest bearing?

I by signing this personal check through an endorsement, am handing you title to my money and granting you the right to loan it through the reserve system, is that correct?

That is when she called the manager. Then things got a little more interesting. I sat down with the Adam for over 30 minutes. We discussed the negotiable aspects of a check, in theory the whole pay to bearer, pay to the order of is very clear, but at the end of the day, indeed it is a negotiable instrument, and the bank has the power to choose to cash it or not. ID could be required or not, it all up to them. Then we got into US Notes vs FRNs, and began talking about my request of non-endorsement (That is to not allow them title to my money and give them the ability to stretch it through fractional reserve banking). Keep in mind this is a VERY conservative credit union. Either way, I told him what if I didn't agree to loaning my money to them and receiving and interest bearing account, what if I just wanted them to hold my money. At the end of the day, I am taking a risk loaning my money to them, for what, .2%? All I want is for them to act as a custodian, a guard for my money. He said, well, what's in it for you? I said, well, in my small way, I feel it my patriotic duty not to increase the national debt, and don't want to bolster the Federal Reserve, as I don't trust that system with my money. You could feel the power shift in the room a bit, he sat back in his chair and said, "I've never heard this before, if it's true, I may want to open an account like this." That statement was awesome. Either way, he is going to the powers that be to ask more questions.

I told him the biggest thing here is not whether your credit union will do it or not (because they may), but if it's even possible. Are there any fees, is it their fiduciary duty to their shareholders (members own shares of the credit union) to offer this as remedy. Anyways, I left on a positive note, we scheduled another meeting as a followup. I will keep you up to date on my findings. Either way David, you have started something. It's now clear to me we are a lot more free then we think, more times then not, through ignorance, we choose to be slaves. This indeed is a truly depressing reality.

David Merrill
01-17-13, 10:08 PM
David,

Today I went to my credit union and deposited my checks as usual. But, I began to ask the teller a series of questions related to our discussion.

Have you ever had anyone in here demand lawful money, or to hold their account in US bank notes?

Do you have any special accounts that aren't interest bearing?

I by signing this personal check through an endorsement, am handing you title to my money and granting you the right to loan it through the reserve system, is that correct?

That is when she called the manager. Then things got a little more interesting. I sat down with the Adam for over 30 minutes. We discussed the negotiable aspects of a check, in theory the whole pay to bearer, pay to the order of is very clear, but at the end of the day, indeed it is a negotiable instrument, and the bank has the power to choose to cash it or not. ID could be required or not, it all up to them. Then we got into US Notes vs FRNs, and began talking about my request of non-endorsement (That is to not allow them title to my money and give them the ability to stretch it through fractional reserve banking). Keep in mind this is a VERY conservative credit union. Either way, I told him what if I didn't agree to loaning my money to them and receiving and interest bearing account, what if I just wanted them to hold my money. At the end of the day, I am taking a risk loaning my money to them, for what, .2%? All I want is for them to act as a custodian, a guard for my money. He said, well, what's in it for you? I said, well, in my small way, I feel it my patriotic duty not to increase the national debt, and don't want to bolster the Federal Reserve, as I don't trust that system with my money. You could feel the power shift in the room a bit, he sat back in his chair and said, "I've never heard this before, if it's true, I may want to open an account like this." That statement was awesome. Either way, he is going to the powers that be to ask more questions.

I told him the biggest thing here is not whether your credit union will do it or not (because they may), but if it's even possible. Are there any fees, is it their fiduciary duty to their shareholders (members own shares of the credit union) to offer this as remedy. Anyways, I left on a positive note, we scheduled another meeting as a followup. I will keep you up to date on my findings. Either way David, you have started something. It's now clear to me we are a lot more free then we think, more times then not, through ignorance, we choose to be slaves. This indeed is a truly depressing reality.


Thank you for bringing this up about credit unions. It is my impression (upon the experiences of suitors) that credit unions are much more easy going about non-endorsement.


P.S. When you speak to him again you might mention the terms - Regular Deposit and Special Deposit.

itsmymoney
01-20-13, 01:42 AM
Thanks to all for educating some of us uninitiated in these matters. I am intending to open a new modified-agreement bank account within the next 2 weeks (or credit union) and will attempt to get my checks as 'Pay To' instead of the typical 'Pay To the Order of'. Questions I have regarding a lawful money transaction via checks payable to merchants:

If my account is a modified-agreement (R4LM novation on the signature card): Is my debt obligation satisfied at the time of the check transfer (payment from my bank to payee) if the check reads 'Pay To the Order Of'? I'm thinking just always issue 'Pay To' to avoid any doubt.

If my account is NOT a modified-agreement but all my deposits into that account are with lawful money, must one issue a 'Pay To' check to satisfy ones debt obligation where the payment is not further extended/loaned as a result?

I guess the bottom line here is, when is issuing a check 'safe' where the debt is not further extended as credit beyond that transaction where the payer would otherwise in effect be loaning the money to the payee (and his bank) instead of just 'buying goods and services'?

David Merrill
01-20-13, 05:47 AM
Thanks to all for educating some of us uninitiated in these matters. I am intending to open a new modified-agreement bank account within the next 2 weeks (or credit union) and will attempt to get my checks as 'Pay To' instead of the typical 'Pay To the Order of'. Questions I have regarding a lawful money transaction via checks payable to merchants:

If my account is a modified-agreement (R4LM novation on the signature card): Is my debt obligation satisfied at the time of the check transfer (payment from my bank to payee) if the check reads 'Pay To the Order Of'? I'm thinking just always issue 'Pay To' to avoid any doubt.

If my account is NOT a modified-agreement but all my deposits into that account are with lawful money, must one issue a 'Pay To' check to satisfy ones debt obligation where the payment is not further extended/loaned as a result?

I guess the bottom line here is, when is issuing a check 'safe' where the debt is not further extended as credit beyond that transaction where the payer would otherwise in effect be loaning the money to the payee (and his bank) instead of just 'buying goods and services'?

Actually this came up in discussion with the suitors about seven years back. When you change the check from Pay to the Order of to Pay to you deprive the payee of choice whether or not to redeem lawful money. So we chose not to. Unless of course it is a public utility, then you can choose how that utility redeems or not. Say it is the lawn boy. You might tell him his options and let him decide.

I find your two questions difficult because of perspective I suppose. You are in control of your demand or not. That is the courtesy extended to the lawn boy.

I have not made sense yet how Congress can peg an inelastic currency (US notes) to elastic currency in value honestly. With that little bit of nonsense preceeding what goes on behind the teller window at the bank, I am finding it very difficult to get bearings. I was in charge of calibrating machinery and test equipment at a large manufacturing firm and I think that may be my difficulty. I need some kind of a standard and beyond that teller window they have lost their bearing.


Regards,

David Merrill.

itsmymoney
01-20-13, 05:10 PM
DM, I'm still a bit unclear here and my apologies if I am not interpreting your explanation.

In simpler terms (for my perspective) let's say one's account is a 'lawful money' account either by signature card novation and/or deposits were restricted endorsements. Let's say the account is $200 lawful money, redeemed via novation on the payers check and payee's deposit slip. Payee/individual now wants to buy something with the money in that account, so...

If individual wants to pay in $100 cash, I believe the suitors are in favor of novating the demand on a withdrawal slip, for cash withdrawals. That is a 'redeeming transaction' of money with intent to purchase something (goods and services), correct?. Similarly, I would think, when purchasing goods and services with a $100 check from that account, that would be a 'redeeming transaction' as well, correct? So if this is true, then how does one restrict/prove that the $100 check transaction was redeemed in lawful money from the PAYER's perspective (the suitor in this case)? Perhaps stamping the demand on the receipt from the payee?

As I see it, there are always two 'redeeming transactions' in this practical scenario. The deposit and the withdrawal. If I am correct, then my concern is the 'redeeming transaction' aspect when paying for goods and services with a check. I see the cash withdrawal aspect and even further, buying a postal money order with that cash to pay for goods and services. I am trying to get my head around the 'check' transaction and how to document and prove that I purchased those goods and services with lawful money. If the signature card on the account has the demand novation then I would think the proof is documented there, as 'all transactions are demanded in lawful money'. If there is no novation on the card but deposits are all in lawful money, then I would think the suitor still needs to restrict the withdrawing aspect of said money (either cash or check) with his demand for lawful money against his purchases. If true, then my 'paying with a check' transaction confusion as stated above.

All clarifications are welcome, as I am trying to learn this so it becomes second nature.

David Merrill
01-20-13, 10:50 PM
I enjoy how you think.

The difficulty I have in correcting you, which is only trying to pursuade you to see it my way is that you might not need any correcting. Furthermore if I correct you then I might not learn as much from your posts as I could. I think that I can work from these two sentences:


As I see it, there are always two 'redeeming transactions' in this practical scenario. The deposit and the withdrawal.

The Demand works immediately on the backside of a paycheck if you are cashing it; which is a simultaneous deposit and withdrawal if you will. Deposits are not taxable as they are credit on account. So if you deposit your paycheck then you only sign your Demand to be consistent with doctrine. That means that you will be withdrawing funds later on a different paycheck, written by you to yourself often called a withdrawal slip. Or you can just write a check to CASH. The custom of changing the Signature Card is for electronic deposit from your employer and when you pull paperless withdrawals like with an ATM, or maybe even when you are in a hurry, forgot your stamp etc.

Equivalently you are telling your bank by Notice and/or Demand that all deposits are special. Not general or regular deposits.

itsmymoney
01-21-13, 12:29 AM
I enjoy how you think.

Well, the above is certainly humbling, David. As a 'newbie' I am simply asking questions and posing theories and scenarios that may or may not have been contemplated. I appreciate that you consider my thinking on this subject to be beneficial to the conversation. :)

As to your reply regarding 'redeeming transactions', I have learned previously from you (quite awhile ago) and others that the signature card novation is sort of a 'catch all' of your intent and demand to redeem all transactions on that account as lawful money. I am in the process of converting my monetary transactions to a 'financial hygiene' approach as that term has been coined (ironic...i.e coined/coinage...lawful money?) by TDL as you may know from CB's, and is probably already being executed by the many suitors on this site. This would entail (IMO), no credit cards, no loans (at least if possible, not bearing any FRB private credit), no personal checks to merchants, and the like.

Speaking of personal checks issued by a suitor to parties OTHER than yourself, it was telling (assumed) from your response the omission of personal checks to a merchant/entity as an example. I'm getting that this could perhaps create a 'liability' associated with further extending the FRB private credit. This would be the 'withdrawal' portion of the 'redeeming transaction' that I was referring to. I'm thinking that redeeming lawful money in cash and the subsequent purchase of a postal money order to pay a merchant/other entity will eliminate any doubt of extending private credit.

David Merrill
01-21-13, 11:01 AM
I think the breakthrough then is that if you make your demand, on your Signature Card and you get a copy into the Record (evidence repository) even if the bank subsequently gives you difficulty and maybe rejects it and you have to change the non-endorsement - you have accomplished all you need to accomplish. Additionally you might indict the bank by filing the current "corrected" Signature Card into your evidence repository. Or more accurately publish (PACER) the bank's indictment.

Take certified copies from the USDC clerk of court and serve them on the Fed by Registered Mail or Certificate of Service by professional process server and then publish that proof of service in your evidence repository.

All you are required to do by Title 12 USC §411 is make your demand. Prove every way till next Thursday that you have made your demand. If the bank refuses to accept your demand make that the bank's problem, not yours.

itsmymoney
01-22-13, 02:02 AM
I think the breakthrough then is that if you make your demand, on your Signature Card and you get a copy into the Record (evidence repository) even if the bank subsequently gives you difficulty and maybe rejects it and you have to change the non-endorsement - you have accomplished all you need to accomplish. Additionally you might indict the bank by filing the current "corrected" Signature Card into your evidence repository. Or more accurately publish (PACER) the bank's indictment.

Regarding 'even if the bank subsequently gives you difficulty and maybe rejects it and you have to change the non-endorsement...', are you referring to being rejected after the 3-day binding agreement? (another suitor mentioned this 3-day window as learned here at STSC). I believe they can outright refuse your novation prior to this window, correct?

I need to read and research creating an 'evidence repository'. I take this to be filing public record documents, such as one suitor filed his demand at the County Clerks office so it was 'on the record'.

gdude
01-22-13, 03:40 AM
I filed at the County Clerks office....It is a public record. I was studying the Libel of review, but it is beyond my knowledge, so far.

I think I gained some more insight, as what I learned is there are four different actions you can take against the gov...Administrative, Civil, Criminal, Admiralty.

The way I understand it, Admiralty is what taxes are collected under.... I think the Libel of Review is filed under the admiralty side of court?....


Shikamaru posted:

Taxes have been under admiralty since before the Revolution.
This all has its roots in smuggling and avoiding the King's dues.

See it here: http://www.founding.com/the_declarat...50/default.asp

The King could not sustain any convictions in Common Law courts of the colonists, so he moved the cases and jurisdictions to Admiralty/Vice-Admiralty/Maritime courts.

This makes sense to me as I believe most early IRS districts were located in Ports.

shikamaru
01-22-13, 09:31 PM
I filed at the County Clerks office....It is a public record. I was studying the Libel of review, but it is beyond my knowledge, so far.

I think I gained some more insight, as what I learned is there are four different actions you can take against the gov...Administrative, Civil, Criminal, Admiralty.

The way I understand it, Admiralty is what taxes are collected under.... I think the Libel of Review is filed under the admiralty side of court?....


Let's clean up this taxonomy a bit....

There are (were) 4 types of courts in the US:

a) common law or courts at law
b) equity
c) admiralty/maritime
d) administrative.

Courts at law and courts in equity have been merged into one as to its proceedings. However, their respective bodies of laws and remedies have not been merged. Don't expect any attorner to inform you of the latter.

Proceedings of courts in equity, in admiralty/maritime, and administrative courts all have their roots in Roman Civil Law.

Equity has no criminal form of action. I'd dare say that neither does administrative courts.

Equity was merely a remedial branch of law (Law of Remedies) historically before becoming a substantive branch of law over time.

A historical substantive branch of law (in England) that has no jurisdiction here in the States is Ecclesiastical Law. Ecclesiastical Law has its roots in Roman Civil Law as well.

There are two principal divisions of forms of action:
a) Civil
b) Criminal

In courts at law, there were multiple causes of actions, but since the merger of courts at law and in equity, there is only a single cause of action (civilly) which is called a pleading. Government still maintains common law on the criminal form of action side (for itself).

David Merrill
01-23-13, 01:38 AM
Regarding 'even if the bank subsequently gives you difficulty and maybe rejects it and you have to change the non-endorsement...', are you referring to being rejected after the 3-day binding agreement? (another suitor mentioned this 3-day window as learned here at STSC). I believe they can outright refuse your novation prior to this window, correct?

I need to read and research creating an 'evidence repository'. I take this to be filing public record documents, such as one suitor filed his demand at the County Clerks office so it was 'on the record'.


Actually I do not think so. I believe that the shareholders and board of directors would be very upset to discover that the manager is turning down opening accounts without a good reason legally.

David Merrill
01-23-13, 01:42 AM
Let's clean up this taxonomy a bit....

There are (were) 4 types of courts in the US:

a) common law or courts at law
b) equity
c) admiralty/maritime
d) administrative.

Courts at law and courts in equity have been merged into one as to its proceedings. However, their respective bodies of laws and remedies have not been merged. Don't expect any attorner to inform you of the latter.

Proceedings of courts in equity, in admiralty/maritime, and administrative courts all have their roots in Roman Civil Law.

Equity has no criminal form of action. I'd dare say that neither does administrative courts.

Equity was merely a remedial branch of law (Law of Remedies) historically before becoming a substantive branch of law over time.

A historical substantive branch of law (in England) that has no jurisdiction here in the States is Ecclesiastical Law. Ecclesiastical Law has its roots in Roman Civil Law as well.

There are two principal divisions of forms of action:
a) Civil
b) Criminal

In courts at law, there were multiple causes of actions, but since the merger of courts at law and in equity, there is only a single cause of action (civilly) which is called a pleading. Government still maintains common law on the criminal form of action side (for itself).

Thank you!

I don't think I have ever read such a succinct explanation. Here is a paper about it (http://www.freedom-school.com/the-1994-ebsworth.pdf).

shikamaru
01-23-13, 09:48 PM
The way I understand it, Admiralty is what taxes are collected under.... I think the Libel of Review is filed under the admiralty side of court?....

The collection is administrative. How many people do this of their own volition?

The court proceedings and how they are conducted, that's where the admiralty is.

Taxes may be tied in, anciently, with gifting and Roman Civil Law.

Remember in England, the king had a court dedicated exclusively to his royal revenues: the Court of the Exchequer.

EZrhythm
01-24-13, 07:39 AM
Excellent explanations Shika! I agree very succinct.

EZrhythm
01-24-13, 07:57 AM
Excellent explanations Shika! I agree very succinct.

David Merrill
01-24-13, 08:50 AM
Actually I do not think so. I believe that the shareholders and board of directors would be very upset to discover that the manager is turning down opening accounts without a good reason legally.

Quoting myself there. (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?802-Consiquences-of-general-deposit-of-redeemed-lawful-money)

gdude
01-25-13, 10:53 AM
Well, I wanted to post an update to my U.S. Bank R4LM. This morning I went to my online account and there was no checking or savings account! I was furious, as they never contacted me to tell me they were, in fact, closing the account. All this happened after I had a direct deposit from my work.

I called the local branch and they put me on hold for 10 minutes and came back to confirm that my account, had indeed, been closed because I did not sign a new sig card. What if I had written a check on the account?...do you think they would have charged me an overdraft fee???!!! Hell yes.

I asked the minion " Is US bank giving me legal advice? You are telling me how to sign a contract. Sounds like legal advice to me, do you realize it is a federal offense to dispense legal advice if you are not a lawyer?"

She said that they were not giving legal advice and that the sig card was a contract APPROVED BY THE GOVERNMENT and when I added verbage it changed their contract. I said it is perfectly within my right to change any contract if I am to sign under penalty of perjury. She said that their terms say that they can close any account for any reason! I did not have the time today to look it up....very stressful day without this BS.

I told her I have a valid signed contract (past it's 3 day trial period)....

On a different note I did mail my notarized Demand to the Treasury, Local Fed, and my old bank where I still have an account (good thing I did not close it out and change all my Online bill payments! I would be switching them all back.

I am just curious as to any response I will receive from any of the recipients. Wonder if we should send a copy to auntie?

As far as the US bank fiasco, there was another aspect that I did not like....signing the card as "True Name signing for the US PERSON-FIRST M LAST". I did not create this US PERSON, and I certainly do not consent to having me Family name stolen!

I think next time I will cross out "US PERSON" and write in "citizen of these United States of America" or "American citizen" or "man".

Thoughts?

David Merrill
01-25-13, 02:34 PM
Do you have the Return Receipt or Delivery Confirmation of your Notice and Demand that you sent to the Fed bank?

If Yes; you can clear this all up easily then. Go down to the bank and sign the Signature Card simply, the way they want. [Or if you want to mess with them just sign "Lawful Money" and tell them that is your signature from now on.] Then have a process server serve the Proof of Service with the Notice and Demand that you served on the Fed.

Now the bank is on notice that you served the Notice and Demand on the Fed and they should open up the accounts and go back to regular business. Technically they are in charge of R4C with the Signature contract. You have finally pressed the envelope of fiduciary responsibility too far, for at least one bank anyway.


Regards,

David Merrill.

gdude
01-25-13, 06:48 PM
Thanks David, Interestingly enough, the only return receipt I've received so far is from the Dept of Treasury. I'm done with US bank, left a bad taste. I like my current bank, Suntrust, but I opened that account in mid 90s. I did send them a Demand also, but they may try to ignore it, or maybe say that I am trying to change the terms of the adhesion contract. BUT, 12USC411 only says you have to make a demand, not that any principle players have to agree to it....correct?

shikamaru
01-25-13, 09:30 PM
.... been closed because I did not sign a new sig card.

Holy crap. My bank did the exact same thing to me, but on a different issue.

gdude
01-25-13, 10:08 PM
VERY TELLING, isn't it?

David Merrill
01-26-13, 02:52 AM
Thanks David, Interestingly enough, the only return receipt I've received so far is from the Dept of Treasury. I'm done with US bank, left a bad taste. I like my current bank, Suntrust, but I opened that account in mid 90s. I did send them a Demand also, but they may try to ignore it, or maybe say that I am trying to change the terms of the adhesion contract. BUT, 12USC411 only says you have to make a demand, not that any principle players have to agree to it....correct?

How can they ignore a demand?

You really have to study that one!

They have no control over your voice. You may voice any demand you like. If you get it across with proof then they cannot ignore your demand. Especially in these cases where they close the accounts. They are responding to your demand - not ignoring it. That is how I take your Tell - Gdude. It is a Tell, that your demand has substance.

These banks are suddenly realizing that they cannot ignore your demands for lawful money. Check out this thread (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?802-Consiquences-of-general-deposit-of-redeemed-lawful-money)! 55 Views but not a single Post in response? So I suspect my point needs a little more clarifying.


I like my current bank, Suntrust, but I opened that account in mid 90s. I did send them a Demand also...

There is a little more of it right there! Displacement.

What you should have done is serve Suntrust with certified copy of your proof of service in the nearest Fed Bank - of your Notice and Demand. Albeit sending them a demand is probably adaquate but if push comes to shove are you not going to have to summon the bank manager into open court? This is what evidence repositories are about. The certification I am speaking of is from the US clerk of court and the Notice and Demand will not only be notarized you get a Commission Certificate from the Secretary of State on the Notary Public too. If you prove all the facts then no attorney will ever take you to court!

No law or fact shall be tried in court.

If the facts are already on the record then holding court for a finding of fact is fruitless!

allodial
01-26-13, 02:56 AM
There might be merit in dealing directly with the pertinent Federal Reserve branch as in notifying /cc'ing them of the intent to denominate all transactions in lawful money. If the bank is in a particular FRB district, then perhaps your account is too. ;) The first two digits of the routing number indicates the Federal Reserve District (territory of the United States?) that the account and bank are in no?

gdude
01-27-13, 01:01 AM
I did send my DEMAND by USPS certified to the Dept of Treasury, the local Fed bank, and my current bank. I received signature pages for every thing but my current bank! Dept of Treasury and local FED were my concerns.

David Merrill
01-27-13, 01:14 AM
I did send my DEMAND by USPS certified to the Dept of Treasury, the local Fed bank, and my current bank. I received signature pages for every thing but my current bank! Dept of Treasury and local FED were my concerns.

That will suffice but Registered with integrated Certificate of Mailing (http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/4958/r4crefusalforcauseexamp.pdf) is best.

gdude
01-27-13, 04:16 AM
I think most courts will accept USPS certified receipt, as proof of mailing.... You really don't need the confirmation signature, but it helps.

David Merrill
01-27-13, 05:09 AM
I think most courts will accept USPS certified receipt, as proof of mailing.... You really don't need the confirmation signature, but it helps.

You have no proof of what was inside the envelope.

salsero
02-04-13, 03:13 PM
Thank you all for all your input - it is well appreciated.

I went to Well Fargo on January 22 with my mom to open a non-interet bearing checking account. I had asked the rep to add the following to the signature card - "All transactions on this account are intended by demand to be redeemed in Lawful Money pursuant to Title 12 USC 411. All transactions with this bank will be done by Special Deposit. Nunc Pro Tunc". Needless to say the manager had no clue what this all meant. He called legal and a panic look came over his face and told us the bank would not open the account. I see KnowLaw opened this type of account in March 2011 with Wells Fargo and had no issue. So there is precedence.

Is it recommended that if the bank refuses to open the account with this verbiage that one files a complaint with the Office of the Comtroller of the Currency [OCC] - along with sending copies of this complaint to the federal and state representatives? Will the OCC bother to do anything? Tony

David Merrill
02-11-13, 11:07 AM
This demonstrates the fruit of vigilance:


http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/5536/signaturecarddemand.jpg



I opened an account with a local bank on October 13, 2012. For three months there was not one peep about the demand for lawful money I included on the signature card (attached) or as a restrictive/non-endorsement on checks.

On Friday January 25 I received a call from the Bank Manager stating that it was new bank policy, effective February 1st, that they no longer accept a signature card with additional verbiage and no longer accept restrictive endorsements with a demand for lawful money on checks for deposit. If a new signature card was not signed and on file by February 1st, the bank would close the account.

I asked to have a copy of the bank's new policy but they were unable to provide it because it is not in writing. So I asked to have the bank put it in writing in a letter and send a blank signature card with said letter. The bank manager agreed and said a letter would be sent.

The following day, January 26th I went to the bank to make a deposit, and since the new bank policy was not in effect until February 1st, I still placed a demand for lawful money on the backside of the check for deposit. The bank manager was on duty and when the teller saw the demand on the check she asked the bank manager if the demand was ok. He said they would not accept it and suggested I strike through the demand and initial it.

I said I'd wait for the letter with the bank policy in writing before making any changes to the written demand on the check. The banking manager said he had talked to his supervisor and that they had nothing to put in writing so I would not be receiving a letter. He then handed my a blank signature card to sign before the February 1st date when they would close the account if a new one was not on record without the demand.

So I provided the bank manager and the teller with a verbal demand for lawful money and then struck through the demand on the back side of the check.

I left after the deposit was made with the blank signature card for me to sign and return before February 1st.

Turns out I didn't accept their request to sign a new signature card and the attached Signature Card with the Demand for lawful money is still on record at the bank. The account is still open and yesterday [2/9/13], when I made the third deposit since the February 1st date, the bank manager was there to witness that I have overcome.

Nickname

What I like to add is that the suitor likely requested a copy of that check that he struck through the Demand. That way he had evidence of his demand just the same - probably better testimony and an indictment against the bank manager!

David Merrill
02-11-13, 03:35 PM
For a short while I was employed editing tariffs for LD phone companies. I think that all government regulated companies have a custom form called a tariff. The tariffs for banks are likely 3-ring binders some 75 pages in length.

I recall one suitor asked the bank manager for the tariff and it took them a half hour to "find" it for him. He was allowed to peruse through the bank's tariff while sitting in the lobby.

I commend the above suitor for rejecting the bank has a new policy - just not in writing!

gdude
02-11-13, 05:18 PM
Congrats on the sig card. I refused to come in and sign a new one and US bank closed my account. They have a clause buried in their contract that states that they can close the account for any reason. Hopefully your bank doesn't have such a clause and they will allow it to remain open.

I noticed the psuedo W-9 with the U.S. person (a flowthrough entity that handles US earned income (taxable income) being paid to a foreign entity) which leads me to ask these questions.

1. Does making your DEMAND for lawful money override the presumptions of the U.S. person?

2. Is every bank account holder a U.S. person?

3. Is it possible to open a bank account and be a non-U.S. person?

David Merrill
02-11-13, 10:16 PM
Congrats on the sig card. I refused to come in and sign a new one and US bank closed my account. They have a clause buried in their contract that states that they can close the account for any reason. Hopefully your bank doesn't have such a clause and they will allow it to remain open.

I noticed the psuedo W-9 with the U.S. person (a flowthrough entity that handles US earned income (taxable income) being paid to a foreign entity) which leads me to ask these questions.

1. Does making your DEMAND for lawful money override the presumptions of the U.S. person?

2. Is every bank account holder a U.S. person?

3. Is it possible to open a bank account and be a non-U.S. person?

That is why it is important to note at the top, only one signature is required. So you sign only one clause or the other.

P.S. Or possibly that means that only the Agreement needs to be signed. The lower portion is voluntary.

gdude
02-12-13, 12:49 AM
That is why it is important to note at the top, only one signature is required. So you sign only one clause or the other.

P.S. Or possibly that means that only the Agreement needs to be signed. The lower portion is voluntary.

Huh? I don't understand your post......I only signed once.

The Banks terms of agreement had the clause, not the signature card.

Chex
02-12-13, 04:23 PM
which leads me to ask these questions.

1. Does making your DEMAND for lawful money override the presumptions of the U.S. person?

2. Is every bank account holder a U.S. person?

3. Is it possible to open a bank account and be a non-U.S. person?

Maybe gdude IMHO the answers might rely on definitions of law.
1) Read the law and look at all the restrictions in it
2) 2 might answer 3

The reason why I am posting this in a different view is a friend who went to renew the government drivers licenses I.D. got a little frustrated when this error message came on when the transaction did not go through.

The Social Security Administration’s system is currently not available to verify your information. Please try again later.

What are the requirements for identification for the driver’s licenses in that state?

You may only renew a driver's license or ID card online if your previous renewal transaction was completed in a license branch.

You can renew your license online only if you meet the following conditions:
• You have a regular driver's license or chauffeur's license. Commercial driver's licenses or public passenger chauffer's licenses cannot be renewed online.
• You are a citizen of the United States.
• There is no change in your name, address, or other information.
• Your license is not expired more than 180 days.
• You are within 12 months of your renewal date.
• You require no testing or medical certifications.
• You are under 75 years old.
• Your previous photo is on file.
• Your record does not have restrictions J or 2-9.
• You are not suspended or invalidated.
• You do not have six or more points on your driver record.
• No points on your current license, if you are under 21 years old.
• You are not switching from a non-SecureID to a SecureID.

You can renew your ID card online only if you meet the following conditions:
• You are a citizen of the United States.
• There is no change in your name, address, or other information.
• Your ID card is not expired more than 180 days.
• You are within 12 months of your renewal date.
• Your previous photo is on file.
• You are not switching from a non-SecureID to a SecureID.
• Your record does not have restrictions 3 or 9.

Note: An individual eligible to vote in the next general, municipal or special election will not be charged a fee for an ID card.

You need one document to prove your identity when applying for a new driver's license, permit, or identification card.

The most common documents that you can use to prove your identity are a United States birth certificate (must be an original or certified copy filed with a U.S. state or territory office of vital statistics or equivalent agency in your state of birth), a United States passport, or a foreign passport with a VISA and I-94 form. Puerto Rican-born citizens must provide a birth certificate issued on or after July 1, 2010.

Then you take your newly re-quired I.D. to the bank and show them who you are.

What is the connection between person (I.D.) and state (Public office) in the bank (private corporation)?

State law in the Montana Code Annotated
Definitions: 2-16-602.
...
(2) "Public office" means a position of duty, trust, or authority created by the constitution or by the legislature or by a political subdivision through authority conferred by the constitution or the legislature that meets the following criteria:
(a) the position must possess a delegation of a portion of the sovereign power of government to be exercised for the benefit of the public;
(b) the powers conferred and the duties to be discharged must be defined, directly or impliedly, by the constitution, the legislature, or by a political subdivision through legislative authority;
(c) the duties must be performed independently and without control of a superior power other than the law, unless the legislature has created the position and placed it under the general control of a superior office or body; and
(d) the position must have some permanency and continuity and not be only temporary or occasional.


Bouvier's Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia, Volume 1, 1914:

A corporation aggregate is a collection of individuals united in one body by such a grant of privileges as secures succession of members without changing the identity of the body...

By both the civil and common law, the sovereign authority only can create a corporation...

...in the United States, by legislative act of any state, or of the congress of the United States, - congress having power to create a corporation...

A corporation is a creature of the state.

"Employee" of the state: 2-9-101. Definitions.
...
(2) (a) "Employee" means an officer, employee, or servant of a governmental entity, including elected or appointed officials, and persons acting on behalf of the governmental entity in any official capacity temporarily or permanently in the service of the governmental entity whether with or without compensation.
(b) The term does not mean a person or other legal entity while acting in the capacity of an independent contractor under contract to the governmental entity to which parts 1 through 3 apply in the event of a claim.

Those actions REQUIRE a bond: 2-9-602.

Officers and employees to be bonded.
(1) All state officers and employees shall be bonded.

Those actions also REQUIRE an oath of office: 15-30-2617.

Oaths administered by director of revenue and designated employees.
The director and each employee designated by the director may administer an oath to any person or take the acknowledgment of any person in respect to any report or return required by or pursuant to this chapter or by the rules of the department.

72-31-101. Oath in behalf of corporation acting as fiduciary.

In all matters in which a corporation is authorized to act as trustee, guardian, executor, administrator, or in any fiduciary capacity and an oath of office is required, it is proper for an officer of the corporation to take the required oath for and on behalf of the officer's corporation and the corporation becomes subject to the laws relating to individuals in similar matters so far as those laws may be applied to a corporation.

David Merrill
02-15-13, 02:22 AM
Huh? I don't understand your post......I only signed once.

The Banks terms of agreement had the clause, not the signature card.

I was talking about the two signatures on the Freedom Security Bank agreement above.

Here is a new verification that has shown up on the backside of paychecks!



http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/1488/antinonendorsement.png

Freed Gerdes
02-15-13, 06:34 AM
Not all Bank of America branches are cooperative. I filed my demand with the Registrar of Deeds for the county, then sent the bank a certified copy by certified mail. The bank returned it, stating that it 'had no legal significance.' I resent it, with a letter stating that if they refused to redeem FRN's, then the income tax was unconstitutional. The bank sent this response: "We are in receipt of the purported Notice and Demand for Lawful Money. We have also received a second request Dated July 15, 2012, based on our reply. Please be advised that this document also has no legal relevance and therefore, no action has been taken or is required by the bank. We are therefore returning this document to you as well, and still consider the matter closed." signed by Anthony Petrella, Banking Center Manager II, etc.

I am preparing my 1040A form now, and will include a letter stating the particulars of the Notice filed with the county (including a certified copy), and the dates of the letters sent to the three banks that I use. The letter states that since lawful money is 'income from a non-taxable source, such transactions should not be reported on Form 1040, as it is specifically for reporting of taxable income.' So we will see if the IRS takes the same view as Bank of America...

Bank of America also states in their Account Agreement (available only online) that their policy is to ignore any special conditions written on the back of the check. But their Account Agreement does not say that the account must be held in FRN's, only in dollars.

David Merrill
02-15-13, 09:40 AM
Not all Bank of America branches are cooperative. I filed my demand with the Registrar of Deeds for the county, then sent the bank a certified copy by certified mail. The bank returned it, stating that it 'had no legal significance.' I resent it, with a letter stating that if they refused to redeem FRN's, then the income tax was unconstitutional. The bank sent this response: "We are in receipt of the purported Notice and Demand for Lawful Money. We have also received a second request Dated July 15, 2012, based on our reply. Please be advised that this document also has no legal relevance and therefore, no action has been taken or is required by the bank. We are therefore returning this document to you as well, and still consider the matter closed." signed by Anthony Petrella, Banking Center Manager II, etc.

I am preparing my 1040A form now, and will include a letter stating the particulars of the Notice filed with the county (including a certified copy), and the dates of the letters sent to the three banks that I use. The letter states that since lawful money is 'income from a non-taxable source, such transactions should not be reported on Form 1040, as it is specifically for reporting of taxable income.' So we will see if the IRS takes the same view as Bank of America...

Bank of America also states in their Account Agreement (available only online) that their policy is to ignore any special conditions written on the back of the check. But their Account Agreement does not say that the account must be held in FRN's, only in dollars.

It would be great if you could scan and sanitize those letters and attach them please?

What you have is Proof of Service. I think that Registered Mailing or better yet professional process server to the local Federal Reserve Bank would finish that process.

We have a verbal report from a suitor that accounts were closed and employees fired over not giving "special" treatment to the funds demanded redeemed in lawful money. Also, we have a few reports about a suitor doing nothing and the account being closed.

Yours has a different flavor. The attorneys (presuming this is signed by legal counsel) are trying to convince you that your demand has no legal relevance? That is a new tact if memory serves me. To go through the trouble of informing you that your demand has no legal relevance and return your papers to you. The letter in itself is proof of service and they even refer to your demand. Therefore if they lump your funds into reserve funds for fractional lending they have composed their own confession for counterfeiting money and filed that confession in a court of competent jurisdiction - you.

This does beg the question however; are you accepting and receiving interest from any of these accounts?


Regards,

David Merrill.

mikecz
02-15-13, 03:44 PM
Not all Bank of America branches are cooperative. I filed my demand with the Registrar of Deeds for the county, then sent the bank a certified copy by certified mail. The bank returned it, stating that it 'had no legal significance.' I resent it, with a letter stating that if they refused to redeem FRN's, then the income tax was unconstitutional. The bank sent this response: "We are in receipt of the purported Notice and Demand for Lawful Money. We have also received a second request Dated July 15, 2012, based on our reply. Please be advised that this document also has no legal relevance and therefore, no action has been taken or is required by the bank. We are therefore returning this document to you as well, and still consider the matter closed." signed by Anthony Petrella, Banking Center Manager II, etc.

I am preparing my 1040A form now, and will include a letter stating the particulars of the Notice filed with the county (including a certified copy), and the dates of the letters sent to the three banks that I use. The letter states that since lawful money is 'income from a non-taxable source, such transactions should not be reported on Form 1040, as it is specifically for reporting of taxable income.' So we will see if the IRS takes the same view as Bank of America...

Bank of America also states in their Account Agreement (available only online) that their policy is to ignore any special conditions written on the back of the check. But their Account Agreement does not say that the account must be held in FRN's, only in dollars.


Yes, please sanitize and post your letters as well the letters from the bank. I just read the Miracle on Main Street, and just didn't realize this one man, F. Tupper Saussy, for a short period put the banksters in the back seat. He started a small revolution with the law. As David repeatedly states, a remedy must exist for those competent to give it. I feel a technique to prove this out through correspondence with banks/IRS/gov't officials is needed for it to take hold. Freed, you seem to be on to something. IMO, in your letters, lawful money must be recognized and separated from other currency. It also needs to be certified by the IRS as non taxable, in letter form. We have a few on this site showing suitors receiving full return of with holdings, suitors not obliged to pay back taxes because "some" of the income was in lawful money. But a correspondence from the IRS with the words "lawful money" in them, although might be a dream, is necessary.

Freed, I wanted to see on the letter where the bank states "since lawful money is income from a non-taxable source, such transaction should not be reported on Form 1040..." Excellent work, and your diligence is not only appreciated, but necessary.

Changing the law 31 USC 371 only kicked the can further down the road. It just set up another barrier, the remedy still exists. David, your work is admirable, and of the same revolutionary path as Saussy. Money has no meaning to date, at least last I checked. It's been changed a great many times over the years and now the clear definition does not exist.

David Merrill
02-15-13, 04:16 PM
We are changing the history of mankind.

Mark Allan
02-15-13, 11:12 PM
David, I did NOT get that part of the check modified.
The "Payable in Lawful Money 12USC411", (minus quotation marks) did get printed onto the checks.

I have in some cases been hand altering these new checks prior to their issue, crossing out the "the Order of" verbiage.

But the suitors here raise an interesting point.
It was my mind set at the time of placing the check order I wanted to leave no doubt about my application of Remedy, first establishing my modified signature cards, but then switching back & return to utilizing checks much more, again, believing (niavely I suspect) that with the issuance of each check I was further documenting my demand to use lawful money.

With my use of checks stating [B]Payable in Lawful Money 12USC411 [/B ](& somewhat inconsistent Payable to clause), the payee has been deprived the choice whether to use FRN's in that particular transaction.

While striving to ensure my own insistence, it never dawned on me I denied another a valid choice.

But on second thought, until my recent learning of remedy, my ignorance about a choice to use FRN versus lawful money was my own. By placing the notice of payment in lawful money, not only do I establish my persistent preference but maybe I introduce this new reality to another.


Finally; as I observe my slow steps toward understanding when compared to the keen, sharp, insights presented amongst these gathered here maybe I shouldn't try to expound on these matters. :-)

David Merrill
02-15-13, 11:31 PM
David, I did NOT get that part of the check modified.
The "Payable in Lawful Money 12USC411", (minus quotation marks) did get printed onto the checks.

I have in some cases been hand altering these new checks prior to their issue, crossing out the "the Order of" verbiage.

But the suitors here raise an interesting point.
It was my mind set at the time of placing the check order I wanted to leave no doubt about my application of Remedy, first establishing my modified signature cards, but then switching back & return to utilizing checks much more, again, believing (niavely I suspect) that with the issuance of each check I was further documenting my demand to use lawful money.

With my use of checks stating [B]Payable in Lawful Money 12USC411 [/B ](& somewhat inconsistent Payable to clause), the payee has been deprived the choice whether to use FRN's in that particular transaction.

While striving to ensure my own insistence, it never dawned on me I denied another a valid choice.

But on second thought, until my recent learning of remedy, my ignorance about a choice to use FRN versus lawful money was my own. By placing the notice of payment in lawful money, not only do I establish my persistent preference but maybe I introduce this new reality to another.


Finally; as I observe my slow steps toward understanding when compared to the keen, sharp, insights presented amongst these gathered here maybe I shouldn't try to expound on these matters. :-)

That is all pretty complicated all right.

That example at the top of the page is how somebody's boss/client is giving him his paycheck lately.

Freed Gerdes
02-16-13, 08:01 AM
Freed, I wanted to see on the letter where the bank states "since lawful money is income from a non-taxable source, such transaction should not be reported on Form 1040..."
Sorry to disappoint, mikecz, but that non-taxable source wording is in my letter to the IRS, in an effort to establish a rebuttable presumption.
I have the letters shot down to jpeg files, but they will not attach. Can anyone tell me how to attach a file or insert a pix here?

David Merrill
02-16-13, 12:46 PM
Freed, I wanted to see on the letter where the bank states "since lawful money is income from a non-taxable source, such transaction should not be reported on Form 1040..."
Sorry to disappoint, mikecz, but that non-taxable source wording is in my letter to the IRS, in an effort to establish a rebuttable presumption.
I have the letters shot down to jpeg files, but they will not attach. Can anyone tell me how to attach a file or insert a pix here?

I process my images and pdf's through ImageShack (http://imageshack.us/). They had a limit of 500 and I had to delete several images and then they opened up 5 gig to me!

Keep an Link Library in Word though. Searching for your images on ImageShack seems a bit problematic. That is how I do it - have all these images available. I have a link library doc open and can search for key words to find them.

I also utilize Google Docs, Box, Megacloud, YouTube etc.

salsero
02-16-13, 12:51 PM
31 CFR 103.34

WIth regard to banks requiring a SSN on a non-interest bearing account, I had come accross this statute but it appears it is valid from June 1972 thru Oct 2003. Does anyone know if there is a similiar statute that is current for 2013 that requires the bank TO REQUEST the SSN but nothing more?

David Merrill
02-16-13, 12:56 PM
31 CFR 103.34

WIth regard to banks requiring a SSN on a non-interest bearing account, I had come accross this statute but it appears it is valid from June 1972 thru Oct 2003. Does anyone know if there is a similiar statute that is current for 2013 that requires the bank TO REQUEST the SSN but nothing more?

Hi Salsero;

Please provide links (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/) and that makes it a lot easier to get started.

Freed Gerdes
02-16-13, 05:56 PM
Here is the thread of my rather combative correspondence with Bank of America.
First, my Notice and Demand for Lawful Money, filed with the Registrar of Deeds for the county, found at this link: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/18/006dki.jpg/.
Second, my Demand Letter to BofA, found at this link: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/203/003spz.jpg/
Third, BofA First Denial Letter, found at this link: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/202/004ebl.jpg/
Fourth, my Reply to BofA Denial Letter, found at this link: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/4/002htj.jpg/
Fifth, BofA Second Denial Letter, found at this link: http://img802.imageshack.us/img802/6634/001yp.jpg

Similar chain occurs with E*Trade Financial (US equities brokerage account), with less resistance. I will post those links separately soon.

My strategy was to make notice of my demand at mid-year, so I would clearly have some income before and some after. I intend to file an income tax form 1040, and list income prior to demand, and not report income post demand. I will include this letter [at this link: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/10/007vozz.jpg/], putting the IRS on notice of my interpretation of current Internal Revenue Code treatment of lawful money. If the IRS responds, I will have something in writing. If the IRS fails to respond, I will have a rebuttable presumption record. I choose to proceed in this fashion specifically to create a paper trail I can use to prove to others that use of lawful money is a valid defense against paying income taxes. The test is barely valid, since I am retired and have only SS and some capital gains from stock trades as income; at my overall income level, none of SS is taxable, so I am not liable for any taxes due, whether I report all income as taxable or not, but the IRS will have to respond to my letter or let the rebuttable presumption stand...

ps to DM: I do not believe BofA is paying any interest on this acct. [I have two accts there, and cannot find any entries in the bank records to show when/where/to which acct I was credited with the $11 reported by BofA on a 1099.]

salsero
02-17-13, 04:54 PM
Hi Salsero;

Please provide links (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/) and that makes it a lot easier to get started.

Oops - sorry

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/103.34

But specifically here is what I was questioning:

§ 103.34
Additional records to be made and retained by banks.
(a) (1) With respect to each certificate of deposit sold or redeemed after May 31, 1978, and before October 1, 2003, or each deposit or share account opened with a bank after June 30, 1972, and before October 1, 2003, a bank shall, within 30 days from the date such a transaction occurs or an account is opened, secure and maintain a record of the taxpayer identification number of the customer involved; or where the account or certificate is in the names of two or more persons, the bank shall secure the taxpayer identification number of a person having a financial interest in the certificate or account. In the event that a bank has been unable to secure, within the 30-day period specified, the required identification, it shall nevertheless not be deemed to be in violation of this section if (i) it has made a reasonable effort to secure such identification, and (ii) it maintains a list containing the names, addresses, and account numbers of those persons from whom it has been unable to secure such identification, and makes the names, addresses, and account numbers of those persons available to the Secretary as directed by him. A bank acting as an agent for another person in the purchase or redemption of a certificate of deposit issued by another bank is responsible for obtaining and recording the required taxpayer identification, as well as for maintaining the records referred to in paragraphs (b) (11) and (12) of this section. The issuing bank can satisfy the recordkeeping requirement by recording the name and address of the agent together with a description of the instrument and the date of the transaction. Where a person is a non-resident alien, the bank shall also record the person's passport number or a description of some other government document used to verify his identity.

===================

This regulation has inserted the dates After June 1972 but before Oct 2003. My question is does this apply to 2013? OR does anyone know of a similiar regulation that is updated that is similiar to the bank REQUESTING the SSN as opposed to it is required by law under blah blah section. Does the bank have standing for the requirement? Also as a tid bit udner 5 USC 552a(e) - agency requirements http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552a - this further clarifies the issue that ANY agency is required to disclose the SSN is mandatory or voluntary, the purpose, the use of and what if I do not provide the SSN what are the consequences. In the past the bank would say - its the patriot act and it is required. This is not a satisfactory response.

Also for further clarification - REGARDLESS WHETHER THE SSN IS GIVEN OR NOT TO THE BANK DOES THIS PHRASE ON THE SIGNATURE CARD NEGATE ANY AND ALL CLAIMS, INCLUDING BY COURT ORDER FOR THE REMOVAL OF ANY MONIES FROM THE ACCOUNT WITH OUT THE PERMISSION OF SIGNATORY OR OWNER OF SAID ACCOUNT:

All transactions on account are intended by Demand to be Redeemed in Lawful Money pursudant to 12 USC 411. All transactions with this bank will be done by Special Deposit NUNC PRO TUNC.

It is my understanding that anything "deposited by special deposit" is in fact under "equity" and can not be "taken or removed" without said permission of owner. Can anyone help clarify this? Thanks Tony

David Merrill
02-17-13, 11:42 PM
Here is the thread of my rather combative correspondence with Bank of America.
First, my Notice and Demand for Lawful Money, filed with the Registrar of Deeds for the county, found at this link: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/18/006dki.jpg/.
Second, my Demand Letter to BofA, found at this link: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/203/003spz.jpg/
Third, BofA First Denial Letter, found at this link: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/202/004ebl.jpg/
Fourth, my Reply to BofA Denial Letter, found at this link: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/4/002htj.jpg/
Fifth, BofA Second Denial Letter, found at this link: http://img802.imageshack.us/img802/6634/001yp.jpg

Similar chain occurs with E*Trade Financial (US equities brokerage account), with less resistance. I will post those links separately soon.

My strategy was to make notice of my demand at mid-year, so I would clearly have some income before and some after. I intend to file an income tax form 1040, and list income prior to demand, and not report income post demand. I will include this letter [at this link: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/10/007vozz.jpg/], putting the IRS on notice of my interpretation of current Internal Revenue Code treatment of lawful money. If the IRS responds, I will have something in writing. If the IRS fails to respond, I will have a rebuttable presumption record. I choose to proceed in this fashion specifically to create a paper trail I can use to prove to others that use of lawful money is a valid defense against paying income taxes. The test is barely valid, since I am retired and have only SS and some capital gains from stock trades as income; at my overall income level, none of SS is taxable, so I am not liable for any taxes due, whether I report all income as taxable or not, but the IRS will have to respond to my letter or let the rebuttable presumption stand...

ps to DM: I do not believe BofA is paying any interest on this acct.

Thank you Freed;


I collected and trimmed your images - click Here (http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/808/noticeanddemandboacorre.pdf).

At first glance it looks like there is very little purpose to filing at all. The SSI is not taxable income and you only have minimal dividends. So yours is not a very good test at all! In fact it looks like a great way to get the IRS attorneys to build testimony against redeeming lawful money. By that I mean they might cut you off from your SSI benefits just to coerce you to recant and declare this remedy bogus.

You really have to reconsider and evaluate the risk here. I really do respond on a cursory glance but that is what I see here. Like found in the first video article (1984) (http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/convincing.html) the Social Security is a valid income tax according to the Supreme Court - 1939. I read that case and that is probably how you have to construe it if you are starting the redemption after retirement already on SSI.

Additionally you have accomplished what the Notice and Demand are intended to do. The letters acknowledge receipt of the Notice and Demand.

I have seen this before. If all you were doing were transactions with Social Security checks then the bank would consider that the notice and demand has no legal significance. One suitor could not cash his SSI checks at the bank. They sent him down the street to the check cashing place and called before he arrived. When he got his cash, minus their cut, the teller/cashier took a Sharpie and completely blacked over his Demand! He objected but she was behind the Plexiglass and just ignored him!

So unless you have something to gain by getting involved with this Demand beyond putting non-endorsement on the backside of your paychecks, you have nothing to gain and lots to lose, in my opinion. If you make your non-endorsements then you are doing your part to reduce the national debt for America. You are a fine patriot. There is really no need to go kicking at beehives if you get my drift.



Oops - sorry

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/103.34

But specifically here is what I was questioning:

§ 103.34
Additional records to be made and retained by banks.
(a) (1) With respect to each certificate of deposit sold or redeemed after May 31, 1978, and before October 1, 2003, or each deposit or share account opened with a bank after June 30, 1972, and before October 1, 2003, a bank shall, within 30 days from the date such a transaction occurs or an account is opened, secure and maintain a record of the taxpayer identification number of the customer involved; or where the account or certificate is in the names of two or more persons, the bank shall secure the taxpayer identification number of a person having a financial interest in the certificate or account. In the event that a bank has been unable to secure, within the 30-day period specified, the required identification, it shall nevertheless not be deemed to be in violation of this section if (i) it has made a reasonable effort to secure such identification, and (ii) it maintains a list containing the names, addresses, and account numbers of those persons from whom it has been unable to secure such identification, and makes the names, addresses, and account numbers of those persons available to the Secretary as directed by him. A bank acting as an agent for another person in the purchase or redemption of a certificate of deposit issued by another bank is responsible for obtaining and recording the required taxpayer identification, as well as for maintaining the records referred to in paragraphs (b) (11) and (12) of this section. The issuing bank can satisfy the recordkeeping requirement by recording the name and address of the agent together with a description of the instrument and the date of the transaction. Where a person is a non-resident alien, the bank shall also record the person's passport number or a description of some other government document used to verify his identity.

===================

This regulation has inserted the dates After June 1972 but before Oct 2003. My question is does this apply to 2013? OR does anyone know of a similiar regulation that is updated that is similiar to the bank REQUESTING the SSN as opposed to it is required by law under blah blah section. Does the bank have standing for the requirement? Also as a tid bit udner 5 USC 552a(e) - agency requirements http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552a - this further clarifies the issue that ANY agency is required to disclose the SSN is mandatory or voluntary, the purpose, the use of and what if I do not provide the SSN what are the consequences. In the past the bank would say - its the patriot act and it is required. This is not a satisfactory response.

Also for further clarification - REGARDLESS WHETHER THE SSN IS GIVEN OR NOT TO THE BANK DOES THIS PHRASE ON THE SIGNATURE CARD NEGATE ANY AND ALL CLAIMS, INCLUDING BY COURT ORDER FOR THE REMOVAL OF ANY MONIES FROM THE ACCOUNT WITH OUT THE PERMISSION OF SIGNATORY OR OWNER OF SAID ACCOUNT:

All transactions on account are intended by Demand to be Redeemed in Lawful Money pursudant to 12 USC 411. [I]All transactions with this bank will be done by Special Deposit NUNC PRO TUNC.

It is my understanding that anything "deposited by special deposit" is in fact under "equity" and can not be "taken or removed" without said permission of owner. Can anyone help clarify this? Thanks Tony

These are really very productive posts and threads!

I think you might get some insight by searching for "special deposit" both here and on your favorite search engine. My impression from earlier discussion here is that indeed the bank just becomes a repository for your money.

Freed Gerdes
02-18-13, 05:16 AM
Thanks for your prompt reply, David. And thanks for cleaning up the correspondence files, although I see that you did not include the letter to the IRS. As to my purposes, you suggest that I have little to gain and lots to lose. I perceive that I have lots to gain, as I expect to have capital gains from stock trading in the future and will likely have capital gains to avoid from conversion of other assets. Indeed, after this 1040 is filed, I would not expect that I will ever file another one. This is important to establish an income below the threshhold needed for forced compliance with Obamacare. And I have some associates that I would like to convince that they can use the 12USC411 redemption to their advantage, which will be very significant for them. So I guess I am confused as to your initial reaction. Do you expect the IRS to object to my claiming non-endorsement? Why would they? Do they not accept that redeeming lawful money is the law? Should I be afraid of my government? Certainly some people have chosen to be viewed as American Citizens rather than US Citizens on their SS-5, and they are listed by SS as Resident Aliens with Right to Work, and viewed by the IRS as non-taxpayers. Why can't I be a non-taxpayer? The tax is voluntary, so why can't I un-volunteer? And what does Social Security have to do with income taxes? Even if you redeem all your paychecks, and ask for a refund of all your income tax withholding, you will not get back your SS taxes. Can you elaborate on your concern? Thanks, Freed

David Merrill
02-18-13, 11:25 AM
Thanks for your prompt reply, David. And thanks for cleaning up the correspondence files, although I see that you did not include the letter to the IRS. As to my purposes, you suggest that I have little to gain and lots to lose. I perceive that I have lots to gain, as I expect to have capital gains from stock trading in the future and will likely have capital gains to avoid from conversion of other assets. Indeed, after this 1040 is filed, I would not expect that I will ever file another one. This is important to establish an income below the threshhold needed for forced compliance with Obamacare. And I have some associates that I would like to convince that they can use the 12USC411 redemption to their advantage, which will be very significant for them. So I guess I am confused as to your initial reaction. Do you expect the IRS to object to my claiming non-endorsement? Why would they? Do they not accept that redeeming lawful money is the law? Should I be afraid of my government? Certainly some people have chosen to be viewed as American Citizens rather than US Citizens on their SS-5, and they are listed by SS as Resident Aliens with Right to Work, and viewed by the IRS as non-taxpayers. Why can't I be a non-taxpayer? The tax is voluntary, so why can't I un-volunteer? And what does Social Security have to do with income taxes? Even if you redeem all your paychecks, and ask for a refund of all your income tax withholding, you will not get back your SS taxes. Can you elaborate on your concern? Thanks, Freed

I included the Letter to the IRS agent/attorney at the end of the file (http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/808/noticeanddemandboacorre.pdf) - Page 6 of 6.


Certainly some people have chosen to be viewed as American Citizens rather than US Citizens on their SS-5, and they are listed by SS as Resident Aliens with Right to Work, and viewed by the IRS as non-taxpayers. Why can't I be a non-taxpayer?

If you have any evidence of that remedy being viable it is certainly worth taking a look at.

Speaking for myself I am very annoying to skeptics because I stick to redeeming lawful money in the specific §16 of the Fed Act and Title 12 USC §411, in the context of the 'saving to suitors' clause of 1789.


I perceive that I have lots to gain, as I expect to have capital gains from stock trading in the future and will likely have capital gains to avoid from conversion of other assets.

You plead my point quite valid. When you have something to gain, then get on it with the law.

However I am recognizing your point too. - About preventing consent into ObamaCare etc. Now that you know of remedy you are expected to apply it? That is a good point. I do not want to lead an elderly man into a situation where you are begging government for your SSI "retirement" checks. If you are attempting to redeem lawful money on your SSI checks as typical paychecks, I have reason to believe that they are not regular paychecks like most paychecks where you toil for compensation.

Look at the article: (http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/convincing.html)


Two years after H.J.R. 192, Congress passed the Social Security Act, which the Supreme Court upheld as a valid act imposing a valid income tax: 'Charles C. Steward Mach. Co. v, Davis' 301 U.S. 548 (1937).


I feel your supporting "Certainly" argument about non-resident aliens applied to American nationals is quite uncertain. That sort of assertion just tells the IRS agent/attorney that you are a pushover. The only suitor to be billed a $5K FrivPen after redeeming lawful money is a student of Ed RIVERA and he began integrating those "Certainly" arguments about US v USA and "Of" and "For" on the Constitution etc. just before the IRS billed him. So go figure!

I don't buy into you being "Jay" - like insinuated by a member here. [Jay ADKISSON is a Texas attorney who founded "Q" and allegely has mastered proxy IP usage as a master of cyber-disguise.] But I recognize the potential that somebody might register here and pretend that remedy has failed in order to slur remedy. So I am making clear up front that until you pull your gains liquid, you have no real need to be taking the risk. If you pull your gains right now, you will not be filing until 2014.


Regards,

David Merrill.

Freed Gerdes
02-18-13, 06:11 PM
"Speaking for myself I am very annoying to skeptics because I stick to redeeming lawful money in the specific §16 of the Fed Act and Title 12 USC §411, in the context of the 'saving to suitors' clause of 1789. "

1. You will note that I do not bring up any discussion of Social Security status or Resident Alien non-taxpayer issues in my letter to IRS; there I stick to redeeming lawful money under 12USC411. What I want to establish with this filing is that I am not a state bank, do not participate in the Federal credit scam, and do not use debt obligations at all, for any reason. Since most of my banking transactions are direct deposits such that I never get a check to endorse/redeem, I chose to prove my refusal of FRN's in a blanket fashion, thus the need for the letter to the IRS. If using Federal Reserve private money/credit is the step that creates the irrecusable obligation to file a return, I want to establish that I don't take that step. I am trying to establish that I am not 'in contract' with the Federal Reserve. Is this a position fraught with risk? I had assumed from other's successful use of 411 redemption that this is settled law/policy of the IRS. Also, 12USC411 is Federal law; where does 'saving to suitors' come into play in exercising the remedy provided there? Can't a 'US Citizen' redeem FRN's? In your conversation with Michael Joseph (see ps) you imply anyone can/should do it...

2. "You plead my point quite valid. When you have something to gain, then get on it with the law."

The IRS has been bleeding my substance for 40 years, and is presently doing the same to my son. If there is a valid way to escape the irrecusable obligation, I want to find it and demonstrate that it is accepted by the IRS. I realize that the IRS is not pleased with taxpayers figuring out how they have been scammed, and learning how to escape the banker's debt trap, so they may push back some, but my return is not frivolous. It is based on a reasonable interpretation of 411. The fact that I would not owe any tax with or without redemption makes it even less frivolous (ie, no attempt to evade), thus providing me with an opportunity to look into the mind of the beast with little at stake. e.g. I have a $450 capital gain paid after I noticed my banks to redeem; if it were reported, I would be required to file a Schedule B form, but I do not file a Sch B. If I like the IRS response to this filing, I will have documented evidence to convince my son to risk using this approach where more tax obligation is at stake.

3. "If you are attempting to redeem lawful money on your SSI checks as typical paychecks, I have reason to believe that they are not regular paychecks like most paychecks where you toil for compensation." Look at the article:

I had asked you previously about the link between SS and the income tax. I fail to see how they are related. (and the article you linked to does not discuss this issue at all). Further I fail to see how the source of income to me alters in any way the remedy of redeeming FRN's. The SS program involves paying into it at 6% of wages for 40 quarters (or did when I was paying in), and results in a calculated 'benefit' payment at retirement age. The payments are assumed to be in FRN's, but what I do with them is no concern of SSAdmin, or is it?

4. I don't buy into you being "Jay"

Thanks for that vote of confidence; I missed the implication when JC posted it, not knowing Jay. The pretend/apparent anonymous status of internet communication creates the possibility of many nefarious miscommunications, intentional, treacherous, or otherwise. I am not Jay, don't believe in deception as a positive policy, and have no intention of trying to 'make redemption fail' so I can slur it. I will be happy to have you contact the idiot at Bank of America if you think I made up the story of their 'resistance.'

5. you have no real need to be taking the risk.

I remain unclear on the risk involved here. Obviously the IRS is stepping up their bullying tactics to discourage taxpayers from using returns as fishing expeditions to unravel the basis for the tax 'duty' (see Irwin Schiff case). Since the redemption remedy is created in the Federal law, I doubt the IRS would risk a fraudulent mis-statement about the effect of the law. As JC noted, they don't want to go there... and SSAdmin's own rules show that benefits, once established, are not affected even by expatriation. So if there is some other link between SS and income tax, I am unaware of it, and would appreciate you pointing it out to me.

Thanks for your comments, and best regards,
Freed
ps your conversation with Michael Joseph posted on the Casey Research site was good, and thorough.

David Merrill
02-18-13, 11:16 PM
Is this a position fraught with risk?

I may be overcautious because the position has an unknown. The SSI paychecks are considered a valid income tax by the Supreme Court in 1937 and I checked the case and it is so stated. Therefore I want you to be aware that an angry IRS agent might cut off your SSI checks without ever addressing redemption of lawful money. I don't know that - like I say, it is an unknown.

I do not want to be the guy leading you into a mess.

You sound like you know what you are doing and I want to help you do what is right as far a correct and just balances and reducing the national debt, abolishing the Fed and so forth. If you want to do so on the knowledge presented on these forums and beyond then thank you for sharing the experience with us.

When you say that the IRS has been bleeding you for decades do you mean you have been paying income tax and filing returns for refunds? I suppose that is what puts me on edge more than anything - that you have been doing that through signature endorsement and ignorance of the lawful remedy. What I do not want to find is that you project anger into your process and therefore find an unjust and arbitrary, capricious and even angry response back from the Fed's IRS, rather than a kind and in kind remedy granted by the Treasury, willing to help you do the right thing; recognizing your position and character as the rightful heir to the truth and beauty that is waiting for you and your estate to claim.


Regards,

David Merrill.

Freed Gerdes
02-19-13, 03:54 AM
1. The SSI paychecks are considered a valid income tax by the Supreme Court in 1937

Your syntax stopped me there; SSI checks are income, which may be taxed or not, depending upon other income. The SSI tax on wages is a valid income tax. OK, I paid it when I had wages. Now I don't have wages, so don't pay any SSI tax, but I do receive SSI monthly payments. Does the IRS run Social Security? I understand that they check with SSAdmin to confirm SS#'s, and 'US Citizen' status, but beyond that I don't know the relationship between SS and income tax. I believe SSAdmin is in the Dept of Labor, while the IRS is a corporation, not a division of the government, and the nexus of the two organizations is at the St Louis Fed.

2. an angry IRS agent might cut off your SSI checks

No one abuses power worse than a petty bureaucrat, and angry people often do rash things. So dealing with bureaucrats always involves a certain element of danger. I have attempted to structure this planned encounter so as to minimize the danger, but there is no way to tell the IRS I don't want to pay taxes without them taking a certain offense at this position. I perceive that the income tax is an excise tax either on being a state bank or obligating myself to the interest on any Federal credit I endorse. Either way, it appears reasonable to conclude that refusing to be a state bank, and/or refusing to endorse Federal Reserve credit eliminates the voluntary step that creates the irrecusable duty to file a return and pay a tax. Me knowing this and using it to reduce/eliminate my income tax obligation could be disappointing to the IRS, but I wouldn't imagine that it will make them furiously mad, particularly since I don't owe any taxes. Their only concern would be that I use this knowledge to help others avoid their duty to pay taxes. Hell, half the returns filed either don't pay any tax (get full refund) or get back more than they paid in. But I understand your concern there, and I appreciate it myself.

3. When you say that the IRS has been bleeding you for decades

What I mean is that the IRS has stolen almost $400,000 from me over my working career through fraud and deception, by my endorsing Fed credit and paying taxes, from which I did not get any refunds. In their defense, there was never any reason to expect honorable behavior from shyster lawyers, especially those working for the government. Like most folks who work for a living, my job kept me busy enough, and kept me focussed on chemistry, process equipment, and environmental law, so I never had time to investigate tax law. Now that I have time to study it, and helpful websites such as this one, I see that the 'voluntary' nature of the income tax can be detected, and the duty can be avoided. It is too late to help me, but not too late for my children. So I am willing to make the initial contact with the IRS and test this remedy. You may have concluded from my letters to BofA that I can be pretty snide when dealing with liars, but I thought I was careful to be neutral and animus-free in my letter to the IRS (and I do not intend to share the BofA letters with the IRS). Do you detect hostility in my syntax there? Certainly the Notice and Demand itself displays undertones that imply that I don't trust the people I am making the demand to, but it is merely covering the necessary legal ground, not trying to be hostile (and I mostly copied it from one posted on this site). It is hard to maintain any respect for people who have made a career out of fraud and deceit, but I can keep my feelings to myself long enough to conduct this step of the remedy. Redemption under 411 is the law, and I am just exercising my rights (rights that you don't exercise you don't actually have).

Thanks for your helpful comments and concerns. I have a pretty good idea of what I am doing, and am willing to share the experience.

Best Regards,

Freed

David Merrill
02-19-13, 09:23 AM
What I mean is that the IRS has stolen almost $400,000 from me over my working career through fraud and deception, by my endorsing Fed credit and paying taxes, from which I did not get any refunds.

I could Reply with Quote to seal the record so to speak. You have expressed for us forethought and knowledge. Thank you.

I might suggest then that you settle your heart in peace before you begin. Please examine the 834 Form (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f843.pdf). As you sign the 834 Form use the Stamp (http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/6742/redeemedbills.jpg). I would get it notarized and have a Commission Certificate ($5) from the Secretary of State too. File it in a Miscellaneous Case with the USDC before or as you file it with the IRS. It will express either the amount they owe you in order for you to forgive, or that you have (hopefully) already forgiven the IRS and Federal Reserve for being part of your miscreation and misteachings that have injured you.

This has to come from your heart. I am assuring you that what you project out there will reflect upon you. You decide if this should be done before or as you file your tax return.

David Merrill
02-19-13, 01:59 PM
If I might (continue to) impose my understanding of American remedy on yours the Memorandum attached to the 843 Form (http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/1623/irsform834forgiveness.pdf) might read something like:



Dear IRS Agent;


I feel that all my career life I have been a victim of Fraud by Omission because nobody ever taught me the remedy was there in §16 of the Federal Reserve Act and codified at Title 12 USC §411. I estimate because of your collusion in this fraud that you owe me about $400K in back taxes. Notice on the 834 Form that I am claiming that amount to be $0 instead and hope that you can appreciate this act of forgiveness.

In return I am expecting that you will honor my demand to redeem lawful money as expressed on the attached 1040 Form and evidenced by my properly redeemed (copies) paychecks.


Thank you,

Freed Gerdes
02-25-13, 05:50 AM
Thanks for your thoughtful insights, David. I have a few residual questions concerning the process, and the presumed (or feared) response of the IRS.

1. Redeeming lawful money, whether by stamp on a check, or by service of the recorded demand on the bank, creates the same result: demand has been made to refuse to deal in private credit/money substitutes, and this switch to public money puts the resulting transaction out of the reach of the IRS. I only use this method because I never see any checks; SSA has just forced everyone to use direct deposit. The same with my stock accounts; when I sell a stock they just credit my account; no check appears that I could non-endorse. I suspect this is to keep suitors from non-endorsing the checks (but maybe I am giving the IMF lawyers too much credit here). Thus the only way to make the demand is by changing the signature card, and the banks are being trained to refuse this request. Now they can't refuse the demand, as it exists in the federal law that created the Federal Reserve system. But most people will not know this, and will be intimidated by the banks' refusal. Because the account agreement is a private contract, can BofA say that 12USC411 attempts to interfere with a private contract, and thus is void? Alternately, their only option would be to close the account, which they could do, but they haven't. They are apparently claiming that the account was not changed to an irregular deposit account. I will go in tomorrow and try to open an irregular deposit account.

2. I get 1099's which show purported money movements, so I need to file a return. I am debating whether to not show the income received after July at all, and defer to the statement that after July it was all redeemed, or to show it all and then back it out on Line 21 and provide an addendum which lists all transactions after July.

3. Making the demand for lawful money converts the bank account from a Federal Reserve Account (insured by FDIC for $250k) to an irregular deposit account, which changes the relationship from one of debtor (bank) and unsecured creditor (me) to one of bailor (me) and bailee (bank). In the one case I make a loan to the bank (I pay an excise tax on the privilege of being a state bank), and in the other I keep title to the money and only use the bank for secure storage and bookkeeping functions. The Supreme Court ruled in 1894 that an income tax was repugnant to the Constitution, so when using Constitutional money (ie, any money issued by the Treasury), it can't be taxed. In fact, all these myriad taxes we now face are based on this private money scheme, as they are all* un-Constitutional otherwise. As you noted, Social Security is a benefit, and Congress can levy a tax to pay for a benefit, so SS* is a valid tax, but still an excise tax. As long as you are listed as a US Citizen (thus eligible for SS), you cannot get out of paying the SS tax, and it is extracted before you ever see it. Redeeming lawful money will not get you a refund of the SS tax; only opting out of SS will stop that tax. For young people, I would heartily recommend opting out. As Johnny Cash shows us, you can quit SS any time you want, and you will still get benefits when you retire, although less because it is based on how much you paid in...
But, if income tax is a valid tax, what is the benefit? Apparently, we all benefit from the Fed printing more worthless paper money. I wonder why the Articles expressly forbid this? To get around the Constitutional prohibition, the Fed banksters put the tax on private money. Ergo, don't use private money, and the whole problem goes away.

4. You suggested that I forgive the IRS for 40 years of fraud. Since money damages for fraud would be an equity claim, there is no statute of limitations: I could ask for a refund of all income taxes I ever paid. Is your concern that the IRS will recognize this in the Notice of Demand (now, ab initio, and nunc pro tunc), realize that they may have a $400,000 claim on their hands, and feel that they have to fight back? Your suggestion that I send a Form 834 would surely make them aware of this issue, in case they somehow missed it before, and since one has to file a separate Form 834 for every tax year, one might not put them at ease. Presuming that I state forgiveness of the entire amount and sign it, they would have some protection against later filings, so maybe that would set them at ease.

5. I have tried to learn a little about the Clerk of the Superior District Court here in Mecklenburg County, but there is damned little info available. The insider club of practicing attorneys no doubt know all these little tricks, but I haven't a clue how to proceed. Can I just go to the Clerk's office and ask to open a Miscellaneous Case file? What would they file it under, with no pending case or existing case number? And should I put my other records in it? Presumably this is to get evidence into the record in advance, and to let the IRS know that it is in the record (of the court that they would have to go through to get to me). Can you clarify this a little?

Finally, please note that I do not have any properly redeemed paychecks, as I am retired; all important money transfers occur by direct deposit; that is why I am using the blanket bank account route.

Thanks again for all your thoughtful comments. I appreciate your concern about not using the remedy until I need it even better now. But I have had the stamp for a year now and haven't used it yet...

David Merrill
02-25-13, 05:09 PM
Thanks for your thoughtful insights, David. I have a few residual questions concerning the process, and the presumed (or feared) response of the IRS.

1. Redeeming lawful money, whether by stamp on a check, or by service of the recorded demand on the bank, creates the same result: demand has been made to refuse to deal in private credit/money substitutes, and this switch to public money puts the resulting transaction out of the reach of the IRS. I only use this method because I never see any checks; SSA has just...

2. I get 1099's which show purported money movements, so I need to file a return. I am debating whether to not show the income received after July at all, and defer to the statement that after July it was all redeemed, or to show it all and then back it out on Line 21 and provide an addendum which lists all transactions after July.

3. Making the demand for lawful money converts the bank account from a Federal Reserve Account (insured by FDIC for $250k) to an irregular deposit account, which changes the relationship from one of debtor (bank) and unsecured creditor (me) to one of bailor (me) and bailee (bank). In the one case I make a loan to the bank (I pay an excise tax on the privilege of being a state bank), and in the other...

4. You suggested that I forgive the IRS for 40 years of fraud. Since money damages for fraud would be an equity claim, there is no statute of limitations: I could ask for a refund of all income taxes I ever paid. Is your concern that the IRS will recognize this in the Notice of Demand (now, ab initio, and nunc pro tunc), realize that they may have a $400,000 claim on their hands, and feel that they have to fight back? Your suggestion that I send a Form 834 would surely make them aware of this issue, in case they somehow missed it before, and since one has to file a separate Form 834 for every tax year, one might not put them at ease. Presuming that I state forgiveness of the entire amount and sign it, they would have some protection against later filings, so maybe that would set them at ease.

5. I have tried to learn a little about the Clerk of the Superior District Court here in Mecklenburg County, but there is damned little info available. The insider club of practicing attorneys no doubt know all these little tricks, but I haven't a clue how to proceed. Can I just go to the Clerk's office and ask to open a Miscellaneous Case file? What would they file it under, with no pending case or existing case number? And should I put my other records in it? Presumably this is to get evidence into the record in advance, and to let the IRS know that it is in the record (of the court that they would have to go through to get to me). Can you clarify this a little?

Finally, please note that I do not have any properly redeemed paychecks, as I am retired; all important money transfers occur by direct deposit; that is why I am using the blanket bank account route.

Thanks again for all your thoughtful comments. I appreciate your concern about not using the remedy until I need it even better now. But I have had the stamp for a year now and haven't used it yet...


an irregular deposit account

I suggest you start calling it a special deposit account here, and not referring to it as anything irregular when dealing with Customer Service at your bank. It is a great deal of hardship to close down an account and has only happened to two suitors. One, as I showed somewhere here sets up accounts for others and that hardship hit the bank as several employees being fired. So there was a reason to exercise the "Close the Account for Any Reason" clause. But that happened again recently, I believe with a different bank.

Just recently we have an instance where a single suitor - much like you and the average reader here reported:


An update in regard to the bank which I refused to re-sign a signature card without the Demand for lawful money verbiage.

On Friday I received a letter from FSB along with a money order with the proceeds of the account which they closed. The letter reads:


"Dear N,

This letter is to inform you that we are exercising our right to close your accounts as stated in your Deposit Account Agreement. I have enclosed a copy of the Deposit Account Agreement along with a money order for the funds in your account.

Sincerely,
Nickname
Branch Manager"



This is a significant validation because if the Demand was trivial, the bankers would just ignore it as a peculiarity of the customer's personality.


Item 1. You asked:


Because the account agreement is a private contract, can BofA say that 12USC411 attempts to interfere with a private contract, and thus is void?

That may be well the case but the Signature Card Agreement has a clause that the Bank need not explain why they shut down the account. Deduction says you are correct in my opinion.


They are apparently claiming that the account was not changed to an irregular deposit account.

Again deductions and presumptions. But intuition says you are correct again too. This is why it is helpful to defer perspective to you as the Patron (bailee as below) who just tracks whether proper Notice and Demand has been made or not.

Item 2. I am too removed from filing to be very good advice exactly how to fill out the forms. I have seen others do it both ways and get the appropriate refund. There has been only one suitor charged with the $5K FrivPen and that was shortly after he started adding pages of Ed RIVERA's lecture material to his R4C clerk instructions. So I consider that an inadvertant soft sting. The FrivPen is a bill of indictment (confession) against the IRS.

Item 3. You said:


Making the demand for lawful money converts the bank account from a Federal Reserve Account (insured by FDIC for $250k) to an irregular deposit account, which changes the relationship from one of debtor (bank) and unsecured creditor (me) to one of bailor (me) and bailee (bank).

It is delightful to come across a resource like you among the members here at StSC! Thank you for that insight.

This also discloses that you will be utilizing the bank for their vault for free. Mostly up until now (in the redemption timeline) we (you) have been accepting that the bank might well convert your account to non-interest bearing. Well that leaves the bank storing your money and cashing your checks for no consideration paid by you to the bank.

It is no wonder that the bank attorneys are figuring it best for the stockholders to just close down the accounts. They have no fee schedule for special deposit only accounts!

Item 4. That sort of thing. I do not like people getting hurt because they listen to my postings on the Internet. But more the truth in Ignorance of the Law is no excuse. The central banks, mainly the Fed have been banking on your endorsement signature and undoing that will cause... well, the damage we are doing. I have phrased it as carefully regulated release valves for a highly compressed information infrastructure (falsity that debt is money). You can blow the lid off the whole deal but don't be surprised what comes along with what you wish for. I for one like cell phones and flush toilets...


Item 5.

We are finding that the USDC clerks are tightening up about MC filing rules. We have found success though, by Applying for an Order and putting the Notice and Demand right there on the front page. So the Notice and Demand gets a FILED stamping in wet ink. The Application is fluff but the clerk of court files the Application and therefore the Notice and Demand gets published.

Freed Gerdes
03-07-13, 03:04 AM
Bank of America continues to be the local distributor of propaganda against lawful money. Here is link to their latest letter: http://imageshack.us/content_round.php?page=done&l=img818/5285/001mdc.jpg In it they repeat their corporate position that my demand "has no legal relevance," then go on to cite the propaganda found at the Federal Reserve website: http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_15197.htm which cites the Milam case and then BofA uses this flimsy misdirection to state that they are under no obligation to provide gold or silver for my demand. The bank manager is feeling the squeeze, as he had not mailed the letter, dated Feb 26, but gave it to me personally when I went to see him today Mar 6. The letter also asks me to stop bothering their staff with this frivolous demand, as they do not want to discuss it further. I am reminded of the Air Force saying, "when you start getting heavy flack, you are definitely over the target." They have discovered that i am not easily misdirected.

My situation is a little different from most suitors because I am retired, have no wages, and am receiving SS benefits. I have investigated the link between SS and income tax, and conclude that SS is 'just another income tax', but cannot be the basis of the income tax, as it was passed 22 years after the income tax law. The key to both is the contract by which you agree to become a US citizen, and thus a taxpayer. But nowhere does either of these contracts (the SS-5 or the Form 1040) state that you have voluntarily surrendered your right to the remedy found at 12 USC §411. The SS contract specifies two conditions under which benefits can be withheld: 42USC§402 (t), which deals with aliens out of the country and (u), which deals with conviction for treason/espionage. I also read somewhere (but lost the link) that benefits could be withheld if the claimant changed status so as to become a non-taxpayer (presumably a non-resident alien class would do it, since such a person does not need or get a SS#). I do not see any obvious way to connect the two programs, although there is a claim in the Code which says that anyone who receives a govt benefit is a taxpayer. I could go the freeman route, but that would break the contract with SSA, which would likely cause the IRS to at least try to cut off my SS benefits. So I need to go the UCC route, or do I just ignore BofA? Anyone else reporting this issue?

I made a trip to the Clerk of Superior District Court today, but they provided as little help as possible. I could see a possible Claim against BofA based on their refusal to allow redemption under 12 USC §411, and while this seems like it would be pretty easy, based on a statement of my rights under the statute, and challenging them to rebut the statute, and provide a copy of any contract in which I had knowingly and voluntarily surrendered my right to access the statute, but I am not sure this would be valuable. The Clerk indicated that I would have to file a Claim to open a case file, cost $200. This would at least get some un-rebutted statements into the court record, as BofA cannot rebut the statute, and whenever UCC and statute conflict, the statute prevails, so they are unlikely to respond. There is also the claim that since many transactions now occur by direct deposit (SWIFT system, unless you are Iran), refusing to allow redemptions of the entire account deprives me of the right, granted in the statute, not to contract with the Federal Reserve (which is itself a crime defined in 18 USC ?). Suppose I get all this into an affidavit, and 30 days passes without rebuttal; a judge is unlikely to order the bank to provide the account, but at least I have established that use of redemption takes the transaction out of private law and thus out of IRS jurisdiction. It is my understanding that UCC affidavits are the only successful way to proceed in District Court, as they are not judges but administrators of the corporate bylaws (all contract law, no rights). So I am inclined at this point to ignore the BofA account this year, as it has no taxable income in it anyway, and just go with the two stock accounts, both of which took my demand gracefully. And I will begin inquiries at other banks to see if the Fed has gotten the word out everywhere to resist redemptions under 12 USC §411.

Can anyone comment on this apparently new push by the Fed to seal up the 'lawful money' issue with more mis-information? And can anyone provide me with some guidance on the approach and value of a UCC filing? I am studying the UCC, The Supreme Law Firm (Paul Andrew Mitchell's work), and the Freedom School (Nord Davis, Jr), and I find all of it fascinating, and it is beginning to become a coherent matrix in my mind, but there is a lot of material, and only rarely anything that is relevant to my situation.

PS and OT, but I filed my Demand with the Clerk of Deeds, which is a public record, but not in the District Court. Do I need to refile? If I apply for an Order, what would that look like? I understand contract law, and have a decent handle on how the UCC is organized, but am clueless on how to operate the machine...

David Merrill
03-07-13, 06:35 AM
Can anyone comment on this apparently new push by the Fed to seal up the 'lawful money' issue with more mis-information?


I really don't know how that can be done. Congress might repeal Title 12 USC §411? I do not think that is possible while the Fed exists because §16 is so integral to the Fed Act itself.

Freed Gerdes
03-07-13, 08:04 AM
Sorry to have misled you - I never intended to suggest that Congress could repeal 12 USC §411. Obviously they could not, as absent the remedy to redeem, the Federal Reserve Act itself would be a law which forced persons into contract, and such laws are not allowed. No, what I meant is that I suspect a blitz of new, stronger propaganda and mis-direction by the Fed's controlled media, including their web site, probably some new IRS 'guidance,' etc. It means that the IRS is seeing a lot of redemption, and they are pushing back.

David Merrill
03-07-13, 02:57 PM
There is some difficulty opening a Miscellaneous Case file or two. One suitor who has been trying will finally file Notice and Demand as a civil suit for $350. But it is worth it to him. Instead of $46 it costs $350 but here is a rough draft attached. I should add that a Commission Certificate ($5 typically from the SoS) should be added prior to filing at the USDC. One should also be familiar with filling out the Summons and Civil Cover Sheet.

You bring something to light in your quest.

This is me, but I do not believe there can be a formal or even covert information campaign against remedy. Well, covert implies that officials will be in trouble if they get caught at it so...

Plug "redeeming lawful money" into a search engine and give it a spin. That is probably the way to find information and of course any misinformation campaigns - look on the Internet. If you have other ways, I want to hear them - but newspapers and TV seem much less effective for shaping the global mindset to me. You will find one fellow has killed a once popular website with his slurs against American remedy from the Fed. You got me curious last night and he is still at it and there are still less than 10 guests when I looked. I don't mention it by name because I am tickled pink that he is destroying that chat board; and especially that he is just too stubborn to admit it is him and his hatred toward me that is the demise of a once popular haunt for attorney-types.

My theory is basically that almost everybody uses monakers so that others will not show up on their doorstep. It would not be wise since Wesley SERRA (http://www.iromlaw.com/Bio/WesleySerra.asp) is a New York tort attorney but I could hurt StSC here by posting his private email address. Even if you dislike Wesley it just feels yuckey. I think what it is, is that you, being kind and sympathetic would put yourself in his shoes and imagine what that must feel like if you were him - me exposing him like that.

You might even feel a twinge of fear if you, like me have come into a huge case of cyber-terets and blurt everything about yourself. Or that anybody can track your monaker to your front door with only a few bucks and clicks.

Otherwise if you explore the thread and elsewhere you find infantile backpatting in a small cliche of diehards who just love to hate. They heavily moderated me throughout the thread and finally banished me for redacting examples! Well there is my point - they banished me for protecting peoples' privacy and Wesley is destroying the website by posting links to cases that reveal home addresses and SSNs. That feels like crap and the website is paying for it. A few children remain to carry on the task of making each other feel smart by reiterating over and over just how stupid people enjoying ourselves over here are.

My point being that obviously a lot of good people are guided by their gut while jockeying their mice in cyberspace. I am sure you are here because you enjoy it, or maybe even need this kind of information. This leads me to suggest that you (and any readers too) develop the discussion yourselves. Run the search engines and look for any campaigns against redeeming lawful money and post the links. I have been doing that for quite some time. I do that to find and encourage others out there (echo chambers) whenever I get blue.



Regards,

David Merrill.



P.S. Do me a favor please. When you see the link to "Q" - please do not post any links there here! For that matter, please do not even go there. It will make you sick to your stomach.

P.P.S. Obviously you are expected to distinguish between slurs against remedy and slurs against my character. In America a man is innocent until proven guilty and I support that.

Brian
03-08-13, 05:40 AM
Let them repeal USCA12 section 411. Fine, have at it (if they even can). Below my signature on my checks will be the following "Redeem for U.S. Current Coin and deposit in account XXXX" Signed: Me

Pay to the order of: Me

My order is take this paper check and get current coin then deposit it in my account.

Current coin = Lawful Money of the U.S.

Bank: but but but its so heavy, cumbersome and a nuisance logistically to handle.

Me: Then quit devaluing the damn money, otherwise it's not my problem carry out my order good day.

Freed Gerdes
03-08-13, 08:17 AM
@ Brian: I do not forsee any effort to actually repeal the remedy at 12 USC §411, only to darken its name. Notice how effectively the cartel has damaged the reputation of gold, the only true money. Their propaganda machine is truly amazing, because people are mentally lazy and do not want to do the mental work of understanding. I blame TV, which is a hypnotic device that encourages the viewer to just mindlessly accept whatever is presented. Whatever. check this article by JS Kim about the propaganda program against gold: http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-03-07/governments-worldwide-are-implementing-orwellian-gold-confiscation-today-yo-0

@ David: I noticed a long string of ad hominem attacks against you by one particular fellow, who pretty clearly outed himself as either a raging egotist or a shill for the banksters. Most of the folks on this site are here because they want to be (freedom to associate), and because they want to learn. You are clearly an honest teacher, and the world needs more of those. As to the search for sites bashing remedy, I will admit that I never considered looking for them; there are lots of sites, and zillions of Utube videos about evading income taxes, and surely they are universally worthless or have definite negative value. This is the only site I have found that understands the value of tax avoidance. As to sharing on the net, I don't post anything I wouldn't want to see reported on the 6 o'clock news. Big Brother is watching, and there is no privacy on the net, but so what? Obama and his thugs can't drone the entire population, and there are lots and lots of much more visible targets than me. I put up quite a bit of personal info because my situation is different (I suspect, based on other's posted questions/issues), and I am trolling for insight from the rest of your brain trust. I like Treefarmer's approach the best: be exempt because you say you are exempt. After finally realizing that municipal laws, such as those promulgated by the US Federal government (a corporation) do not apply to live humans, I can appreciate his view a lot better. And this analysis of Roman Law as practiced by Article I courts by Mary Croft shows the clear path to avoiding municipal laws: http://musicians4freedom.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/WHO-S-WHO-IN-COURT-AND-WHAT-TO-SAY.pdf. Beautiful information. and I have no interest in looking for the Q site, as the riff-raff from it is obnoxious...

ps many thanks for the form/substance of the generic demand filed as a civil suit; since the Fed has responsibility for supervising the banks, might as well go to the top. And a District Court summons will get a response. thanks

salsero
03-08-13, 02:21 PM
IMHO – this is what I would do. Edit as you see fit.

It is to be sent by registered mail ONLY


NOTICE OF BOA’S REFUSAL TO OPEN ACCOUNT WHEN DEMAND IS MADE FOR LAWFUL MONEY

Dear Mr. Bank President, CEO, or board of director [as appropriate]

On June 1, 1960, I began the process of …………… [tell your story and provide copies of letters from the PERSONS that corresponded to you]

I do not understand bank personnel’s refusal to follow the law? This is a simple, reasonable lawful request. 12 USC 411 is not my personal law; it is a law of the United States. Is it not anyone’s right to demand lawful money and bank personnel MUST comply? It appears it not optional for the bank to deny this demand. Please correct me, if I am mistaken on this matter.

The latest correspondence from BOA employee [name] dated [date] refers to the Milam Case. I do not know if [Name] is not too bright or if [Name] believes I am not too bright. The case is clear if you read it in its entirety: We no longer can demand gold or silver; this is clear; however, the words “Demand is made for Lawful Money. Redeemed in Lawful Money pursuant to 12 USC 411” acts in the equivalent as gold or silver. This phrasing is sufficient to meet my requirement as well as help society reduce the public debt. It is not necessary to have physical gold or silver.

Being a peaceful man, I do not wish to war against my brothers and sisters but I also know I must pursue this matter.

If you as bank president agree with bank personnel that [list all the statements like FRN are lawful money – whatever they wrote you], I am more than willing to accept the bank’s position on the matter IF you will provide me a sworn affidavit, under penalty of perjury with full commercial and personal liability so stating that I or any other person do/does not have the legal right to open an account with BOA and placing a legal notation: demand is made for lawful money …… on the BOA signature card.

I am sure you can appreciate the fact as to why I am a bit surprised at bank personnel’s responses. This is why I would like to give you, as president [whatever title] an opportunity to clear up the matter just in case there was a mistake.

I must insist that I receive a response within 30 days of receipt. Please do not provide me any bank polices or other internal rules some attorney wrote as I will consider this as an insufficient response. As stated previously, I must insist in your response and/or position against this demand for lawful money being placed physically on a BOA signature card to include a sworn affidavit, under penalties of perjury, with both commercial and personal liability attached stating BOA position of legal fact for its refusal of this demand for Lawful Money under 12 USC 411 as mandated by law and in conjunction with the bank’s fiduciary duty to the public to follow that law

Should I not receive a response under penalties of perjury, with full commercial and personal liability, signed by you as an officer of BOA that I am unable to legally and lawfully open an account as I have outlined here, I then will presume that BOA has willfully violated my rights to demand lawful money and will pursue the matter with the powers that be for relief.

If at anytime during the 30 days after receipt of this registered demand, BOA has a change of hear with regard to my demand to open the account, please call me at

Yours truly,

David Merrill
03-08-13, 09:02 PM
Very nice.

I am more toward getting the Fed notified correctly and then serving the bank. Then you forget about it but keep making your Demand whenever.

As for opening an account though - very nice.

It strikes me that instead of the letter the Response or Default from the Board would probably cover it and the bank would open the account. But I have not put that to the test.

bigred
03-08-13, 09:50 PM
I have been redeeming lawful money for several years. All of the bank accounts that I have opened recently have been with small state banks, not Wells Fargo or BofA, and have never heard the first peep of objection when I stamp the signature card "Demand is made for lawful money per 12USC411". The bank accounts were opened as non-interest bearing checking accounts. Time passes. Small state bank is now acquired by a little larger state bank, but still not a National Bank. Since accounts are now under new banks accounting system, I have been getting small interest amounts credited to my checking account each month, just a few cents.

Question: Should the fact that I'm now in receipt of interest make any difference on the fact that I've demanded lawful money on the original signature card? I did not request that these accounts be paid interest, and they never did receive interest prior to the merger. I'm wondering what impact this might have on the status of my accounts being lawful money accounts. Do I need to send my friendly personal banker a letter and point out that I'm now receiving interest and would prefer not to and reiterate that I am demanding lawful money for my accounts?

David Merrill
03-08-13, 10:34 PM
I have been redeeming lawful money for several years. All of the bank accounts that I have opened recently have been with small state banks, not Wells Fargo or BofA, and have never heard the first peep of objection when I stamp the signature card "Demand is made for lawful money per 12USC411". The bank accounts were opened as non-interest bearing checking accounts. Time passes. Small state bank is now acquired by a little larger state bank, but still not a National Bank. Since accounts are now under new banks accounting system, I have been getting small interest amounts credited to my checking account each month, just a few cents.

Question: Should the fact that I'm now in receipt of interest make any difference on the fact that I've demanded lawful money on the original signature card? I did not request that these accounts be paid interest, and they never did receive interest prior to the merger. I'm wondering what impact this might have on the status of my accounts being lawful money accounts. Do I need to send my friendly personal banker a letter and point out that I'm now receiving interest and would prefer not to and reiterate that I am demanding lawful money for my accounts?

I agree. The Demand probably missed the new bank's attention during attornment (http://imageshack.us/a/img211/6476/attorndefinition.jpg). If somebody wants to give you free change as a gift so what?

I think the question is - do you have a copy of the Signature Card(s)?

If not then maybe the problems you suggest could arise. If you do then I imagine the worst that might happen is that they change your account to non-interest bearing.

There is likely a clause that they can close you account for no reason but I suppose that might be more likely to happen if you bring the new bank's attention to the Demand than not.

bigred
03-08-13, 10:46 PM
I really would not like to send the bank anything that might call their attention to my demands for lawful money. The personnel in the bank are the same ones I dealt with before the merger, I've been banking with them for 3 years or so. Unfortunately, I did not keep a copy of the signature card. Maybe it would be wise to open another account with a new signature card and demand lawful money on the new signature card and snap a picture of it with my iPhone, then close the old account and start using the new one. Or is that being overly paranoid?

Updated 7/6/13 About a month ago, I went into the bank and asked for a copy of the original signature card which they had in a 3 ring binder. It was the original, because my RLM stamp was in red ink and it was the original card, not a copy. The happily made a copy of it for me. End of story.

stoneFree
03-08-13, 11:03 PM
I agree with David. And I've had little trouble with Bank of America. In fact I setup my "person's" first lawful money account (http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/9007/bofasc.jpg) there. And they never seem to care about the endorsement. They have those ATM machines that scan-in checks - here's backside of the last one: just the stamp (http://jesse2012.com/boaCHECK.jpg). I have even seen BOA accept non-endorsed checks; totally blank.

In fact I'm not sure what you're all hoping to accomplish with all that letter-writing. You have only to make your demand, and document it.

I don't keep much $ in banks though. I mean ... why would you keep your "money" in an insolvent institution called a BANK!?
http://src-fla.us/index.php/news2e629/78-news-articles/143-bix-weir-friday-roadtrip

There is some anecdotal evidence that those with NO BANK ACCOUNT AT ALL (Woodone) have an easier time beating the Fed's IRS. Think about it, without some evidence, without some bank trail, of you endorsing private credit of the Fed, what will the DoJ/IRS rely on? You are someone Right Worshipful F.D.R. was unable to PERSUADE into depositing your salary into one of those new trust accounts:

1180

David Merrill
03-09-13, 02:31 AM
I really would not like to send the bank anything that might call their attention to my demands for lawful money. The personnel in the bank are the same ones I dealt with before the merger, I've been banking with them for 3 years or so. Unfortunately, I did not keep a copy of the signature card. Maybe it would be wise to open another account with a new signature card and demand lawful money on the new signature card and snap a picture of it with my iPhone, then close the old account and start using the new one. Or is that being overly paranoid?

I think that makes no sense unless I sympathize with your conditioning. Why not ask a teller to run a copy of your Signature Card? Remember the magic words; please and thank you!


P.S. Stonefree;


A suitor wrote recently that the letters to her ended almost immediately when she closed her bank accounts. Her husband still has an account and still gets the administrative letters.

gdude
03-09-13, 03:28 AM
A suitor wrote recently that the letters to her ended almost immediately when she closed her bank accounts. Her husband still has an account and still gets the administrative letters.

From Who? Auntie Iris?

David Merrill
03-09-13, 04:32 AM
Sorry, the letters badgering from the IRS. - From back a few years with CtC by Pete.

salsero
03-09-13, 01:35 PM
Very nice.

I am more toward getting the Fed notified correctly and then serving the bank. Then you forget about it but keep making your Demand whenever.

As for opening an account though - very nice.

It strikes me that instead of the letter the Response or Default from the Board would probably cover it and the bank would open the account. But I have not put that to the test.

Yes David I agree with you - this is why I added the phrase ", I then will presume that BOA has willfully violated my rights to demand lawful money and will pursue the matter with the powers that be for relief." The PTB are the comptroller of the currency and the FRB. I did not want to "threaten too much" as a Peaceful Inhabitant, it is not about $$, but rather the compliance.

The key is to make them personallyliable for failing to follow THEIR laws. When it hits them in THEIR pocket, it sheds a different light

It should be noted the BANK will not respond - they really can not. Then after 35 days and no response you send a letter of "ACKNOWLDGEMENT AND DEFAULT" offering them once last time to resond within 10 days. I would add a little more threat to this letter - add the comptroller, FRB, AG, SOS, and a little tid bit of any further costs to me for the you mr. bank officer shall be held personally liable, including adminstration fees of $$$. Once again they will fail to respond. Then you must do a thrid letter "ACKNOWLDGEMENT AND FINAL NOTICE OF DEFAULT. And then you got them. YAY!!!

I am about to do this with wells fargo, I just have not gotten there yet. I went there about a month ago, and spoke with a rep. YOU CAN NOT SPEAK WITH A REP, you must speak with an officer of the bank. The rep is only doing his job by telling you NO. You can not get upset. Just know you are wasting your time. It was the first time, I went to a bank and wanted to open an account and put the disclaimer on the signature card. It is actually funny to see the reaction on their faces when they learn what it means. Its almost worth the entertainment.

This is what I am planning to do: go back to wells fargo and ask to speak with the president or officer, in hand I will have various laws - pertaining to redeeming lawful money and the ISSUE of the SSN. Talk real nice but explain it is not a request it is a demand. It is the banks required fiduciary duty to provide me with the laws that require me to provide them with a SSN and I can not do lawful money. A stupid repsonse from the officer is - oh its in the patriot act - you have to comply is not a response. It is BS. You specifically have the patriot act with you. I have not been able to find anywhere where it says a SSN is required. The officer must be specific as the law. Have no issue FOR THAT DAY, walking out of the bank with your tail between your legs if the officer says no way jose. Make sure you obtain the officer's business card and ensure that in fact, he is an officer of the bank. YOU THEM SEND HIM REGISTERED [ONLY] LETTERS. You go to the post office, and ask the clerk to stamp a copy or ask the clerk to make a copy with their red date stamp on your copy, thus making a "record". Records can not be rebutted easily. You do this three times as necessary when the bank officer fails to respond.

You are well on your well to getting the bank in trouble plus having mr. officer's no longer working in that position. Yes, do follow David's recommendation of signing the back of checks with the redeem for LM.... its not all that important to have the discalimer on the signature card as you are still redeeming LM regardless.

Tony

salsero
03-09-13, 01:42 PM
I really would not like to send the bank anything that might call their attention to my demands for lawful money. The personnel in the bank are the same ones I dealt with before the merger, I've been banking with them for 3 years or so. Unfortunately, I did not keep a copy of the signature card. Maybe it would be wise to open another account with a new signature card and demand lawful money on the new signature card and snap a picture of it with my iPhone, then close the old account and start using the new one. Or is that being overly paranoid?

We all have to remember that it is our job to prove the "record" not theirs. I personally would not trust the bank to do the honorable thing - let's say if you were ever questioned by the IRS - that signature card can easily be "fixed".

Should I be successful with wells fargo [and at this time I am feelin good about the success because it is so using their system agains them for a change with the three letters as stated above], at the time the signature card is done, I would ask the bank notary to provide me a statement that the signature card is in fact and accurate and true copy of the original held by the bank and have the officer sign off on it. Will they do this? I do not know - but backing their asses in a corner with no wiggle room [particularly for the little money I will have in the account - lol] makes them think twice. But I do live in Florida and most people can not think here very well LOL. So I am often not suprised for stupidity.

David Merrill
03-09-13, 03:21 PM
I trust that you realize with their first response mentioning your demand for lawful money you have proof of service that they have received your Demand?


Beyond that I believe you are toying with your bank and risk reflecting back on you what you project.

salsero
03-09-13, 07:50 PM
I trust that you realize with their first response mentioning your demand for lawful money you have proof of service that they have received your Demand?

Maybe I was not clear previously. I am not out to get the bank. I am not out to get anyone, for that matter. We all know the banks like how they do business and really have no interest in changing it. After I speak with an officer of the bank - man to man - in a non threatening though not backing down mode either, the officer has an option comply or not. I may get lucky to speak to someone who gets it and will simply reply - no problem let's do it. However, my experience, living in Florida for 22 years is "they ain't too bright down here" lol. A likely scenario is the officer will do nothing. This then is the beginning of the registered letters, similiar to what I posted. Will the officer respond, again being Florida, he will turn it over to legal and legal - not being too bright as well, will send a response something like was sent to Freed. Per my first letter, this is a non-response and it goes into default. Most fraudsters do not answer anything under penalties of perjury with full commercial and personal liabiliy - and really how could they? Accordingly, the three registered letters UNANSWERED [at the bank's discretion], now goes into damages. As I said earlier, it is not about $$ but rather to obtain remedy. But THEY do not see it that way. Just remember how many times WE HAVE all signed something swearing to abide, do or be held liable. I really do not see this as anything but normal business in the world of commerce.

Beyond that I believe you are toying with your bank and risk reflecting back on you what you project.

I have no intention to toy with any bank or officer. It is simply, it is a demand, not a request. I can do this politely and in honor. THe officer has the option to accept or deny. And for me it is all good. Any presumption I MAY HAVE is solely based upon other's experiences in dealing with the PTB. I fully understand everything is consciousness and intention. But I also understand that we are tested and FOR A VERY GOOD REASON, may I ad - not that I particularly like it but I do understand. I see aboslutely no down side to what I have outlined.

If the banks are required to follow 12 USC 411, then there really is no issue. If not, then a grown up response would be "I am sorry the bank will not open the account with this request and I as an officer am willing to sign this under penalties of perjury with full commercial liabily. 12 USC 411 is optional and as a bank, we do not need to follow that law". The last reponse I got from wells fargo was good bye and good luck with a smirk.

I look at this as a test - I needed to go back and study more and ask questions. Am I prepared? Who really ever is 100%? But at this time, I feel confident to move foward in whatever manner is appropriate and it can be done in honor, integrity with any intention of "getting them". I consider myself a peaceful man who is here on this planet to experience all of God's glory as a living soul incarnate using the usufruct as ORIGINALLY INTENDED for all of us.

David Merrill
03-09-13, 11:28 PM
Sorry to use that term "toying". I still do not see the purpose though except some kind of patrolling.

I probably would have agreed with your approach two months ago. One suitor pointed out after explaining the trust structure that he has not been granted the authority to actually redeem in lawful money, only to demand it. This money is not his for any such execution of law.

Attached find the near final draft.

salsero
03-10-13, 01:14 AM
It appears a bigger question NOW must be asked? Do we have any right to redeem lawful money? If not, then there is no sense moving forward with any of this. Specficially what trust structure is being referred?

I would NOT be in favor of this type of lawsuit. It playing in their private sandbox and not a likely win. You only go into private court with the victory in hand before you enter the ship. This is why I recommend the 3 letters. its a done deal.

I do not know what you mean by "patrolling", so I can not answer this.

David, if you have a suggestion on what WE should do, please advise. I take it you are redeeeming lawful money as placed on your signature card with the bank. This is a presumption as I have no first hand knowledge of this.

Another intersting aspect to the comment "One suitor pointed out after explaining the trust structure that he has not been granted the authority to actually redeem in lawful money, only to demand it. This money is not his for any such execution of law." This is strongly suggesting that WE are not permitted then the exemption on the 1040 on line 21 for redeeming lawful money. If we can ONLY demand LM but not actually redeem it because we are not authorized or a party to THEIR private club, then this exemption would be for ONLY authorized persons. This appears not to be consistent with other suitor's opinions of the tax exemptoin for lawful money. So maybe this suitor has some bad info????

David can you please elaborate

thanks - Tony

JohnnyCash
03-10-13, 06:45 AM
HA! now we begin to see the real "salsero." And could you ask Freed G. to come back - I have a question for him.

David Merrill
03-10-13, 02:56 PM
It appears a bigger question NOW must be asked? Do we have any right to redeem lawful money? If not, then there is no sense moving forward with any of this. Specficially what trust structure is being referred?

I would NOT be in favor of this type of lawsuit. It playing in their private sandbox and not a likely win. You only go into private court with the victory in hand before you enter the ship. This is why I recommend the 3 letters. its a done deal.

I do not know what you mean by "patrolling", so I can not answer this.

David, if you have a suggestion on what WE should do, please advise. I take it you are redeeeming lawful money as placed on your signature card with the bank. This is a presumption as I have no first hand knowledge of this.

Another intersting aspect to the comment "One suitor pointed out after explaining the trust structure that he has not been granted the authority to actually redeem in lawful money, only to demand it. This money is not his for any such execution of law." This is strongly suggesting that WE are not permitted then the exemption on the 1040 on line 21 for redeeming lawful money. If we can ONLY demand LM but not actually redeem it because we are not authorized or a party to THEIR private club, then this exemption would be for ONLY authorized persons. This appears not to be consistent with other suitor's opinions of the tax exemptoin for lawful money. So maybe this suitor has some bad info????

David can you please elaborate

thanks - Tony

It is nothing more than a proposed mental model. Speaking for myself, METRO = Districts, I am authorized and so is the brain trust. I mark the currency as redeemed any time it pleases me. It has the effect of teaching others who handle it because the CODE can be found on Cornell's website.

I think that by deferring the fraud back to Congress and not patroling the bank a suitor is completely justified to be making his demand as this was the remedy designed for state and national banks.

But mainly this is a decision to be decided by the courts or Congress. And it has already been voiced. Nobody will touch it otherwise.

Freed Gerdes
03-11-13, 09:09 PM
It appears a bigger question NOW must be asked? Do we have any right to redeem lawful money? If not, then there is no sense moving forward with any of this. Specficially what trust structure is being referred?

I would NOT be in favor of this type of lawsuit. It playing in their private sandbox and not a likely win. You only go into private court with the victory in hand before you enter the ship. This is why I recommend the 3 letters. its a done deal.

I do not know what you mean by "patrolling", so I can not answer this.

David, if you have a suggestion on what WE should do, please advise. I take it you are redeeeming lawful money as placed on your signature card with the bank. This is a presumption as I have no first hand knowledge of this.

Another intersting aspect to the comment "One suitor pointed out after explaining the trust structure that he has not been granted the authority to actually redeem in lawful money, only to demand it. This money is not his for any such execution of law." This is strongly suggesting that WE are not permitted then the exemption on the 1040 on line 21 for redeeming lawful money. If we can ONLY demand LM but not actually redeem it because we are not authorized or a party to THEIR private club, then this exemption would be for ONLY authorized persons. This appears not to be consistent with other suitor's opinions of the tax exemptoin for lawful money. So maybe this suitor has some bad info????

David can you please elaborate

thanks - Tony

The statute is quite clear that a person (natural or otherwise) could only demand redemption on the occasion that he had FRN's, which he would naturally obtain at a Federal Reserve bank (like by cashing or depositing a check, receiving a direct deposit, etc, for which the FRB has already determined that you have chosen, or not denied, that you want FRN's; note that under the legal tender law, the banks can assume this, and the choice clearly favors them doing so), so the clear meaning of the statute is that the remedy (avoidance of FRN's) must be with the purveyors of same. There is no trust issue here; whoever came up with that was propagating red herrings, or was mis-directed by same. The CQVT could hold LM as easily as FRN's.

As to the lawsuit vs patrolling the banks, I perceive David's advice is this: you have no duty to force the bank to comply with your demand; that duty lies with the FRB. The statute designates their duty to 'supervise' the banks chartered under 12 USC, so let them do it. The suit is the simplest way, and it avoids all the confrontations, lies, and mis-direction you will likely get from the bank. I like it.

PS to JohnnyCash: like the trust, I am always here. Ask me anything. Freed G

David Merrill
03-11-13, 10:11 PM
Sometimes I feel that the OCC (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) may be more in charge of enforcement and imposed risk management.

JohnnyCash
03-12-13, 02:37 AM
Hi Freed, My question is about my parents and older folks generally. They have worked diligently for years and like yourself now receive SS benefits deposited directly into the bank. And I see we all agree that SS$ is tax-free. And despite all their hundred thousand$ earned and diverted to govt/banking cartel they did manage to put a little away – some in a fully qualified retirement plan and some just dollars. As you know, the Golden Years often arrive with more ailments and more health concerns. And some of that elder healthcare is very expensive and there's always a possibility one of them will require something very costly like a nursing home (although I would try to avoid it). I've heard several scare stories here like "they take all your money" or "well you know they cost 12 thousand a month?" etc.. So my question relates not to passing savings on to heirs but more ... how to preserve some of that savings for the healthier parent, so he/she isn't left destitute by the sicker one's medical costs? I've received differing advice from people. Some talk about "lookback period" and Special Needs trust, and so forth. Do you have any words of wisdom?

David Merrill
03-12-13, 02:40 PM
I too have questions about this. It is a very puzzling topic!

Could you please repost your comment as an opening post for a new thread?




Hi Freed, My question is about my parents and older folks generally. They have worked diligently for years and like yourself now receive SS benefits deposited directly into the bank. And I see we all agree that SS$ is tax-free. And despite all their hundred thousand$ earned and diverted to govt/banking cartel they did manage to put a little away – some in a fully qualified retirement plan and some just dollars. As you know, the Golden Years often arrive with more ailments and more health concerns. And some of that elder healthcare is very expensive and there's always a possibility one of them will require something very costly like a nursing home (although I would try to avoid it). I've heard several scare stories here like "they take all your money" or "well you know they cost 12 thousand a month?" etc.. So my question relates not to passing savings on to heirs but more ... how to preserve some of that savings for the healthier parent, so he/she isn't left destitute by the sicker one's medical costs? I've received differing advice from people. Some talk about "lookback period" and Special Needs trust, and so forth. Do you have any words of wisdom?

JohnnyCash
03-12-13, 05:22 PM
Done. Thank you.
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?857-elder-assets-and-healthcare

Darkmagus
03-25-13, 09:41 PM
This is AMAZING that I am reading this! I just, an hour ago, came from my bank asking to change/amend my signature card with the "Lawful Money" statement and the person I talked to said exactly what you have stated here. Thankfully she didn't make a decision based on her statement. She called "Legal" who said I must submit to them in writing why I want to add the statement to my accounts, which they will review and decide whether to approve the addition of said statement.
Any ideas what I should include as my "why"?


Greetings, all.

David, and all in general,

I and many others have been experiencing resistance or downright refusals to change our signature card or open new accounts as such with a declaration that the account be redeemable in lawful money. I have a theory but I do not have proof one way or the other why these 'member banks' have been rejecting us.

USC 411 states that 'The said notes shall be obligations of the Unites States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal Reserve Banks...They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, DC, or at any Federal Reserve Bank.'

Here goes my theory based on the language in USC 411...

1) 'The said notes...shall be receivable by all '.

To me, receivable means they can accept Federal Reserve notes (with no talk of lawful money redemption at this point). So they can receive FRN's into virtually all banks.

2) 'They shall be [B]redeemed in lawful money on demand at the [Treasury Dept, DC, or any Federal Reserve bank].

What strikes me is that 'member banks' are not included in the 'redeemable entity' list. The language could be interpreted in this manner by the 'member banks': any bank can receive FRN's into an account, but only the ones in the 'redeemable entity' list shall as obligated by law, redeem them in lawful money. So they are interpreting 'Federal Reserve bank' to mean the 12 known banks as such. Therefore, they (private, FDIC members, that ilk) interpret that they can receive your FRN's but are under no obligation to redeem in lawful money because they are not one of the '12 Federal Reserve banks'.

Although remedy exists via USC 411, the thinking is that if these 'member banks' are somehow excluded from the obligation, one would need to redeem in lawful money at one of the 12 Federal Reserve Banks or at the Treasury Department. Which for almost all of us would be incredibly impractical and frankly, incredibly unfair and not in good faith per USC 411.

Is there supporting law or documents for USC 411 that would clarify the above interpretation one way or another?

Thank you for any clarification or thoughts on this.

David Merrill
03-25-13, 10:39 PM
First off - get the request in writing.

As banks persist in exercising this option we might consider notifying the Fed about our demand, getting that into an evidence repository and just serving that same marked up Notice on the bank and forgetting about Signature Cards altogether. This is tiring.

EZrhythm
03-26-13, 03:22 AM
Amen David!

*Make the demand by NOTICE.
*Use proper record forming.

Now where do the benefits of making the demand occur?
"...for all taxes, customs, and other public dues." [FRA Section 16 Note Issues; http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section16.htm ]

CC a copy of one's demand to any tax agency of perceived detriment and again don't forget proper record forming.

Darkmagus
04-20-13, 08:48 PM
I have been trying to have the "Redemption" novation added to my accounts or even a plainly stated denial of my request. Here is what has transpired thus far;

This my original letter to M & T bank. 1210
In addition I called the headquarters in Buffalo, NY and spoke with the customer care manager. Here is the reply I got. 1212
In reply I sent the following; 1209 and as a response I got this; 1211

They are clearly trying to avoid being on record either allowing a lawful money acct., or denying my request for one.

I shall be attempting to open accts at BoA and or Wells Fargo next week.

David Merrill
04-22-13, 02:40 AM
I have been trying to have the "Redemption" novation added to my accounts or even a plainly stated denial of my request. Here is what has transpired thus far;

This my original letter to M & T bank. 1210

In addition I called the headquarters in Buffalo, NY and spoke with the customer care manager. Here is the reply I got. 1212
In reply I sent the following; 1209 and as a response I got this; 1211

They are clearly trying to avoid being on record either allowing a lawful money acct., or denying my request for one.

I shall be attempting to open accts at BoA and or Wells Fargo next week.

What a terrific post! Thanks a lot.

gdude
04-22-13, 02:56 AM
What a terrific post! Thanks a lot.

Yes , Thanks for the post!

Interesting that both of the banks replies stated that if you had any questions about FRN's contact the U.S.Treasury......the first entity listed in 12 § 411!
This is my contention, screw the banks....send your Demand to the U.S. Treasury.

FWIW DARKMAGUS, you left your name showing on one of the docs.....make sure you redact your name on all posted docs!

Darkmagus
04-23-13, 01:28 PM
Thanks gdude, I overlooked that. Actually my first posting had to be deleted because I left my ACCOUNT NUMBER on one of the docs! LOL Sheesh!
Oh well, won't be my account for long anyway.

bigred
07-07-13, 12:29 AM
Freed: You have gone to a great degree of trouble in your quest with BofA. I appreciate your adventurous spirit and willingness to share the details of your quest. However, I'm wondering if you are "tilting at windmills" like Don Quixote. I'm not being critical here, please don't interpret my comments in any personal manner. I'm just trying to clarify what your objectives are. Maybe the quest is your objective, I'm grateful that you would do that. However, if your objective is to actually get an account opened with "Redeemed in Lawful Money" (RLM) and associated verbiage on the signature card and have your direct deposit transactions deposited into it, then I'd make the following suggestion. Find a local state chartered bank and open an account there. I did that 3 or 4 years ago, and have been redeeming lawful money both with non-endorsed checks and like you with Social Security direct deposits. I have not tried to open an account for RLM in the last 12 months, but I have 3 accounts with the same bank all with RLM on the signature cards and have never heard a peep from them. Just my $.02 worth.

salsero
12-14-13, 02:37 AM
I was going through the responses and did not find exactly my case. I opened a bank account in 1996. Later on I changed it to a revocable living trust account. A few weeks ago, the bank rep said the bank needed an update signature card. I said no problem. I signed By: John Doe, trustee, authorized signature. Underneath there was plenty of space to write: All transactions on this account are intended by demand to be redeemed in Lawful Money per 12 USC 411. Nunc pro tunc. This new signature card was done on 11-29-2013.

I decided to go back to the bank rep who is also a notary and asked her to do a notarized affidavit with the following verbiage:

On this 9th day of December 2013, I attest that the proceeding and attached document is a true, exact complete unaltered photocopy made by me of the ABC Bank signature card for JOHN DOE, as individual and trustee for the account 1XXXXX123 with the original opening of the account of December 13, 1996 and revised on November 29, 2013. The following was added to the bottom of the signature card: All transactions on this account are intended by demand to be redeemed in Lawful Money per 12 USC 411. Nunc pro tunc.

The rep signed this and notarized this AND the actual signature card.

Today, 12-13, I got a call from the rep and was told I need to come back and change the signature card as the bank does not accept the verbiage. I said to the rep, please have the bank send me a letter. And the conversation ended.

So this is my question: I am way past the 3 days - RFC. In reading different posts, I see the bank CAN close the account AND in other posts, the bank will try and trick you to close the account. The fact remains that I do have a notarized statement and signature card. Does the bank have the right to close the account without my acceptance? Does the bank have the right to ignore the demand for lawful money? What type of deceptive tricks can the bank really do?

My first thoughts were if the bank sent a threatening letter, I would send a response "something like" - I am under the impression that ABC Bank is part of the national banking system and must provide service to the public. The entity I use, John Doe is public property and therefore you must provide service. I am deeply concerned for the well-being of the public and the use of FRN increases the public debt; therefore causing a serious harm to the public. I believe the bank has had ample opportunity to reject the signature card but has NOW since waived its right. Therefore, if ABC Bank refuses to follow the laws of the US, including but not limited to accepting the demand for lawful money per 12 USC 411, I am left little choice but to forward this information for review and investigation by the OCC, FRB and SOT. Yours truly, Nice Guy

Oh I should also tell you I have been banking not only personally for about 3 years but also business depositing business check "redeemed in lawful money" for about a year. On the business, I probably deposited $800k in checks LOL. I can not answer for certain but I can suspect the tellers may have not done any special processing on those checks. I do not want anyone fired.

Any suggestions would be appreciated. Tony



The signature card is an agreement. You make a novation (innovation) and that means they have three days to R4C your novation. Another method might be to put the demand on your payroll authorization for direct deposit. That involves your employer though and that is never wise.

I think you are right on about the specifications of which banks may be redeemed but you do not get to bank at the Federal Reserve banks. They do not open accounts for people like you. So you either have the right to redeem or not. According to MILAM you do.


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

Which presents the question - Where do I go, if not my bank?

If your banker says you have to go to the Fed or that this only applies to state banks and not you and if he were correct then it would not make any difference and he should allow you to sign as you please. If you have no such remedy then it is just a fanciful addition - meaningless. We have the suitor who found employees being fired though, for making general deposits when they were to be special deposits to it does indeed matter.

My experience (through the brain trust) tells me that if the suitor knows what he is doing he will get the novation in place mostly because the bank has fiduciary responsibility to do business with you. In other words they may try convincing you to close down your account and if you are conditioned to obey, you will. They will not close down your account unless you are costing them like with the suitor where the employees were fired. That cost a lot so they shut down the accounts.

Freed Gerdes
12-14-13, 10:27 PM
The banks' refusal of demands for lawful money are a stall tactic, designed to infuse doubt into the claim. The bank service agreement contains a lot of opportunities to create implied contracts, making you admit to being a 'US citizen' (read: debt slave), and stating that the bank will ignore anything written on the back of your check besides your endorsement. If you file your notice and demand in the public record, and then serve it on the bank, the demand will supercede the implied contracts on the bank signature page. But what if the bank denies your demand, as Bank of America did to me (thrice)? Can the bank refuse a demand for lawful money? Can they pretend that their refusal of your demand (notice: they did not refuse for cause; they claim the demand "has no legal significance") maintains the legal validity of your signature card on file? They can. Will it matter? I doubt it. Here is why: you make your demand, which takes your deposits out of the Federal Reserve fractional reserve lending system. These deposits of lawful money cannot be used for reserves. What it really means is that the bank cannot lend using your credit, because you refused to accept responsibility for the debt the bank wants to create in your name. By refusing to endorse new debt in your name, you avoid 'dealing in Federal Reserve debt securities,' which is the step which creates the irreccusable obligation to file a return and pay taxes on the private money you used. So you have no obligation to pay income taxes on these deposits. So you go to the IRS and file for a refund of all taxes withheld. The IRS says prove you redeemed. You produce (a copy of) your demand and the letter serving the demand on the bank. You have met the requirements of 12 USC 411: you made your demand. The bank, by pretending that your demand is meaningless, is just trying to plant that element of fear/doubt that maybe you can't believe everything you read on the internet. The banking cartel has been using lies, fraud, and misdirection since 1692, don't let it bother you; press on.

ps. I believe my bank wants to deny the demand because they do not want to have agreed in writing that my deposits are now special deposits, which must be returned in kind, rather than general deposits, which become unsecured loans to the bank. Bank of America has been planning for some time to go bankrupt, and the current plan is that when they do, they will confiscate the depositors accounts, which they can do because the account agreement they make you sign makes you an unsecured creditor, ie, you will stand at the end of a long line of secured creditors during a bankruptcy. Special deposits would be at the front of that bankruptcy line, as their confiscation would constitute theft by bailee...

Freed

David Merrill
12-15-13, 09:55 PM
I am not sure I got it when the suitor explained this to me. Look on the last page (https://app.box.com/s/xmfgmm447bci2k5nxetp) at the email he sent me. What he said is that by not being in the Table there are no set guidelines or forms for making your demand proper. I get that much easily.

What he said though is that you only have to prove that you have made your demand one time and one time only, and that is good for life.

Keith Alan
12-16-13, 01:44 AM
Am I wrong to understand that unless a check (or similar instrument) is endorsed, it is non-negotiable? And that banks can accept deposits even endorsed in blank? I'm sorry to go over ground that I'm sure has been covered most exhaustively on this site, but unless there is an endorsement, then the instrument remains non-negotiable.

So "non-endorsing" is an attempt to enter an instrument into the banking system without liability. Great! This seems to be (to me) the source of all the problems with banks. They're just not set up to deal with demands for lawful money. I think that's why the statute says demand must be made at Treasury or at one of the 12 Federal Reserve Banks.

Now lately I've been wondering about sending notice of demand to the Treasurer (Rosie Rios), maybe even asking her to provide an identifying number of some sort identifying my particular demand (or asking her to agree to one I provide); and then continuing to make deposits at my normal bank by writing down on the back the account number only. When the checks clear, write a check made out to "Lawful Money" and use the cash. After all, the people from whom I accept a check are dealing in banking credit. It only seems fair to follow their request.

At that point - since I never actually receive anything but cash - I can't imagine why I would need to file a return.

Thoughts?

doug555
12-16-13, 02:34 AM
I am not sure I got it when the suitor explained this to me. Look on the last page (https://app.box.com/s/xmfgmm447bci2k5nxetp) at the email he sent me. What he said is that by not being in the Table there are no set guidelines or forms for making your demand proper. I get that much easily.

What he said though is that you only have to prove that you have made your demand one time and one time only, and that is good for life.

Below is the rest of the email... It does NOT say one only needs to do it ONCE. In fact ever since 9/15/2011, I have handwritten my exact specific declaration on the FACE of every check and deposit slip I issue.... just to make it CLEAR by a PREPONDERENCE of substantive evidence under their FRE Exception to Hearsay Rule 803(6)(B) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803) that from that date onward "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2)" applies to ALL transactions even if it is missing thereafter on transactions like direct deposits, debit/credit cards, EFTs, etc, where it is hard to make a record of one's demand. Remember, by making one's demand TRANSACTION-BASED, it does not matter what the signature card has on it or not. The account does not matter - BECAUSE YOU MADE YOUR DEMAND TRANSACTION-BASED - Please get this point! It is CRITICAL! One does NOT have to send letters to the bank, IRS, FRS, IMF, Treasury or Employer and thereby stir up needless trouble! Okay? IMHO - K.I.S.S.

....

The Parallel Table of Authorities has no entry for 12 USC 411. This table's entries go in sequence from 12 USC section 391 to section 418. Section 411 is missing. This is confirmed at http://www.gpo.gov/help/parallel_table.txt, excerpted below:

[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Parallel Table]
[Revised as of January 1, 2011]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
PARALLEL TABLE OF AUTHORITIES AND RULES

12 U.S.C. <---------------------------> Corresponding C.F.R.
================================================== =====
378............................................... ...........12 Part 303

391....31 Parts 202, 203, 209, 210, 225, 240, 306, 317, 321, 341, 346,
..............351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 363, 375, 380

418............................................... .........31 Part 601

461........................................12 Parts 201, 204, 208, 217


"Therefore it is legitimate and preferable to make one's demand TRANSACTION-BASED, to wit:

"lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411 and 95a(2)"

Using this exact wording above enables one to provide probable cause and justification for listing all transactions on a custom-made 1040 SUPPORTING SCHEDULE that have been presumed to be using FRNs!!!

Who can rebut that demand? And by what authority? 12 USC 411 does NOT specify any wording requirement or transaction frequency, and there is no corresponding CFR regulation that requires anything.

One does NOT need to put it on any bank signature card, or on any contract!

Just decide on the date one wants to begin the demand and then start hand-writing it on the face of one's checks and deposit slips, just under one's name and address in the upper left-hand corner of the document. This then stands nunc pro tunc (now for then), thereafter and forever, as substantive evidence per FRCP 803(6) governing exceptions to hearsay evidence, and is unrebuttable.

This is the starting date of one's FREEDOM. Make it memorable!!

I believe making a clear public record that creates substantive evidence of all transactions demanding lawful money is the key, all done in good faith reliance on 12 USC 411 and 12 USC 95a(2), AND on the Father and His Son, who evidently have commanded this as a red line in the sand to be observed by all parties (including Satan) in this issue, namely Mt 22:21.

Beware of becoming an unwitting tool of the Adversary by undermining and doubting the remedy provided by the Creator that He promised to provide to His People in 1 Cor 10:13.

Remember the words given to Joshua in Joshua 1:9, and to Peter by the Messiah in Mt 14:31.

So claim this promise of remedy. Be courageous. Have faith!

Peace."

And I add now: Beware of adding regulations WHERE THERE ARE NONE, and thereby making the road more difficult for those that follow us who have successfully gotten refunds!

SUGGESTION: As a second witness, one might also record a Declaration in the public record about this starting date of lawful money demands, and attach as Exhibits the first several checks and deposit slips... and several more throughout that year for good measure.

NOTICE: Lawful Money Demand (12 USC 411) is only 1/3 of the remedy - Full Discharge (12 USC 95a(2)) is second 1/3 - and Claim for Harm by a man in his court of record at a public court building using his record declared at the county recorder is the last 1/3. More info on this is available at iuvdeposit.wordpress.com (http://iuvdeposit.wordpress.com/)

It looks to be an interesting year in 2014... 14 means "DELIVERANCE" in the Bible. The Passover, as you know, was on the 14th.

David Merrill
12-16-13, 03:26 PM
Am I wrong to understand that unless a check (or similar instrument) is endorsed, it is non-negotiable? And that banks can accept deposits even endorsed in blank? I'm sorry to go over ground that I'm sure has been covered most exhaustively on this site, but unless there is an endorsement, then the instrument remains non-negotiable.

So "non-endorsing" is an attempt to enter an instrument into the banking system without liability. Great! This seems to be (to me) the source of all the problems with banks. They're just not set up to deal with demands for lawful money. I think that's why the statute says demand must be made at Treasury or at one of the 12 Federal Reserve Banks.

Now lately I've been wondering about sending notice of demand to the Treasurer (Rosie Rios), maybe even asking her to provide an identifying number of some sort identifying my particular demand (or asking her to agree to one I provide); and then continuing to make deposits at my normal bank by writing down on the back the account number only. When the checks clear, write a check made out to "Lawful Money" and use the cash. After all, the people from whom I accept a check are dealing in banking credit. It only seems fair to follow their request.

At that point - since I never actually receive anything but cash - I can't imagine why I would need to file a return.

Thoughts?

That sounds genius! Open an account with the US Treasurer, by number and use that.

Negotiable and Non-Negotiable take on an atypical meaning in terms of endorsement and non-endorsement.


1484This particular image was a bounced paycheck.
The bank returned it but with the non-endorsement torn off.

Negotiating instruments involves fiduciary responsibility. What I mean in this context is that it is illegal in the corporate sense to trade down currencies. Except in the case of the Federal Reserve note (the Fed is only an instrumentality of the US (http://img863.imageshack.us/img863/3750/frbvmetrocentreimprovem.pdf) because it has been sanctioned for its notes [stock certificates] to depreciate over time, by Congress] all stock certificates, even unit shares of a private trust are ALWAYS intended to increase in value over time.

Therefore the only legitimate trade for FRN's is to trade up, and the only currency available upward is US notes, a non-reserve currency.

David Merrill
12-16-13, 03:39 PM
Below is the rest of the email... It does NOT say one only needs to do it ONCE. In fact ever since 9/15/2011, I have handwritten my exact specific declaration on the FACE of every check and deposit slip I issue.... just to make it CLEAR by a PREPONDERENCE of substantive evidence under their FRE Exception to Hearsay Rule 803(6)(B) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803) that from that date onward "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2)" applies to ALL transactions even if it is missing thereafter on transactions like direct deposits, debit/credit cards, EFTs, etc, where it is hard to make a record of one's demand. Remember, by making one's demand TRANSACTION-BASED, it does not matter what the signature card has on it or not. The account does not matter - BECAUSE YOU MADE YOUR DEMAND TRANSACTION-BASED - Please get this point! It is CRITICAL! One does NOT have to send letters to the bank, IRS, FRS, IMF, Treasury or Employer and thereby stir up needless trouble! Okay? IMHO - K.I.S.S.

....

The Parallel Table of Authorities has no entry for 12 USC 411. This table's entries go in sequence from 12 USC section 391 to section 418. Section 411 is missing. This is confirmed at http://www.gpo.gov/help/parallel_table.txt, excerpted below:

[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Parallel Table]
[Revised as of January 1, 2011]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
PARALLEL TABLE OF AUTHORITIES AND RULES

12 U.S.C. <---------------------------> Corresponding C.F.R.
================================================== =====
378............................................... ...........12 Part 303

391....31 Parts 202, 203, 209, 210, 225, 240, 306, 317, 321, 341, 346,
..............351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 363, 375, 380

418............................................... .........31 Part 601

461........................................12 Parts 201, 204, 208, 217


"Therefore it is legitimate and preferable to make one's demand TRANSACTION-BASED, to wit:

"lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411 and 95a(2)"

Using this exact wording above enables one to provide probable cause and justification for listing all transactions on a custom-made 1040 SUPPORTING SCHEDULE that have been presumed to be using FRNs!!!

Who can rebut that demand? And by what authority? 12 USC 411 does NOT specify any wording requirement or transaction frequency, and there is no corresponding CFR regulation that requires anything.

One does NOT need to put it on any bank signature card, or on any contract!

Just decide on the date one wants to begin the demand and then start hand-writing it on the face of one's checks and deposit slips, just under one's name and address in the upper left-hand corner of the document. This then stands nunc pro tunc (now for then), thereafter and forever, as substantive evidence per FRCP 803(6) governing exceptions to hearsay evidence, and is unrebuttable.

This is the starting date of one's FREEDOM. Make it memorable!!

I believe making a clear public record that creates substantive evidence of all transactions demanding lawful money is the key, all done in good faith reliance on 12 USC 411 and 12 USC 95a(2), AND on the Father and His Son, who evidently have commanded this as a red line in the sand to be observed by all parties (including Satan) in this issue, namely Mt 22:21.

Beware of becoming an unwitting tool of the Adversary by undermining and doubting the remedy provided by the Creator that He promised to provide to His People in 1 Cor 10:13.

Remember the words given to Joshua in Joshua 1:9, and to Peter by the Messiah in Mt 14:31.

So claim this promise of remedy. Be courageous. Have faith!

Peace."[/I]

And I add now: Beware of adding regulations WHERE THERE ARE NONE, and thereby making the road more difficult for those that follow us who have successfully gotten refunds!

SUGGESTION: As a second witness, one might also record a Declaration in the public record about this starting date of lawful money demands, and attach as Exhibits the first several checks and deposit slips... and several more throughout that year for good measure.

NOTICE: Lawful Money Demand (12 USC 411) is only 1/3 of the remedy - Full Discharge (12 USC 95a(2)) is second 1/3 - and Claim for Harm by a man in his court of record at a public court building using his record declared at the county recorder is the last 1/3. More info on this is available at iuvdeposit.wordpress.com (http://iuvdeposit.wordpress.com/) When a county Grand Jury (http://iuvdeposit.wordpress.com/grand-jury/) becomes seated nearby, perhaps that may also be a venue for said Claim. The Sheriffs (http://cspoa.org/) may by then be organized enough to enforce Judgments obtained by same.

It looks to be an interesting year in 2014... 14 means "DELIVERANCE" in the Bible. The Passover, as you know, was on the 14th.


Thank you! That is why I did not get your point - I misunderstood. Transaction-based redemption. That sinks in.

Indeed that 100th Anniversary of the Fed Act is coming up in a couple weeks. 2014 is going to be marvelous!

InTheCrease
12-18-13, 02:17 AM
I thought that those here should know about the following, and am open to reactions, thoughts, and ideas on what the next move is:

So …. for about a year now I have been outright cashing lawful money-demanded checks drafted upon my customer's KeyBank account, pay to order of my business. I am not a customer or account holder at Key Bank. Again, I just straight cash the checks. At times the tellers noticed the stamp, but no one ever said boo. [My stamp reads: "Demand: paper shall be redeemed in lawful money on account, 12 USC 411"]

Then, on November 22 a teller all-of-the-sudden said that she could not cash the check with the stamp on it since she wasn't sure about the endorsement on the back (even though she had just cashed one the week prior). She called her "Operations Leader" and left a message for that person, and then told me to come back with another check without the stamp and she could cash it. I left her my VM and asked her to get back to me with an answer from her leader, which she later did and confirmed in a VM . Meanwhile, that day I went to a different Key Bank branch and cashed the check.

Then today I went to back to that second branch and the guy there told me that he had been called by the teller at the first branch and told that the bank can't/won't cash the checks … something about them not being able to get the money back if the checks are bad … or some other such non-sense that the confused teller tried to verbalize but couldn't really other than 'we can't take it with this stamp'. He ended up giving me the "Operations Leader" number and told me to call her if I wanted an explanation, that the best he could do for me in terms of cashing the check is to get one without the "restrictive endorsement stamp"

So what is my next move? I believe it is to contact the Operations Leader and ask her if she and her tellers are giving me legal advice as to how to endorse my checks. And ask her to send me a letter formally stating the bank's position with respect to my demand for lawful money pursuant to 12 USC 411.

Any other thoughts or ideas here? Cheers.

David Merrill
12-18-13, 10:43 AM
I thought that those here should know about the following, and am open to reactions, thoughts, and ideas on what the next move is:

So …. for about a year now I have been outright cashing lawful money-demanded checks drafted upon my customer's KeyBank account, pay to order of my business. I am not a customer or account holder at Key Bank. Again, I just straight cash the checks. At times the tellers noticed the stamp, but no one ever said boo. [My stamp reads: "Demand: paper shall be redeemed in lawful money on account, 12 USC 411"]

Then, on November 22 a teller all-of-the-sudden said that she could not cash the check with the stamp on it since she wasn't sure about the endorsement on the back (even though she had just cashed one the week prior). She called her "Operations Leader" and left a message for that person, and then told me to come back with another check without the stamp and she could cash it. I left her my VM and asked her to get back to me with an answer from her leader, which she later did and confirmed in a VM . Meanwhile, that day I went to a different Key Bank branch and cashed the check.

Then today I went to back to that second branch and the guy there told me that he had been called by the teller at the first branch and told that the bank can't/won't cash the checks … something about them not being able to get the money back if the checks are bad … or some other such non-sense that the confused teller tried to verbalize but couldn't really other than 'we can't take it with this stamp'. He ended up giving me the "Operations Leader" number and told me to call her if I wanted an explanation, that the best he could do for me in terms of cashing the check is to get one without the "restrictive endorsement stamp"

So what is my next move? I believe it is to contact the Operations Leader and ask her if she and her tellers are giving me legal advice as to how to endorse my checks. And ask her to send me a letter formally stating the bank's position with respect to my demand for lawful money pursuant to 12 USC 411.

Any other thoughts or ideas here? Cheers.

Here are some examples of Notice and Demand:

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/3079/noticeanddemand.jpg
http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/2922/noticeanddemand2012.pdf
http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/808/noticeanddemandboacorre.pdf
http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/8599/noticeanddemandmay2013.pdf

Due to the above post about transaction-based non-endorsement I suggest that you go back to the first bank branch and try to cash the paycheck. Keep an audio recording of the event. When they refuse the non-endorsement single-strike-through the Demand. You already have a copy of the demand and when they cash it ask for a copy of both sides of the check, with the strike-through.

You have evidence that you made your demand.

When you make your demand then the bank has to (theoretically) keep your funds a special deposit - in your boss' account. Therefore the banking party is getting nothing in return for doing business.

There is another option that I hesitate to suggest. Your boss accepts your goods and services for pay. Does you boss know that his bank is being stubborn about paying an employee? Maybe your boss would like to change banks to one that freely pays his employees and does not give them grief about exercising rights?

Maybe next time your boss' bank refuses to cash a paycheck offer to call the CFO and report that behavior?

doug555
12-19-13, 01:16 AM
I thought that those here should know about the following, and am open to reactions, thoughts, and ideas on what the next move is:

So …. for about a year now I have been outright cashing lawful money-demanded checks drafted upon my customer's KeyBank account, pay to order of my business. I am not a customer or account holder at Key Bank. Again, I just straight cash the checks. At times the tellers noticed the stamp, but no one ever said boo. [My stamp reads: "Demand: paper shall be redeemed in lawful money on account, 12 USC 411"]

Then, on November 22 a teller all-of-the-sudden said that she could not cash the check with the stamp on it since she wasn't sure about the endorsement on the back (even though she had just cashed one the week prior). She called her "Operations Leader" and left a message for that person, and then told me to come back with another check without the stamp and she could cash it. I left her my VM and asked her to get back to me with an answer from her leader, which she later did and confirmed in a VM . Meanwhile, that day I went to a different Key Bank branch and cashed the check.

Then today I went to back to that second branch and the guy there told me that he had been called by the teller at the first branch and told that the bank can't/won't cash the checks … something about them not being able to get the money back if the checks are bad … or some other such non-sense that the confused teller tried to verbalize but couldn't really other than 'we can't take it with this stamp'. He ended up giving me the "Operations Leader" number and told me to call her if I wanted an explanation, that the best he could do for me in terms of cashing the check is to get one without the "restrictive endorsement stamp"

So what is my next move? I believe it is to contact the Operations Leader and ask her if she and her tellers are giving me legal advice as to how to endorse my checks. And ask her to send me a letter formally stating the bank's position with respect to my demand for lawful money pursuant to 12 USC 411.

Any other thoughts or ideas here? Cheers.

OK, here are my thoughts...

Let's try this PARADIGM shift:

The FRONT of a check is PUBLIC (people). We can place our demand there and it is being honored by the IRS as a lawful reduction. Isn't this all we need?

The BACK of a check is PRIVATE (Federal Reserve). In order for their private system to work,

ALL TRANSACTIONS are initially presumed to be private credit by their system. The is the "default" currency of their system.

However, this PRESUMPTION can be rebutted (by lawful money demands), and thereby make all of these transactions LAWFUL MONEY, per 12 USC 411.

NOTICE that 12 USC 411, by its very wording ("they shall be redeemed"), implies that private credit is initially presumed, and therefore needs "redeeming", but only "on demand". If the FRN's were NOT the default currency, then 12 USC 411 would not have been needed.

I believe this choice of which currency is to be used stems from Mt 22.21 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/index.cgi?sr=1&search_form_type=general&q1=Matthew+22%3A21&s=0&t1=en_nas), and is DIRECTLY RELATED to TAXES.

There are two images on the FRNs. The LEFT side is Caesar's (Fed Reserve seal); the RIGHT side is God's (The Dept of Treasury seal). Look at the One Dollar Bill. Also notice the 2 different signatures.

I also believe that once this Mt 22.21 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/index.cgi?sr=1&search_form_type=general&q1=Matthew+22%3A21&s=0&t1=en_nas) "red line" is crossed (by LM demand reductions no longer being honored by IRS on 1040), then involuntary servitude/slavery begins through compelled use of liability instruments, which can never truly "pay"/discharge obligations.

We have not yet reached that point... on a significant scale...

But when it does begin, then it will set in motion a prophesied chain of events that lead to the fulfillment of the archetype set by our ancient Israelite ancestors, with us formally petitioning (http://pentecostnation.wordpress.com/) (Ex 3:7-9, 16-17 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/index.cgi?sr=1&search_form_type=general&q1=Ex+3%3A7-9%2C+16-17&s=0&t1=en_nas)) our Creator for deliverance from FINANCIAL ECONOMIC SLAVERY, and those petitions, if we indeed wake up enough of His People to realize that this archetype is for US TODAY (http://www.studylight.org/desk/index.cgi?sr=1&search_form_type=general&q1=1+Corinthians+10%3A11&s=0&t1=en_nas), will be answered by the Creator with a miraculous deliverance, as planned for and revealed by the Creator's Second Annual Holyday.

So until that day comes, I believe we need to heed the Messiah's warning in Mt 13:30 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/index.cgi?sr=1&search_form_type=general&q1=Matthew+13%3A30&s=0&t1=en_nas) to let both the tares and wheat grow together, "until the Harvest" (the Spring Harvest typified by Holyday 3 - the Feast of Firstfruits - Pentecost).

This means, I believe, in practical terms regarding how we make lawful money demands, to NOT TRESPASS onto the BACK/PRIVATE SIDE of a check, or LEFT SIDE of a FRN. Let them monetize the checks, by keeping restrictive endorsements off of the back of a check. Let them continue to "grow" their debt by presuming it to be the default currency. God tells us the keep our hands off their system.

But, likewise, they must also let us "grow" in the use of lawful money, by letting us make our demand for same on the FRONT/PUBLIC/PEOPLE side of a check, and redeeming FRNs, and letting us claim tax reductions for doing so, because that money is God's!

Hope this make sense... It has been a long day, and I am getting pretty tired...

Peace.

InTheCrease
12-19-13, 01:49 AM
Thanks for the replies, Dave and Doug.

By way of update … I went to a third branch about 25 miles north of town (was already there) and cashed the check.

@ DM. I thought about striking out the stamp and photographing it with the strikethrough. I would then have a photo of the back of the check without the strikethrough and then with, which would evidence that I had made the demand.

A couple other ideas I have had:
-in light of the earlier post in this thread about the demand relating to transactions, the idea was to to make one final deposit at the bank with the transaction language and then call it good going forward based on that transactional demand.
- I may also just try writing in the demand as "lawful money demanded and redeemed, 12 USC 411" and avoiding the stamp and seeing what they say about that.

@Doug. Can you show proof that the IRS accepts the lawful money reduction for demands on the front of checks? I am glad to know this, however, I do not believe that writing under the signature is a 'trespass' as long as the writing is done above the line. Restrictive endorsements like "deposit only" are made all the time, and I feel that the non-endoresement should be underneath the signature so that the check cannot be negotiated further.

David Merrill
12-19-13, 04:46 PM
OK, here are my thoughts...

Let's try this PARADIGM shift:

The FRONT of a check is PUBLIC (people). We can place our demand there and it is being honored by the IRS as a lawful reduction. Isn't this all we need?

The BACK of a check is PRIVATE (Federal Reserve). In order for their private system to work,

ALL TRANSACTIONS are initially presumed to be private credit by their system. The is the "default" currency of their system.

However, this PRESUMPTION can be rebutted (by lawful money demands), and thereby make all of these transactions LAWFUL MONEY, per 12 USC 411.

NOTICE that 12 USC 411, by its very wording ("they shall be redeemed"), implies that private credit is initially presumed, and therefore needs "redeeming", but only "on demand". If the FRN's were NOT the default currency, then 12 USC 411 would not have been needed.

I believe this choice of which currency is to be used stems from Mt 22.21 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/index.cgi?sr=1&search_form_type=general&q1=Matthew+22%3A21&s=0&t1=en_nas), and is DIRECTLY RELATED to TAXES.

There are two images on the FRNs. The LEFT side is Caesar's (Fed Reserve seal); the RIGHT side is God's (The Dept of Treasury seal). Look at the One Dollar Bill. Also notice the 2 different signatures.

I also believe that once this Mt 22.21 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/index.cgi?sr=1&search_form_type=general&q1=Matthew+22%3A21&s=0&t1=en_nas) "red line" is crossed (by LM demand reductions no longer being honored by IRS on 1040), then involuntary servitude/slavery begins through compelled use of liability instruments, which can never truly "pay"/discharge obligations.

We have not yet reached that point... on a significant scale...

But when it does begin, then it will set in motion a prophesied chain of events that lead to the fulfillment of the archetype set by our ancient Israelite ancestors, with us formally petitioning (http://pentecostnation.wordpress.com/) (Ex 3:7-9, 16-17 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/index.cgi?sr=1&search_form_type=general&q1=Ex+3%3A7-9%2C+16-17&s=0&t1=en_nas)) our Creator for deliverance from FINANCIAL ECONOMIC SLAVERY, and those petitions, if we indeed wake up enough of His People to realize that this archetype is for US TODAY (http://www.studylight.org/desk/index.cgi?sr=1&search_form_type=general&q1=1+Corinthians+10%3A11&s=0&t1=en_nas), will be answered by the Creator with a miraculous deliverance, as planned for and revealed by the Creator's Second Annual Holyday.

So until that day comes, I believe we need to heed the Messiah's warning in Mt 13:30 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/index.cgi?sr=1&search_form_type=general&q1=Matthew+13%3A30&s=0&t1=en_nas) to let both the tares and wheat grow together, "until the Harvest" (the Spring Harvest typified by Holyday 3 - the Feast of Firstfruits - Pentecost).

This means, I believe, in practical terms regarding how we make lawful money demands, to NOT TRESPASS onto the BACK/PRIVATE SIDE of a check, or LEFT SIDE of a FRN. Let them monetize the checks, by keeping restrictive endorsements off of the back of a check. Let them continue to "grow" their debt by presuming it to be the default currency. God tells us the keep our hands off their system.

But, likewise, they must also let us "grow" in the use of lawful money, by letting us make our demand for same on the FRONT/PUBLIC/PEOPLE side of a check, and redeeming FRNs, and letting us claim tax reductions for doing so, because that money is God's!

Hope this make sense... It has been a long day, and I am getting pretty tired...

Peace.

This deserves some thought. Above you said:


It does NOT say one only needs to do it ONCE. In fact ever since 9/15/2011, I have handwritten my exact specific declaration on the FACE of every check and deposit slip I issue.... just to make it CLEAR by a PREPONDERENCE of substantive evidence under their FRE Exception to Hearsay Rule 803(6)(B) that from that date onward "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2)" applies to ALL transactions even if it is missing thereafter on transactions like direct deposits, debit/credit cards, EFTs, etc, where it is hard to make a record of one's demand.

So as I understand it, you are rethinking marking the backside of a paycheck with your lawful money demand. Fine. I am always looking for new perspectives as long as they are based in valid information.

Your perspective on the new post - based in the Bible smacks of Futurism. Almost all Christians, and I have a good sampling here in Colorado Springs, are Futurists. So I have difficulty disqualifying it by any popular posture. I am however more prone to the Kingdom of Heaven being modeled after the kingdom of King David in biblical context.

However I am happy to assert that the Kingdom of Heaven is the sensation you receive whenever you radiate it - the Kingdom of Heaven.

Therefore I am prone to believe that God is working His plan through me as I am in the present moment. He is already answering my petitions for justice against elastic currency (abomination Proverb 11:1) by pointing me to the remedy and providing me a ministry - a voice - like here, the brain trust and soon even better more amplified lesson plans.



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. I think the front side of the check is private to the issuer. For example you can strike through the Pay to the Order of : _______________ on your own checks that you issue but not on a check written to you.

Anthony Joseph
12-19-13, 06:20 PM
If you deem "Futurism" to mean that the fullness of the Kingdom of Heaven is not yet completely and entirely manifest in this present consciousness and that there is more to come, then call me a "Futurist".

However, do not lump me in with the "Rapture" crowd or those who see no manifestation of the Kingdom of Heaven in this present consciousness. I believe the majority of "Christians" you label as "Futurists" fall into that 'no manifestation' category.

You must see that there is a significant difference there and that the term "Futurism" should not be used as a broad brush to paint these two together.

doug555
12-19-13, 11:33 PM
This deserves some thought. Above you said:



So as I understand it, you are rethinking marking the backside of a paycheck with your lawful money demand. Fine. I am always looking for new perspectives as long as they are based in valid information.

Your perspective on the new post - based in the Bible smacks of Futurism. Almost all Christians, and I have a good sampling here in Colorado Springs, are Futurists. So I have difficulty disqualifying it by any popular posture. I am however more prone to the Kingdom of Heaven being modeled after the kingdom of King David in biblical context.

However I am happy to assert that the Kingdom of Heaven is the sensation you receive whenever you radiate it - the Kingdom of Heaven.

Therefore I am prone to believe that God is working His plan through me as I am in the present moment. He is already answering my petitions for justice against elastic currency (abomination Proverb 11:1) by pointing me to the remedy and providing me a ministry - a voice - like here, the brain trust and soon even better more amplified lesson plans.



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. I think the front side of the check is private to the issuer. For example you can strike through the Pay to the Order of : _______________ on your own checks that you issue but not on a check written to you.

Sorry for any confusion about this... But, NO, I am not re-thinking how I demand lawful money for all transactions. I have always just made said demands only on the FACE/FRONT side of the checks and deposit slips that I issue.

Nothing else has changed. And it is working for me... BUT I have also made declarations of my status in the local county record, so that may also support this, for example, Declaration of Proof of Life, Declaration of Beneficiary, Solemn Act & Deed, etc.

Hope this clears it up...

BTW, I am NOT a "Futurist"... In fact, I believe this world's focus on the future "Millennial Kingdom" (starting with the 4th Holyday) is a MAJOR MISTAKE today, even as it was in Christ's day. It blinded His People to what was happening THEN, (the fulfillment of the 1st Holyday - Passover), just as much as it blinding His People NOW to the IMMINENT fulfillment of Holydays 2 & 3 concerning a literal MIRACULOUS DELIVERANCE and a literal kingdom of priests (http://www.studylight.org/desk/index.cgi?sr=1&search_form_type=general&q1=Rev+5%3A9-10&s=0&t1=en_nas) existing/reigning on Earth BEFORE the Messiah's return.

Perhaps you can call me a "Literalist"... taking the 7 Annual Holydays as literal BIG EVENTS (http://pentecostnation.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=161) (Milestones) leading to the final full Manifestation in Rev 22.

I believe that you and the BT are on that path to that ministry...

David Merrill
12-20-13, 02:46 PM
Some Crosstalk:


1490



With XX’s tag line I feel that you basically nullify your signature entirely. Ergo you make no commitment at all. Which is fine because the commitments are all made on the bills by the US Treasurer and Secretary. However this leaves your bank in a position where they are earning no money in any of your transactions. So you may encounter resistance, especially if you are earning any “interest” on any of the accounts.

[This suitor noticed on the website for issuing checks.]


I plan on utilizing my Credit Union's "Snap Deposit" smartphone app to take a picture of my checks and deposit them that way. Interestingly, I found this bit of apparent legal advice in the app's FAQ:

"Be sure your checks have no evidence of alteration or contain a restrictive endorsement."


On that Note:


I deal with Citibank in NYC. I have been using the non endorsement for 3 years now. They always hold part of the funds for 5 days or so. They send me a letter everytime. I get charged 15(service fee) and 8 (atm fee) dollars every month to have an account there that is 0% interest bearing. They even turned away the irs a few years back when they attempted to levy the account saying they did not have any of their property in that account! I really enjoy using lawful money. Thanks David for cracking that nut!

So it looks as though absolute protection costs a little less than $300/year.

allodial
12-20-13, 09:52 PM
Re: Citibank and IRS it might be helpful to know that the IRS is typically an account holder like any other account holder at a bank. The FRB/State Bank Charter system exists in a separate realm from the IRS and State Revenue systems. Thusly the bank's custodial roles are separate. Citibank could not in good faith transfer funds from one account holder (the attempted levy target) to another (IRS) without proper justification without Citibank incurring liability. AFAIK the bank simply within the same bank transfers from the target account to the IRS's account along with proper memoranda (particulars) and that is how the IRS gets its money--tax depositaries and such.

Re: $15 service fee. That sounds like a typical inter-institutional transfer fee. However, such is also a typical "service charge".


However this leaves your bank in a position where they are earning no money in any of your transactions.

Perhaps the banks can only issue or multiply clearinghouse credit rather than lawful money.

David Merrill
12-21-13, 02:53 AM
Perhaps the banks can only issue or multiply clearinghouse credit rather than lawful money.


Processing....


No, processing Deep.

salsero
12-22-13, 01:48 AM
To further the paradigm shift, I would like to share with the group where are my thoughts more than the LM issue.

After several years of studying, I have found myself resonating with the Peaceful Inhabitant Process as opposed to Redemption, Common Law, Equity, UCC, etc. The PI process parallels spiritually and mentally where I am at in my life.

With this said. I am a living breathing self-aware soul, AND not a fictional Name or Property. That Name, I USE, IS property belonging to the State. Under the rules of usufruct, the owner [the state] of that property receives not only the benefits, but also is liable for any liabilities on behalf of that property, estate, end legis, name, individual, whoever, trust, etc.

Moreover, the reason why I like the LM endorsement is for mainly one reason: The use of FRN, by presumption, automatically increases the national debt. Any harm, whether intentional or not, is seen by the PTB as a belligerent act, meaning you are an enemy of the state. If I wish to live in harmony and peace with all men [and women], I would not want to create any public harm, as a "foreigner" under the current "war on the land" bankrupt state of emergency therefore the demand for LM actually is consistent with the status of peaceful habitation

I have been writing the endorsements on the back of the checks demanding lawful money. My comment really has to do with private and public. If you are using a Name, the Name is public. Everything [meaning all property, house, car, bank accts, etc] placed in the name automatically vests to the United States. You can not own it since the state holds the original title to that property or Name. You only are sent a "certified copy" of that property for your use, thus anything and everything you do in that Name, ultimately the state benefits from. This all has to do with the bankruptcy of the US.

Though I am far from an "expert", as long as that endorsement is on the back, I suspect the "intent" is all that matters. Its all public. Anyway, if Barry does not like it, he can just put a new law in the federal register and it shall become law [administrative public policy, that is, under bankruptcy]. ;)

Furthermore, I am sorry to disagree with you. God has nothing to do whatsoever with Caesar's money. It all Gods anyway, the error or sin of man is claiming property as his own that belongs to the Creator which was given FREELY to all men to be used, to have dominion over, possession and control but NOT ownership.

Update on the bank and the demand for LM on the bank signature card. I have no heard from the bank - but I am very ready. thanks David for

Tony


OK, here are my thoughts...

Let's try this PARADIGM shift:

The FRONT of a check is PUBLIC (people). We can place our demand there and it is being honored by the IRS as a lawful reduction. Isn't this all we need?

The BACK of a check is PRIVATE (Federal Reserve). In order for their private system to work,

ALL TRANSACTIONS are initially presumed to be private credit by their system. The is the "default" currency of their system.

However, this PRESUMPTION can be rebutted (by lawful money demands), and thereby make all of these transactions LAWFUL MONEY, per 12 USC 411.

NOTICE that 12 USC 411, by its very wording ("they shall be redeemed"), implies that private credit is initially presumed, and therefore needs "redeeming", but only "on demand". If the FRN's were NOT the default currency, then 12 USC 411 would not have been needed.

I believe this choice of which currency is to be used stems from Mt 22.21 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/index.cgi?sr=1&search_form_type=general&q1=Matthew+22%3A21&s=0&t1=en_nas), and is DIRECTLY RELATED to TAXES.

There are two images on the FRNs. The LEFT side is Caesar's (Fed Reserve seal); the RIGHT side is God's (The Dept of Treasury seal). Look at the One Dollar Bill. Also notice the 2 different signatures.

I also believe that once this Mt 22.21 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/index.cgi?sr=1&search_form_type=general&q1=Matthew+22%3A21&s=0&t1=en_nas) "red line" is crossed (by LM demand reductions no longer being honored by IRS on 1040), then involuntary servitude/slavery begins through compelled use of liability instruments, which can never truly "pay"/discharge obligations.

We have not yet reached that point... on a significant scale...

But when it does begin, then it will set in motion a prophesied chain of events that lead to the fulfillment of the archetype set by our ancient Israelite ancestors, with us formally petitioning (http://pentecostnation.wordpress.com/) (Ex 3:7-9, 16-17 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/index.cgi?sr=1&search_form_type=general&q1=Ex+3%3A7-9%2C+16-17&s=0&t1=en_nas)) our Creator for deliverance from FINANCIAL ECONOMIC SLAVERY, and those petitions, if we indeed wake up enough of His People to realize that this archetype is for US TODAY (http://www.studylight.org/desk/index.cgi?sr=1&search_form_type=general&q1=1+Corinthians+10%3A11&s=0&t1=en_nas), will be answered by the Creator with a miraculous deliverance, as planned for and revealed by the Creator's Second Annual Holyday.

So until that day comes, I believe we need to heed the Messiah's warning in Mt 13:30 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/index.cgi?sr=1&search_form_type=general&q1=Matthew+13%3A30&s=0&t1=en_nas) to let both the tares and wheat grow together, "until the Harvest" (the Spring Harvest typified by Holyday 3 - the Feast of Firstfruits - Pentecost).

This means, I believe, in practical terms regarding how we make lawful money demands, to NOT TRESPASS onto the BACK/PRIVATE SIDE of a check, or LEFT SIDE of a FRN. Let them monetize the checks, by keeping restrictive endorsements off of the back of a check. Let them continue to "grow" their debt by presuming it to be the default currency. God tells us the keep our hands off their system.

But, likewise, they must also let us "grow" in the use of lawful money, by letting us make our demand for same on the FRONT/PUBLIC/PEOPLE side of a check, and redeeming FRNs, and letting us claim tax reductions for doing so, because that money is God's!

Hope this make sense... It has been a long day, and I am getting pretty tired...

Peace.

David Merrill
12-22-13, 04:24 AM
thanks David for

Tony


I think I understand. We experience. God experiences.

Anthony Joseph
12-22-13, 02:52 PM
I have come to believe that the Name (First Middle Last) is my property (right of use; that which is proper to i; a man, and exclusive of all others). The 'State' may have TITLE and OWNERSHIP in the legal world, yet said claim of property is made by a man. Having TITLE or OWNERSHIP is what makes one liable and obliged. I make no claim of TITLE or OWNERSHIP; only to property. Only a man can make a claim; so, another man must challenge your claim in open court on the record. The 'State' has no rights and cannot make claims. Those who act in capacity as officer for the State have no rights either, while in that capacity; they have privileges, duties and obligations. One of the most important duties and obligations is to secure, protect and restore property. Who are they oath-bound to perform this for? For men and women who make claims and have inherent rights which come from the Creator, Most High God. The standing and capacity of 'man' is higher that that of 'State' or 'officer' or 'judge' or 'president' or 'pope'.

Only 'man' is unlimited in his capacity; he can and may choose to be anything he wishes at any given moment in time. Which means, if it is of benefit to me, i can choose to be 'First Middle Last' in a particular situation. As soon as i choose not to be 'First Middle Last' then, i am not. These two choices can occur within minutes of each other. Who has the right to interfere with a man's right to self-determine and self-govern? Do you know of anyone? Only a terrorist interferes with a man's right to self-govern (terrorism is interfering with the proper function of government). The chief public servant BARACK OBAMA himself admitted recently in a speech, that we all have the gift of self-government (albeit he is confused as to who ultimately 'gave' that capacity to us).

The key to all this is to properly move, hold and keep our court(s) when someone (not a fictional entity) robs our property or interferes with our right to property. The 'State' doesn't do a thing, ever. The 'IRS' never robs any man's property, ever. Ultimately, it is ALWAYS a man or woman who robs property from another 'man' and it is that man or woman who robbed said property that must be held liable for that wrong. It matters not what capacity he or she claimed to be in at the time or what 'legal' basis was claimed; no man or woman has a right to rob another man's property, ever. Any attempted justification of the wrong from the 'legal' world (codes, statutes) is a further wrong committed against the man.

We must learn to act as men and women, bring our competent court(s) and know how to keep it when wrongs, harm or injuries are committed against us and/or our claimed property. Forgiveness is essential, and yet, restoration must be provided by those who have willingly placed themselves in a lower office/capacity than 'man' with the voluntary burden of duties and obligations toward 'man'. It was their choice to enter into that capacity and, to stay in honor, they must perform accordingly.

salsero
12-22-13, 10:05 PM
Paisan,

I do not mean to disagree with you but the right of use, possession and control is something different than ownership. The name is property, according to law. If you make a claim to that property, then you consent, by operation of law to act as surety as executor, administrator or trustee for that Name, or property, title estate, trust, ens legis, individual, person, whoever, infant, etc. When you say “I make no claim to title or ownership” how to you think property is claimed? It is through title. Through a piece of paper. The paper is fiction. It is in an image of the real; however, it is Caesar’s. You are correct only man can make a claim. I would prefer to let them challenge that I am their property, as TPTB would have to prove that claim that I am State property. The state can make claims and has rights because the people believe that and have CONSENTED to that. We agree that the government has an obligation to restore and protect property. Where we disagree is you think you own that property or claim that property – NAME as yours. It ain’t. It is yours to use but not own. When you claim that Name as your property, you are claiming a reversionary interest in property belonging to the State [legal title holder] where the US holds equitable title as protected purchaser under UCC 8-102D, through the purchase, paid to the state of said titles by the SSA.

I would like to comment further on the fact should you walk into any court or legal situation and you claim that Name and then decide to change your mind, it will be too late. You have already consented to act as surety for that property. You must not make any claim at all from the beginning. The only ones that do have the right to interfere with man’s right to self-determination is the man that consents to TPTB. Spiritually speaking, the devil has the right to deceive all men. The devil does not have the right to force you to consent to be deceived. Folks do this more than willingly. This is a subject to be further discussed in detail.

If you believe you are going to tell the court what to do, good luck to you. The court can only recognize its fictional property. Once personal jurisdiction has been consented to, you are playing in their sandbox. It is their rules that will govern you. The court can not hear a man’s claim. The man must use the fictional property name to being a claim into their “temple of Just-Us”. If the court has no juridiction over a man, then a man has no business being in court. Think about this. You can not be half-pregnant.

If whatever you are doing is working for you, great. I wish you the very best. I do not see how though.

If you want the public officials to do their oath-bound jobs of protecting the pubic as outlined in 63C Am.Jur.2d, Public Officers and Employees, §241, then I would stop intermeddling with the infant’s estate, making false claims to fictional property that you do not own, but have every right to use, possess, and control but NOT OWN, and let those public officers acting in their official capacity as trustee, administrator or executor do their jobs and protect state property by discharging all claims against said property.

You had been sent a copy of a usufruct compliant certified certificate for your use. The owner of said property reaps all the benefits and therefore must accept all the liabilities. United States v. Pewee Coal Co., Inc. - 341 U.S. 114 (1951), in part, “Like any private person or corporation, the United States normally is entitled to the profits from, and must bear the losses of, business operations which it conducts. When a private business is possessed and operated for public use, no reason appears to justify imposition of losses sustained on the person from whom the property was seized”. Furthermore, “that the Government chose to intervene by taking possession and operating control. By doing so, it became the proprietor and, in the absence of contrary arrangements, was entitled to the benefits and subject to the liabilities which that status involves.”

If anyone is interested in more of this “thinking”, you can start with www.notacitizen.com

Tony




I have come to believe that the Name (First Middle Last) is my property (right of use; that which is proper to i; a man, and exclusive of all others). The 'State' may have TITLE and OWNERSHIP in the legal world, yet said claim of property is made by a man. Having TITLE or OWNERSHIP is what makes one liable and obliged. I make no claim of TITLE or OWNERSHIP; only to property. Only a man can make a claim; so, another man must challenge your claim in open court on the record. The 'State' has no rights and cannot make claims. Those who act in capacity as officer for the State have no rights either, while in that capacity; they have privileges, duties and obligations. One of the most important duties and obligations is to secure, protect and restore property. Who are they oath-bound to perform this for? For men and women who make claims and have inherent rights which come from the Creator, Most High God. The standing and capacity of 'man' is higher that that of 'State' or 'officer' or 'judge' or 'president' or 'pope'.

Only 'man' is unlimited in his capacity; he can and may choose to be anything he wishes at any given moment in time. Which means, if it is of benefit to me, i can choose to be 'First Middle Last' in a particular situation. As soon as i choose not to be 'First Middle Last' then, i am not. These two choices can occur within minutes of each other. Who has the right to interfere with a man's right to self-determine and self-govern? Do you know of anyone? Only a terrorist interferes with a man's right to self-govern (terrorism is interfering with the proper function of government). The chief public servant BARACK OBAMA himself admitted recently in a speech, that we all have the gift of self-government (albeit he is confused as to who ultimately 'gave' that capacity to us).

The key to all this is to properly move, hold and keep our court(s) when someone (not a fictional entity) robs our property or interferes with our right to property. The 'State' doesn't do a thing, ever. The 'IRS' never robs any man's property, ever. Ultimately, it is ALWAYS a man or woman who robs property from another 'man' and it is that man or woman who robbed said property that must be held liable for that wrong. It matters not what capacity he or she claimed to be in at the time or what 'legal' basis was claimed; no man or woman has a right to rob another man's property, ever. Any attempted justification of the wrong from the 'legal' world (codes, statutes) is a further wrong committed against the man.

We must learn to act as men and women, bring our competent court(s) and know how to keep it when wrongs, harm or injuries are committed against us and/or our claimed property. Forgiveness is essential, and yet, restoration must be provided by those who have willingly placed themselves in a lower office/capacity than 'man' with the voluntary burden of duties and obligations toward 'man'. It was their choice to enter into that capacity and, to stay in honor, they must perform accordingly.

Anthony Joseph
12-23-13, 02:04 AM
Compare,

I disagree. A claim of property by a man does NOT rely on any paper and does NOT imply TITLE or OWNERSHIP. Only those who have TITLE and OWNERSHIP bear the burden and obligation for the 'thing' TITLED or OWNED. Property is 'right of use' of a thing, not the thing itself; nor is it a TITLE or OWNERSHIP claim.

If anyone wishes to dispute my claim, that someone must utter their challenge to my claim in open court, under oath or affirmation, on the record. A piece of paper is powerless and useless unless a man will verify what is upon it in living voice on the record. Who will challenge my claim that the Name is my property in open court? Do you really believe someone will take the stand and swear that the property i claim (First Middle Last) really belongs to the 'United States'? Has that ever happened? Who will verify in open court that i; a man, am surety or liable for debts against a fictitious persona?

If someone makes a claim that i am a debtor, that someone better verify under oath and on the record that the supposed debt is true and post due. The 'United States' cannot take the stand and neither can the 'IRS'. A man has a right to face his accuser, and whoever is named 'Plaintiff' must appear and verify the claim else there is no case.

salsero
12-23-13, 03:42 AM
With no disrespect intended, the error I see in your logic is you believe making any claim by a man through, say the court, is not implying ownership. This is where we disagree. As I explained previously, the mere fact that you claim, I am John Doe, automatically presumes you are making a claim to the property, estate, person which belongs to the state. You can not go into any court as John and make a claim OR even be heard as a defendant. The court can not move against a man only a fiction. You must use John Doe. If John Doe is property of the state, I see no reason why the state would even bother to dispute or challenge your claim that you are or are not John Doe. You simply fall under their jurisdiction. You are just held as surety for making such claim and thus you must follow the rules set by public policy. This is done in every court case. They know you are not John Doe but never dispute or challenge that claim. LOL.

Logically and of course you can disagree, if a credit card debt is taken out in the name of John Doe and you, the man go into court and claim to be John Doe, you will be held as surety. If you go into court and say anything remotely claiming anything, they will get you. If you go into court and say I am a man and I am not John Doe. You will be held as surety. Stating I am not something is making a claim.

However, if you have had success in doing things your way, more power to you

Anthony Joseph
12-23-13, 02:49 PM
No disrespect taken. We disagree regarding the definition of claim (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=claim); i believe a claim can be 'ownership' related yet not automatically so.

I do agree that if i go in their court that i cannot be heard as a man. However, a man has right of access to his court and if brought, held and kept properly, a man is the ONLY one that can be heard in said court. The courthouse is not 'court'; it is merely a venue to hold court. The courthouse is a public building and the people have right of use of it for their court, if they can keep it.

Again, you fall upon presumptions regarding the Name. My family Name is antecedent to the United States. My mom and dad gave me a Name and i can choose to use it as i wish. A presumption is just that; presumption unless and until someone living verifies the presumptive claim on the record. The accused has a right to face and question his accuser; that is ancient law still in effect for a man.

The question that usually gets one in trouble is, "Are you 'John Doe'?" Regardless of the answer, if one responds to 'you', one is admitting dual/capacity; man as surety for a person.

1493

Jurisdiction and 'court' can be flipped when a man is present; and, when said man knows how to remain in that one capacity of 'man'. If i am accused, there is no need for me to say "i am" or "i am not" something; the accuser must verify what he/she is claiming of me; a man. Paper cannot speak and the record is not formed as verifiable until one speaks the claim in living voice. Why do you think the 'judge' must always ask 'you' to say who you are? What's wrong with taking the info off of the Driver's License or Birth Certificate or other paper/documents? Because the 'judge' knows that paper is worthless until it is given life by the living in viva voce.

I am fairly new to this concept and process so, as far as having success with this, i am still working towards moving my court and learning how to keep it. I have, however, had success in one instance regarding the return of property. My property (commonly known as a 'shotgun') was taken by a man acting as 'Deputy Sheriff'. It was being held in "PROPERTY" at the Sheriff's Office. I notified the proper party that my property is being held and that i wish restoration of said property. I was told i "must" sign an "affidavit" stating that i am NOT a "felon" or "wanted criminal" or other legal descriptions of things on their list. i simply said, "no thank you, i am a man and i wish restoration of my property". The man acting for the Sheriff's Office (attorney) repeated his demand. i repeated my requirement. He told me he would have to get back to me. When he did, he said, "we would like it if you signed the affidavit, however if you do not wish to, you are not required to do so."

On the day i went to collect my property, i was handed the affidavit again and told i must sign it. i informed the woman that you have my property and i wish restoration of it. She insisted that everyone must sign one of these because she demands it be done. I told her to seek advice from the attorney as he knows i am not required to sign your affidavit. I pushed that paper aside and filled out the form which read that i did collect my property on this date; i corrected some verbiage on it. When she returned she asked for a driver's license to match the Name and i showed her one. She went back to retrieve my property and handed it over. The other 'officer' (a man) who came out when we began discussing the affidavit changed his stance from one of 'backup' to humble servant and wished me, "Have a good day sir."

This instance is "gun" related in their eyes. Someone came in, declined their demands and claimed property. This happened at the Sheriff's Office and i left with my property without incident and without meeting their demands.

Keys:

i: a man; John Doe, claim my property and wish restoration at this time.

salsero
12-23-13, 04:09 PM
May I ask, are you following Glenn Fearn's or Karl Lentz info?

I do not disagree with you 100%; however, as I said I KNOW consistency is key. I have very little experience thus far myself. However, the study hours I have put in over these last two years amounts to a full time job. It was last year the "light bulb" went on with a silly debate back and forth about what I thought to be mine and legally CAN NOT BE MINE.

We all are on a path. I am grateful for several men who helped me see the light though I admit I was a bit stubborn in the beginning.

As far as this success above, I would consider this a victory; however, a "shotgun" was returned by the police. Victory yes, but I was more referring to court, IRS, etc. I will state this in a different way for the benefit of the group - in a simple quick way. Since the 1933, the US has seized all property, including the COLB or titles to "man". The State receives all the benefits of "man's future labor". Man has no where to go because he can not own or hold that original title. Technically the title was not even stolen, it simply was confiscated due to the US bankruptcy. Thus common law, based upon the 1938 Erie RR case, is MOSTLY dead. We now have public policy in its place. When a man claims ownership or to be that title called a Name where the state holds legal title in trust, man is "legally speaking" acting as a belligerent warring against the state, where all property IS vested in the state. If that title is property and is owned by the state, man CAN NOT make such claims to it. The state can only recognize and have jurisdiction over its property. Man is not property NOR can ever be considered property. Man can consent to be a person or property, thereby giving the court/government jurisdiction over it - the person, property, infant, estate, etc. thus CONSENTING TO BE SURETY, according to their rules or law.

The US Constitution/declaration of independence has nothing to do with man. It was a bunch of men that decided to form a "trust". Did you sign those documents? No! Ok then how are you a party to those documents? It was stated in the Paddleford case that No private person has a right to complain by suit in court on the ground of a breach of the United States constitution; for, though the constitution is a compact, he is not a party to it. It is an impossibility without your consent for any government "whatever" to move forward with jurisdiction without consent. Since the US bankruptcy, there is a declared state of emergency where all property has been seized. In my opinion, the best remedy NOW offered to man in order for him to have "remedy" is to allow the public trustee to administrate their property Name FOR EVERYTHING. Should man decide to "intermeddle" with the infant's estate or make claims to the Name, he subjects himself to public policy statutes.

If you want to restore what you believe to be your property, I am sorry to disagree, but you will find out that original title held in trust will NEVER be turned back over to you. I tried as have others. I was told quite frankly but vital statistics - YOU CAN"T HAVE THAT IT IS NOT YOURS. Do you believe that? I was shocked. If I were to obtain that original title, I would agree with you and common law would be available to me for remedy. I can't get that document, therefore, the best I can do is use that Name or property and not make any claim to ownership.

Finally, and this is the head twist, WE ALL MUST REMEMBER the Creator gave man everything FREELY. It was man or group of man that made up "graven images" similar to the real but is just fiction. The title to the car is a fiction and does not represent the actual car. The government owns that title not man. However man has the RIGHT to use, possess and control the real car. If I claim that is MY CAR, then I am liable. If I am pulled over and cop KNOWS that car he has jurisdiction over. He can seize that car with due process of law. If you OWNED that car, he COULD NOT SEIZE THAT CAR BECAUSE IT IS YOUR PROPERTY. Same thing with bank account and houses. When you use FRN, there is a lien on such property, then they get you by "owning original title to the Name".

I suggest everyone take a look into this matter a bit more. It sucks I know. I was not happy about this at first but now I feel liberated. Wow am I long winded lol

froze25
12-23-13, 04:39 PM
You can find Karl Lentz's Documents from his court case here
http://broadmind.org/Documents.html

And some of his audio
http://www.talkshoe.com/tc/127469

Chex
12-23-13, 09:37 PM
If anyone wishes to dispute my claim, that someone must utter their challenge to my claim in open court, under oath or affirmation, on the record. A piece of paper is powerless and useless unless a man will verify what is upon it in living voice on the record. Who will challenge my claim that the Name is my property in open court? Do you really believe someone will take the stand and swear that the property i claim (First Middle Last) really belongs to the 'United States'? Has that ever happened? Who will verify in open court that i; a man, am surety or liable for debts against a fictitious persona?

(12) “Property” includes any present or future interest, whether legal or equitable, in real, personal (including choses in action), or mixed property, tangible or intangible, vested or contingent, wherever located and however held (including community property and property held in trust (including spendthrift and pension trusts)), but excludes—

(A) property held in trust by the United States for the benefit of an Indian tribe or individual Indian; and

(B) Indian lands subject to restrictions against alienation imposed by the United States.

If someone makes a claim that i am a debtor, that someone better verify under oath and on the record that the supposed debt is true and post due. The 'United States' cannot take the stand and neither can the 'IRS'. A man has a right to face his accuser, and whoever is named 'Plaintiff' must appear and verify the claim else there is no case.

(13) “Security agreement” means an agreement that creates or provides for a lien.

(3) “Debt” means—
(A) an amount that is owing to the United States on account of a direct loan, or loan insured or guaranteed, by the United States; or

(B) an amount that is owing to the United States on account of a fee, duty, lease, rent, service, sale of real or personal property, overpayment, fine, assessment, penalty, restitution, damages, interest, tax, bail bond forfeiture, reimbursement, recovery of a cost incurred by the United States, or other source of indebtedness to the United States, but that is not owing under the terms of a contract originally entered into by only persons other than the United States;
and includes any amount owing to the United States for the benefit of an Indian tribe or individual Indian, but excludes any amount to which the United States is entitled under section 3011 (a).

(10) “Person” includes a natural person (including an individual Indian), a corporation, a partnership, an unincorporated association, a trust, or an estate, or any other public or private entity, including a State or local government or an Indian tribe.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002

salsero
12-24-13, 01:41 AM
I have heard many good things about Karl Lentz; however, in all my studies, I found that "using common law" currently under this state of emergency ain't going to fly. I do not mean to suggest EVER, but mean suggest rarely. With this said, I asked the people in the group of Not a Citizen what opinion they had of Karl. [really because I did not want to take the time to listen to the talkshoes] - this is some of the feedback I got:

He [Karl] also appears to believe the bankruptcy is no big deal and said, so what. That is the US government that went bankrupt, not us. While that is true, he seems to not get the real ramification of it. The States also went bankrupt.

One guy was trying to point out how the States are required to use only gold and silver as money, but he seems to think that doesn't matter either stating something to the effect, well this how the State rolls now.

I don't think he knows how the Government not only went into bankruptcy and continue to operate under it today, but how they also seized all titles to all property along with having taken all the gold and silver from the States and the private sector removing everyone's ability to pay anything. Everything since the bankruptcy is supposed to be discharged, not paid for by the people as a debt. The US Government took on the liability to pay all debts when they entered into their bankruptcy. That is in their own statutes at large stating the Comptroller of Currency is to pay all the bills.

FURTHERMORE

I listened to Karl Lentz talk and while I can see some of the stuff he says making some sense, he seems to be confused on his beliefs in other areas.

For example, he says if you owe a debt pay it. While that may be correct in a normal sense, it is not correct in today's world based on the current system. He also contradicts himself here because one part he says we are the creditor. Well how does a creditor owe a debt when all credit comes from the man?

How does a man pay a debt with no money to be able to pay a debt?

When all there is is just an "internal" currency created for "internal" use within the Government between its federal reserve system, federal reserve banks, and all national banks, and FOR NO OTHER PURPOSES ARE AUTHORIZED, and that "internal" currency is just DEBT itself, HOW can a man ever possibly pay a debt?

When a government removes all money to pay a debt with from the private sector, and replaces it all within an "internal" currency, and a government seized ALL TITLES TO ALL PROPERTY, including title to the commercial legal Names, HOW can a man possibly pay any debt?

HOW can a man even possibly have a debt?

ALL existing DEBT is all debt owed by the Government, not private men. ALL CREDIT created comes from the energy of men using the commercial name held by the State!

and FINALLY

I heard some claim success using his process, which of course I have my own beliefs as to why they could work because by claiming to be a man and not a artificial person, that in itself places the court into corner where they cannot address that issue without exposing the truth of what is really going on. So to protect the truth from getting out it pretty much forces the court to just dispose of the case just to conceal the truth, which by dismissing it that gives those the belief this process is valid and the way to go.

I believe it is the same manner where some use the executor of the estate stuff where if done right that places the court into a catch 22 position where if they continue they expose the truth thereby forcing them to just dismiss and dispose of the case.

Think about it. What is the court going to do? Publicly state you cannot be recognized as a man therefore you cannot invoke common law? Or publicly expose you cannot be of any office of executor for that estate because you are not a party to that estate and can't be any such thing because the State s not appointed as such a thing over its estate?

AGAIN I AM NOT LOOKING TO DEBATE KARL OR HIS WORK. I wanted to know what some others thought. Some think he is great and others think he is not so great. In the beginning I used to think Tim Turner had all the answers, then we move on to learn differently.

allodial
12-24-13, 03:20 AM
The States also went bankrupt.

In Germany, there are said to be two classes of states.

Anthony Joseph
12-24-13, 04:01 PM
I have heard many good things about Karl Lentz; however, in all my studies, I found that "using common law" currently under this state of emergency ain't going to fly. I do not mean to suggest EVER, but mean suggest rarely. With this said, I asked the people in the group of Not a Citizen what opinion they had of Karl. [really because I did not want to take the time to listen to the talkshoes] - this is some of the feedback I got:

He [Karl] also appears to believe the bankruptcy is no big deal and said, so what. That is the US government that went bankrupt, not us. While that is true, he seems to not get the real ramification of it. The States also went bankrupt.

One guy was trying to point out how the States are required to use only gold and silver as money, but he seems to think that doesn't matter either stating something to the effect, well this how the State rolls now.

I don't think he knows how the Government not only went into bankruptcy and continue to operate under it today, but how they also seized all titles to all property along with having taken all the gold and silver from the States and the private sector removing everyone's ability to pay anything. Everything since the bankruptcy is supposed to be discharged, not paid for by the people as a debt. The US Government took on the liability to pay all debts when they entered into their bankruptcy. That is in their own statutes at large stating the Comptroller of Currency is to pay all the bills.

FURTHERMORE

I listened to Karl Lentz talk and while I can see some of the stuff he says making some sense, he seems to be confused on his beliefs in other areas.

For example, he says if you owe a debt pay it. While that may be correct in a normal sense, it is not correct in today's world based on the current system. He also contradicts himself here because one part he says we are the creditor. Well how does a creditor owe a debt when all credit comes from the man?

How does a man pay a debt with no money to be able to pay a debt?

When all there is is just an "internal" currency created for "internal" use within the Government between its federal reserve system, federal reserve banks, and all national banks, and FOR NO OTHER PURPOSES ARE AUTHORIZED, and that "internal" currency is just DEBT itself, HOW can a man ever possibly pay a debt?

When a government removes all money to pay a debt with from the private sector, and replaces it all within an "internal" currency, and a government seized ALL TITLES TO ALL PROPERTY, including title to the commercial legal Names, HOW can a man possibly pay any debt?

HOW can a man even possibly have a debt?

ALL existing DEBT is all debt owed by the Government, not private men. ALL CREDIT created comes from the energy of men using the commercial name held by the State!

and FINALLY

I heard some claim success using his process, which of course I have my own beliefs as to why they could work because by claiming to be a man and not a artificial person, that in itself places the court into corner where they cannot address that issue without exposing the truth of what is really going on. So to protect the truth from getting out it pretty much forces the court to just dispose of the case just to conceal the truth, which by dismissing it that gives those the belief this process is valid and the way to go.

I believe it is the same manner where some use the executor of the estate stuff where if done right that places the court into a catch 22 position where if they continue they expose the truth thereby forcing them to just dismiss and dispose of the case.

Think about it. What is the court going to do? Publicly state you cannot be recognized as a man therefore you cannot invoke common law? Or publicly expose you cannot be of any office of executor for that estate because you are not a party to that estate and can't be any such thing because the State s not appointed as such a thing over its estate?

AGAIN I AM NOT LOOKING TO DEBATE KARL OR HIS WORK. I wanted to know what some others thought. Some think he is great and others think he is not so great. In the beginning I used to think Tim Turner had all the answers, then we move on to learn differently.

I believe what was "seized", if anything (I cannot verify), was the "2nd dimension world" of legalities and paper TITLES. If one wishes, and/or finds it necessary, to operate in that world, there are remedies to invoke as well. If one is not concerned with the 2nd dimension, than the law is the common law (unwritten) and there is only testimony and claims from living men. NOTHING in the 2nd dimension or "legal world" supersedes man and his living voice on earth.

The 'judges' know this, however, there are so few who can remain as a man when bringing court, or answering a claim from another, that 'successes' are also few. There are certain words to use, and not use, in order for the man to keep his court as superior to the realm of codes and statutes. These 'Shibboleth (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=shibboleth)' are what the 'judges' are listening for in order to determine whether or not a 'man' is before them. One wrong word, or wrong response to a question, will make or break you. They are essentially 'gatekeepers' and will not permit the ignorant or incompetent to pass. However, when it is without doubt that a 'man' is present and remains in his superior capacity, the 'judge' is relegated to 'public servant' and 'man' is the public. Again, this does not happen very often since we were all mis-taught, subject to societal conditioning and, most importantly, derelict in own self-awareness, self-determination and self-governance. It is up to each of us to learn to stand as men and remain in that superior standing at all times. That does not mean violence, aggression, belligerence or combativeness; it means knowing and living what is true and honorable; and, being aware that we live above the 2nd dimension of paper.

I also disagree with some of Karl's opinions regarding money and debt, however, it is hard to get a good grip on his stance since he shifts from one side to another depending on who he is talking to. I have heard him say the same similar things that you offer (Tony) regarding money and debt. Perhaps he also is listening for 'Shibboleth' and gives some people one answer and others another answer depending upon how far he feels one is in their journey. His stuff is very powerful, but it will fail miserably if one does not know it and live it as a 'way of life'. He gives no 'silver bullets' or 'templates'; only knowledge and vocabulary that a 'man' should know.

salsero
12-25-13, 02:42 AM
May I finally say - I wish you the best with what ever remedy you are most comfortable with. As for me, I have been there and done that. The 12 USC 411 is about the most "statutes" the Person, I USE, is going to incorporate into a remedy, as in my point of view, the increase in public debt is a public harm and therefore my intent is NOT to create or add to a public harm, as all are my brothers and sisters. Even though the US debit HAS NOTHING to do with me, I still feel as a "foreigner" on this land, I do not wish to create presumptions or controversies. Using FRN does just that.

For those that are a little more Bible oriented [I do not really subscribe 100% as the infallible word of God] and are interested in a very long video presentation in 14 parts, I can recommend Servant King with Marcus. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GSRN7s3dxQ&list=PLiX3396e5WbbkITpykiaZds9EAGY1ZxJB&index=1 The jist of this is - You are either with God or against. There is no half way.

I would also recommend www.notacitizen.com

I am also recommending Boris and the discharging of any reversionary interest [12 USC 95a] http://creoharmony.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/the-new-frontier-discharge-reversionary.html

Tony

Darkmagus
12-31-13, 07:08 PM
I've had success opening a 'lawful money' checking account at Bank of America (see front (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/dynamics/attachment.php?do=fullview&attachmentid=20)and back (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/dynamics/attachment.php?do=fullview&attachmentid=21) of signature card, my novation is on the back). And it seems that I'm not the only one.

When I opened the account, I was initially met with resistance. The banker did not comprehend my demand for lawful money. I remember her assertively telling me, "You will not stamp that on my signature card!" I had to remind myself that, yeah, in her role as agent of BofA, it really is her signature card.

I requested that she not reject the application for a new checking account, but rather run this by the BofA legal department. I very graciously expressed concern for her well being, that I would not like to see her get in trouble for practicing law without a license. She agreed, and asked that I contact her the following Tuesday.

Well, upon contacting her the following Tuesday, she invited me to come in and open the account, demand for lawful money and all!!!

I type all of this to say, go to BofA. They seem to have better a better legal department than many other banks. :D

Just for general info, what state are you located in? I tried to open an acct. in MD to no avail.

Darkmagus

doug555
12-31-13, 10:01 PM
Just for general info, what state are you located in? I tried to open an acct. in MD to no avail.

Darkmagus

See Thread 10099 (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?844-1040-help&highlight=10099) if you are doing this for 1040 reasons, which does NOT require what you are attempting.

Also see http://iuvdeposit.wordpress.com (http://iuvdeposit.wordpress.com/)/

Shylmysten
03-17-16, 04:21 AM
Below is the rest of the email... It does NOT say one only needs to do it ONCE. In fact ever since 9/15/2011, I have handwritten my exact specific declaration on the FACE of every check and deposit slip I issue.... just to make it CLEAR by a PREPONDERENCE of substantive evidence under their FRE Exception to Hearsay Rule 803(6)(B) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803) that from that date onward "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2)" applies to ALL transactions even if it is missing thereafter on transactions like direct deposits, debit/credit cards, EFTs, etc, where it is hard to make a record of one's demand. Remember, by making one's demand TRANSACTION-BASED, it does not matter what the signature card has on it or not. The account does not matter - BECAUSE YOU MADE YOUR DEMAND TRANSACTION-BASED - Please get this point! It is CRITICAL! One does NOT have to send letters to the bank, IRS, FRS, IMF, Treasury or Employer and thereby stir up needless trouble! Okay? IMHO - K.I.S.S.



....

The Parallel Table of Authorities has no entry for 12 USC 411. This table's entries go in sequence from 12 USC section 391 to section 418. Section 411 is missing. This is confirmed at http://www.gpo.gov/help/parallel_table.txt, excerpted below:

[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Parallel Table]
[Revised as of January 1, 2011]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
PARALLEL TABLE OF AUTHORITIES AND RULES

12 U.S.C. <---------------------------> Corresponding C.F.R.
================================================== =====
378............................................... ...........12 Part 303

391....31 Parts 202, 203, 209, 210, 225, 240, 306, 317, 321, 341, 346,
..............351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 363, 375, 380

418............................................... .........31 Part 601

461........................................12 Parts 201, 204, 208, 217


"Therefore it is legitimate and preferable to make one's demand TRANSACTION-BASED, to wit:

"lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411 and 95a(2)"

Using this exact wording above enables one to provide probable cause and justification for listing all transactions on a custom-made 1040 SUPPORTING SCHEDULE that have been presumed to be using FRNs!!!

Who can rebut that demand? And by what authority? 12 USC 411 does NOT specify any wording requirement or transaction frequency, and there is no corresponding CFR regulation that requires anything.

One does NOT need to put it on any bank signature card, or on any contract!

Just decide on the date one wants to begin the demand and then start hand-writing it on the face of one's checks and deposit slips, just under one's name and address in the upper left-hand corner of the document. This then stands nunc pro tunc (now for then), thereafter and forever, as substantive evidence per FRCP 803(6) governing exceptions to hearsay evidence, and is unrebuttable.

This is the starting date of one's FREEDOM. Make it memorable!!

I believe making a clear public record that creates substantive evidence of all transactions demanding lawful money is the key, all done in good faith reliance on 12 USC 411 and 12 USC 95a(2), AND on the Father and His Son, who evidently have commanded this as a red line in the sand to be observed by all parties (including Satan) in this issue, namely Mt 22:21.

Beware of becoming an unwitting tool of the Adversary by undermining and doubting the remedy provided by the Creator that He promised to provide to His People in 1 Cor 10:13.

Remember the words given to Joshua in Joshua 1:9, and to Peter by the Messiah in Mt 14:31.

So claim this promise of remedy. Be courageous. Have faith!

Peace."

And I add now: Beware of adding regulations WHERE THERE ARE NONE, and thereby making the road more difficult for those that follow us who have successfully gotten refunds!

SUGGESTION: As a second witness, one might also record a Declaration in the public record about this starting date of lawful money demands, and attach as Exhibits the first several checks and deposit slips... and several more throughout that year for good measure.

NOTICE: Lawful Money Demand (12 USC 411) is only 1/3 of the remedy - Full Discharge (12 USC 95a(2)) is second 1/3 - and Claim for Harm by a man in his court of record at a public court building using his record declared at the county recorder is the last 1/3. More info on this is available at iuvdeposit.wordpress.com (http://iuvdeposit.wordpress.com/)

It looks to be an interesting year in 2014... 14 means "DELIVERANCE" in the Bible. The Passover, as you know, was on the 14th.

I have read only a fraction of this site which has taken me on a roller coaster for nearly an entire week now and even still have several windows from different posts open going back and forth to reference. I have found its not so easy to "query" for particular pieces of information you seek. I would open a read a thread and move on to the next. Only problem is I discover that while on information overload, it is next to impossible to remember where I read this piece or that piece.

I have post 10099 bookmarked but it makes no reference on how one established a "court of records", at least not all in one place that I have seen yet. As this seems to be an important and integral part of the remedy..I thought it would have its own thread...yet a search for those specific words turns up all sorts of wild results...has anyone compiled a "wiki" on this or can anyone point me in the right direction as to where I can read more on the subject somewhere on the site?

Thanks!

David Merrill
03-17-16, 04:54 PM
I have read only a fraction of this site which has taken me on a roller coaster for nearly an entire week now and even still have several windows from different posts open going back and forth to reference. I have found its not so easy to "query" for particular pieces of information you seek. I would open a read a thread and move on to the next. Only problem is I discover that while on information overload, it is next to impossible to remember where I read this piece or that piece.

I have post 10099 bookmarked but it makes no reference on how one established a "court of records", at least not all in one place that I have seen yet. As this seems to be an important and integral part of the remedy..I thought it would have its own thread...yet a search for those specific words turns up all sorts of wild results...has anyone compiled a "wiki" on this or can anyone point me in the right direction as to where I can read more on the subject somewhere on the site?

Thanks!

I like the definition in the Colorado statutes (https://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/):



3711


P.S. Welcome! Your journey and mouse ventures sound interesting. I hope you will share your adventures here.



Lately I am venturing into oaths of office but here is a perfect example of Record-Forming as found in authority of law (attached). Notice that I even had the reference librarian at the federal repository verify it as a true and correct copy of the Congressional Records.

Shylmysten
03-18-16, 05:03 AM
I like the definition in the Colorado statutes (https://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/):



3711


P.S. Welcome! Your journey and mouse ventures sound interesting. I hope you will share your adventures here.



Lately I am venturing into oaths of office but here is a perfect example of Record-Forming as found in authority of law (attached). Notice that I even had the reference librarian at the federal repository verify it as a true and correct copy of the Congressional Records.

Thank you very much David!

PilgrimPublisher
07-09-16, 02:36 PM
Thank you! That is why I did not get your point - I misunderstood. Transaction-based redemption. That sinks in.

Indeed that 100th Anniversary of the Fed Act is coming up in a couple weeks. 2014 is going to be marvelous!

Thanks, Doug! I've been learning and understanding.

I have direct deposit, so how can I make lawful demand?
1.) Call/write my bank receiving my payroll direct deposit checks and have the signature card changed.
2.) Just send my bank a notarized affadavit stating RLM.
3.) File a NOTICE AND DEMAND with my closest Fed bank.
4.) Change my payroll checks to not be direct deposit, which I probably can't do.
5.) File a notarized NOTICE AND DEMAND with my local county register of deeds and/or PACER.
5.) None of the above- just file a 1040 form utilizing Line 21.

Thanks in advance!

doug555
07-09-16, 05:29 PM
Thanks, Doug! I've been learning and understanding.

I have direct deposit, so how can I make lawful demand?
1.) Call/write my bank receiving my payroll direct deposit checks and have the signature card changed.
2.) Just send my bank a notarized affadavit stating RLM.
3.) File a NOTICE AND DEMAND with my closest Fed bank.
4.) Change my payroll checks to not be direct deposit, which I probably can't do.
5.) File a notarized NOTICE AND DEMAND with my local county register of deeds and/or PACER.
5.) None of the above- just file a 1040 form utilizing Line 21.

Thanks in advance!

NONE of your above items.

See http://1040relief.blogspot.com/p/getting-started.html (http://1040relief.blogspot.com/p/getting-started.html)

Above link is exactly how I do it. And it has worked for the past 5 consecutive years, Federal and 4 different States.

PilgrimPublisher
07-12-16, 01:40 AM
NONE of your above items.

See http://1040relief.blogspot.com/p/getting-started.html (http://1040relief.blogspot.com/p/getting-started.html)

Above link is exactly how I do it. And it has worked for the past 5 consecutive years, Federal and 4 different States.

Thanks once more! I've read that but it doesn't mention how I do that physically on what paper/form and to who if I don't have direct deposit?

How and to who and where do I physically do this? -
. just to make it CLEAR by a PREPONDERENCE of substantive evidence under their FRE Exception to Hearsay Rule 803(6)(B) that from that date onward "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2)" applies to ALL transactions...

Thanks for your patience.