PDA

View Full Version : Generic Notice and Demand - $350 civil suit



David Merrill
03-07-13, 04:28 PM
It may be the Libel of Review is becoming a dinosaur? Without proper instruction it can become quite gaudy (https://www.box.com/shared/static/zqknk5wa7y59xwrdumsy.pdf)!

I enjoy this rendition, just saved as a rough draft because I might not be adding anything more. I will finish it up today with the Civil Cover Sheet, Commission Certificate (notary), the $350 (http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/4149/nonendorsementredemptio.jpg) of course is redeemed by demand too.

But I want you to see it in its bare essence first!

David Merrill
03-11-13, 02:35 PM
P.S. I refined it up a bit. Mostly I added mandatory exception as in the form found at Title 26 USC §508(c)(1).

Freed Gerdes
03-11-13, 09:37 PM
P.S. I refined it up a bit. Mostly I added mandatory exception as in the form found at Title 26 USC §508(c)(1).

The mandatory exception issue presumes that you want your CQVT to be treated as a 501(c)(3) charitable corporation, which, under 26 USC §508(c)(1), expects to have less than $5,000 per year of income. If you redeem all income in LM, then meeting the 508(c)(1) condition is easy, but then you may run afoul of this statement in 501(c)(3): "no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual,". I do not believe that the IRS wants individual persons to be exempt charitable organizations. Can you clarify your thinking on this?

Freed G

David Merrill
03-11-13, 10:06 PM
The mandatory exception issue presumes that you want your CQVT to be treated as a 501(c)(3) charitable corporation, which, under 26 USC §508(c)(1), expects to have less than $5,000 per year of income. If you redeem all income in LM, then meeting the 508(c)(1) condition is easy, but then you may run afoul of this statement in 501(c)(3): "no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual,". I do not believe that the IRS wants individual persons to be exempt charitable organizations. Can you clarify your thinking on this?

Freed G

Redeeming lawful money excludes one from the Title altogether. That exclusion is recognized for churches too, not religious organizations.

To understand this you have to skip over to §170 where you are directed from §501 - Disqualified Organizations. Among these disqualified organization you find churches. In §508 you find these churches as Mandatory Exceptions.

This is in alignment with the pronoun "They" in Title 12 USC §411. They are not necessarily Federal Reserve notes from the two sentences prior. They could well be people making the demand. The church is expected to provide for its own through tithing and so therefore is a Disqualified Organization §501 and a Mandatory Exception §508(c)(1).

Either way the church equates with the redeemed.



P.S. Here is a perspective you might take note of:


I made a statement in writing to the effect that I wanted all my transactions at my bank to be done in lawful money. Had the teller date stamp and initial it and she sent a copy to the legal dept of the bank. My job was done. I made my demand. What they do from that point on is none of my business.

Bentley
03-20-13, 01:42 AM
Redeeming lawful money excludes one from the Title altogether. That exclusion is recognized for churches too, not religious organizations.

To understand this you have to skip over to §170 where you are directed from §501 - Disqualified Organizations. Among these disqualified organization you find churches. In §508 you find these churches as Mandatory Exceptions.

This is in alignment with the pronoun "They" in Title 12 USC §411. They are not necessarily Federal Reserve notes from the two sentences prior. They could well be people making the demand. The church is expected to provide for its own through tithing and so therefore is a Disqualified Organization §501 and a Mandatory Exception §508(c)(1).

Either way the church equates with the redeemed.



P.S. Here is a perspective you might take note of:




Do you know anyone who has filed with this technique in court yet?

-Bentley-

David Merrill
03-20-13, 08:16 PM
There would be no filing in court or even with the IRS under Title 26. One would be acting on the understanding they are mandatory exception to the IRS code.

If you were to require filing on yourself you had best study the statutes for corporation sole found in Arizona or so I hear. I cannot think why you would require yourself to file though.

I am showing you the distinction between a religious organization and the church.

Bentley
03-26-13, 04:04 PM
I'm a little (or alot) confused then, David. I downloaded your generic notice and demand for lawful money and it appears to be an example of a filing in district court replete with a summons aimed at the Federal Reserve Board, is it not?

Thank you for your reply,
Bentley

Freed Gerdes
03-26-13, 04:46 PM
Bentley, David prepared the generic suit (which exceeds the requirements for a simple generic demand for lawful money) as an example for me, as I was contemplating suing the Federal Reserve to make them enforce the demand on Bank of America, which has been offering to stonewall my demand. The key here is that the demand, based in Federal law at 12 USC §411, is self-executing: the law says explicitly 'they shall be redeemed on demand...' Thus all you have to do is make the demand ('Just say the word and I shall be healed'). Whether the bank responds correctly to your demand is not your problem; specifically, it is the Federal Reserve's problem, as they are designated as supervisors of the banks. Presumably you are at the adjunct where you are contemplating making the demand, in which case you can skip suing the Fed; just use the text specific to your demand, and serve it on your bank (a Certified Letter with return receipt requested is sufficient). Your copy of the letter/demand, plus your return receipt, proves that you made the demand, and that the bank received notice of your demand. At that point, you have redeemed lawful money, and transactions at that bank are now outside the jurisdiction of Title 26, ie, they are not taxable income. Does this clear up your confusion?

Freed

Bentley
03-26-13, 06:52 PM
Bentley, David prepared the generic suit (which exceeds the requirements for a simple generic demand for lawful money) as an example for me, as I was contemplating suing the Federal Reserve to make them enforce the demand on Bank of America, which has been offering to stonewall my demand. The key here is that the demand, based in Federal law at 12 USC §411, is self-executing: the law says explicitly 'they shall be redeemed on demand...' Thus all you have to do is make the demand ('Just say the word and I shall be healed'). Whether the bank responds correctly to your demand is not your problem; specifically, it is the Federal Reserve's problem, as they are designated as supervisors of the banks. Presumably you are at the adjunct where you are contemplating making the demand, in which case you can skip suing the Fed; just use the text specific to your demand, and serve it on your bank (a Certified Letter with return receipt requested is sufficient). Your copy of the letter/demand, plus your return receipt, proves that you made the demand, and that the bank received notice of your demand. At that point, you have redeemed lawful money, and transactions at that bank are now outside the jurisdiction of Title 26, ie, they are not taxable income. Does this clear up your confusion?

Freed

Freed,

Thanks for the explanation. I like the thought of suing the federal government for fraud and all it's transgressions. I think everyone should spend the $350 to do it. Maybe then we'll see some positive, freedom achieving results. I've recently opened up a case with my congressman based on illegal activities of the 'entity.' (See treasury order 150-06) The whole system's fraudulent. I am cogitating on sending the notice and demand to my congressman for presentment to the National Taxpayer Advocate stating that I will file when they agree to refund in lawful money. What's your thoughts on that? Can you explain why bank transactions, after this notice, are outside of Title 26?

B.

David Merrill
03-26-13, 09:32 PM
Hi Bentley;


That is a fascinating post. I cannot help but wonder though if the basis of fraud is incorrect considering the remedy espoused on this website?

Bentley
03-27-13, 02:07 AM
Hi Bentley;


That is a fascinating post. I cannot help but wonder though if the basis of fraud is incorrect considering the remedy espoused on this website?
Hi David,

The fraud exists because the T.O. was cancelled in 2005 by Secretary O'Neill. The designation for the 'entity', as the treasury order itself refers to the organization formerly known as BIR/IRS was lawfully cancelled. Usage of the designation since then, it can be argued, violates 31 USC 333. We should start referring to them as the 'entity.'

Moreover, Public Law 105-206, known as RRA98,at section 3445 is violated by the 'entity' as that section requires the district director or assistant district director to authorize, by personal approval, certain levies. This requirement is codified at 6334 of U.S.C. 26 but totally ignored by the entity because they claim the position has been cancelled. Internal Revenue districts are another matter illustrative of violation. i'll post a document in the future relating to this.

I like your notice and demand and will confront the National Taxpayer Advocate with it. What do you think?

Bentley

Bentley
03-27-13, 02:10 AM
Oh, I forgot to mention, every 1040 form printed and used since April 2006 is fraudulent before the first drop of ink is applied to it and in violation of 31 USC 333 because of T.O. 150-06.

Bentley
03-27-13, 02:27 AM
Freed,

Thanks for the explanation. I like the thought of suing the federal government for fraud and all it's transgressions. I think everyone should spend the $350 to do it. Maybe then we'll see some positive, freedom achieving results. I've recently opened up a case with my congressman based on illegal activities of the 'entity.' (See treasury order 150-06) The whole system's fraudulent. I am cogitating on sending the notice and demand to my congressman for presentment to the National Taxpayer Advocate stating that I will file when they agree to refund in lawful money. What's your thoughts on that? Can you explain why bank transactions, after this notice, are outside of Title 26?

B.

David, can you explain the last statement about bank transactions being outside Title 26?

David Merrill
03-27-13, 01:41 PM
David, can you explain the last statement about bank transactions being outside Title 26?


I am supposing you want me to cut a new path here. Something along the line that I remarked that there may not be fraud in light of remedy, to the post you quoted.

I like the way your mind worked its way to the question if I am understanding you correctly. In other words this post may just be the way my mind works and a complete misinterpretation of your post; I just like where you led my mind.

The Social Security in itself is a valid income tax and you cannot (in all my experience) ever have a bank or credit union account without a SSN. We start there. However, like you have heard me say, I have no SSN and therefore do the math; I have no bank account. So we work from there and as you know I consider the SS System an insurance company - elderly and other disability insurance. I paid premiums and when I have a use for that SSN I might write to the SSA for a reminder by Card what that sequence of numbers is on my insurance policy.

So if I had that much use for a bank account, like all you do, then I might do the same and establish the sequence of digits so I could open and use an account.

In my mind however, the SSN on the account would have nothing to do with the insurance policy that it is for in my mind. Now we arrive at the contemplation by the bank that I provided the SSN for income tax purposes - as a Taxpayer ID #. I did not. But I can just bet that since my bank account has nothing to do with me being old or disabled that the bank is requiring the SSN because they are.

In this situation I would add verbiage to defeating the SSN presumption on my Notice and Demand served on the Fed, recorded in the USDC and served on the bank.

Thank you!

I think you just improved the Notice and Demand template. I am always looking for stuff like that.



Regards,

David Merrill.

Freed Gerdes
03-27-13, 09:07 PM
Words and ideas bounce around inside minds in different ways. To Bentley, Title 26 establishes an excise tax on the use of Federal Reserve Notes (debt obligations). When you loan Federal Reserve credit (notes) to the bank, by endorsing your checks, the bank loans your credit onward, and the IRS taxes you for the privilege of being a state bank, ie, dealing in Federal Reserve securities. By demanding redemption of FRN's for lawful money, your transactions now avoid the excise tax, thus, no IRS, no duty to report income. For David, the question comes down to the SS tax, which is also an excise tax (not within the authority of the Constitution, but a contract with a corporation: the IRS), and which is also prescribed in Title 26, uses the same income reporting data to calculate the SS tax as it does to calculate the income tax. Line 69 of this year's Form 1040 is where you would ask for a refund of excess Social Security tax paid. If you notice your bank of your demand for lawful money, you can then file a Form 1040 and ask for a refund of all your income tax paid. You can also ask for a refund of all (or some of) your Social Security taxes paid. Any refund would have the effect of reducing your reportable income for SS purposes, ie, it would reduce the amount of income upon which you paid SS tax; this would have the effect of reducing your eventual SS benefits. By refunding all your SS taxes paid, you reduce your reportable income to zero for SS purposes, such that you are not accumulating the '40 quarters' of payments into SS required to qualify you for eventual benefits (which may not be much of a loss, seeing where the Fed's unpayable debts are headed).

Freed

ps edit: I am sure that the requirement for a SSN for a bank account is due to the desire by the IRS to track all income for (both) tax purposes. It is also a way to force everyone to file a return, in order to demand refund of taxes withheld. Since SS tax is withheld by 'employers', presumably the proper defense there is with the filing of the proper W-4, or refusal to file a W-4 (a W-8 would make you a non-resident alien, exempt from SS tax, ie, not a party to the SS contract). F

David Merrill
03-29-13, 10:43 PM
By demanding redemption of FRN's for lawful money, your transactions now avoid the excise tax, thus, no IRS, no duty to report income.


I love how remedy can be stated in so many different ways and still make perfect sense.

Bentley
03-30-13, 05:17 PM
I don't equate the two. I believe that we've been hit with so much lawbreaking over the last hundred years (http://blog.independent.org/2013/03/26/1913-the-final-days-of-the-old-regime-in-the-united-states/) there is probably many more than one remedy, but I love how you approach this and I want to learn more and be proficient in all possible remedies. There is a fellow named Dave Myrland who's filed a criminal complaint with congress as an example of another way to kill the beast with a thousand cuts. http://www.werus.us/Dave/01fMEMORANDUM-58pg.pdf

Bentley

Bentley
03-30-13, 08:44 PM
Actually Freed, I've never even considered that it is an excise tax on the use of Federal Reserve notes. I don't believe a private sector employee is liable for any income tax anyway, (but the feds are: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/4/111) regardless of what bucket it is put in. Only the employer is liable for income tax, (see attachment-Liberty for Dummies) and I believe that employer is the federal government. Income tax is being unconstitutionally applied to everyone when it should only apply to Federal employees.

Bentley

Bentley
03-30-13, 09:09 PM
Actually Freed, I don't establish an excise tax on the use of Federal Reserve notes. I don't believe a private sector employee is liable for any income tax, (but the feds are: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/4/111) regardless of what bucket it is put in. Only the employer is liable for income tax, (see attachment-Liberty for Dummies) and I believe that employer is the federal government.

Bentley
03-30-13, 09:13 PM
David,

I have my original SS card which says "Not to be used for ID purposes". So, Of course, someone decided to change that over the years to enslave the people. Crap like this makes want to 'tar and feather' all the political animals, save a few, i.e., Ron Paul and that ilk.

Bentley

David Merrill
03-30-13, 11:03 PM
David,

I have my original SS card which says "Not to be used for ID purposes". So, Of course, someone decided to change that over the years to enslave the people. Crap like this makes want to 'tar and feather' all the political animals, save a few, i.e., Ron Paul and that ilk.

Bentley

I just want to point out by a question?


Who is using your SSN Card for identification purposes besides you?

EZrhythm
03-31-13, 08:35 AM
Excellent answer in the form of a question, David!

Freed Gerdes
03-31-13, 03:16 PM
Well, Bentley, what can the income tax be? The SC ruled in 1895 that a tax on income was unconstitutional. Yet here the banksters are, back again in 1913, with the Federal Reserve Act (what is now 12 USC, creating debt money), and the income tax again, pretending that it is hiding behind the 16th Amendment. It can't be a tax on income, but it is based on the amount of income; looks just like an excise tax on the money used...

But the point about redemption is that lawful money is outside the purview of Title 26, so there is no discussion about all the inconsistencies and mis-direction built into the Internal Revenue Code. Congress never passed a tax on income, because income is defined in the Constitution as the gain on investment, and that is not what the banksters wanted to tax; they wanted to tax wages. So they never passed a tax on anything; they left it to the IRS to write their 'code' in such a way as to get everyone to volunteer, by creating the impression that a)there was an actual tax (there is not), and b)the tax applies to you. Then once you buy into the W-4, endorsement of your paychecks, and submitting a 1040, you are deeply entwined into adhesion contracts and admission under perjury that you 'owe' tax, so then you have to pay it, as the Article I courts will simply administer the contract. The income tax is all about private law, which is easily avoided, by just not participating in the taxed activity. So why is it that the law will not tell you what the taxed activity is? Because if people understood what is being taxed, they would avoid it. The tax is on Federal Reserve debt: don't use it.

Freed

Bentley
03-31-13, 07:13 PM
I think David, that the point is that it was not designed to be used as ID... exactly opposite of what it is being used for today. it's just another in the long line of broken government promises over the years.

Bentley

Bentley
03-31-13, 07:31 PM
I'm on board with you Freed, I believe it's a "private agreement gone wild" and should only apply to federal workers, as part of their benefit of working for the federal government and part of the agreement they make when they take the job. See 4 usc 111.

The problem is if one tries to cancel the 'voluntary agreement per 26 cfr (http://law.justia.com/cfr/title26/26-15.0.1.1.1.5.15.64.html) 3402 (p)-1 (d) If the employee desires that the agreement terminate on a specific date, the date of termination of the agreement.

then the 'entity' formerly known as the IRS steps in and intimidates the employer into not accepting it, in violation of said regulation.

Freed Gerdes
04-01-13, 02:55 AM
True fact the mis-information program by the IRS has been effective. Your employer will demand that you file a W-4, even though it is voluntary. The W-4 requests that your employer withhold income taxes 'as if they were owed,' even though they are not owed (you are not a Federal employee). Now on your Form 1040, you must report the wages paid, which will match your withholding records, and when you sign the form, you are now legally bound to pay it. If you sign a W-4 and then do not file a 1040, the IRS will threaten you with dire consequences, up to jail time for 'tax evasion,' even though there is no crime on the books defining it (see Irwin Schiff case). How to escape?

Notice your bank of your demand for lawful money. Next year, request a refund of all income taxes paid. The following year, ask your employer for a new W-4, and on this one, state that you had no tax liability for last year, and you expect no income tax liability for this year, and thus you are exempt, please do not withhold any income taxes for me. Your employer will notify the IRS that you have submitted said exemption form, but they will have to let it go, as it follows their rules.

Freed

Freed Gerdes
04-01-13, 03:15 AM
I'm on board with you Freed, I believe it's a "private agreement gone wild" and should only apply to federal workers, as part of their benefit of working for the federal government and part of the agreement they make when they take the job. See 4 usc 111.

The problem is if one tries to cancel the 'voluntary agreement per 26 cfr (http://law.justia.com/cfr/title26/26-15.0.1.1.1.5.15.64.html) 3402 (p)-1 (d) If the employee desires that the agreement terminate on a specific date, the date of termination of the agreement.

then the 'entity' formerly known as the IRS steps in and intimidates the employer into not accepting it, in violation of said regulation.

Notice the title of the quoted section: 26 C.F.R. § 31.3402(p)-1 Voluntary withholding agreements. (a) In general. An employee and his employer may enter into an agreement under section 3402(b) to provide for the withholding of income tax upon payments of amounts described in paragraph (b)(1) of §31.3401(a)–3... it is all voluntary; you can refuse to enter into said agreement. Look at 3401(a)-3: (a) In general...the term “wages” includes the amounts described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section with respect to which there is a voluntary withholding agreement in effect under section 3402(p). So the circle is squared: p defines a and a defines p. You are now lost in the IRS circular logic, struggling with terms, when you should have noticed the word may at the beginning. Regardless of the definitions meant to confuse, the actual income tax is an excise tax on the use of Federal Reserve credit (non-interest bearing debt notes), and their redemption in public money takes you out of private law. Your signature on the W-4 is an adhesion contract: you have volunteered to be liable for the income tax. But you won't owe any tax if you redeem FRN's for lawful money. And you won't get into a fight with your employer when you have to tell him he has been duped by the IRS shyster lawyers all his life...

Freed

Bentley
04-02-13, 01:38 AM
True fact the mis-information program by the IRS has been effective. Your employer will demand that you file a W-4, even though it is voluntary. The W-4 requests that your employer withhold income taxes 'as if they were owed,' even though they are not owed (you are not a Federal employee). Now on your Form 1040, you must report the wages paid, which will match your withholding records, and when you sign the form, you are now legally bound to pay it. If you sign a W-4 and then do not file a 1040, the IRS will threaten you with dire consequences, up to jail time for 'tax evasion,' even though there is no crime on the books defining it (see Irwin Schiff case). How to escape?

Notice your bank of your demand for lawful money. Next year, request a refund of all income taxes paid. The following year, ask your employer for a new W-4, and on this one, state that you had no tax liability for last year, and you expect no income tax liability for this year, and thus you are exempt, please do not withhold any income taxes for me. Your employer will notify the IRS that you have submitted said exemption form, but they will have to let it go, as it follows their rules.

Freed
So is this the process David is defining? Does it take 3 years to divest oneself of the entrapment. My first job was at 14 and that's when I first received my SS card. At 14, one cannot voluntarily enter into contracts. I believe 1040 forms are fraudulent anyway before the first drop of ink is applied because of treasury order 150-06 here: http://www.treasury.gov/about/role-of-treasury/orders-directives/Pages/to150-06.aspx makes a violation of this law here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/333 IMHO

Bentley

Freed Gerdes
04-03-13, 12:46 AM
There is a quicker way, if you are willing to drop your participation in Social Security, but it will eventually require that you file a lawsuit against the IRS in District Court. However, you were going to put in the three years anyway, so what is your rush, once you stop paying the income tax? Just notice your bank of your demand, then file a 1040 and ask for a full refund of all taxes paid after you made your demand. Then the following year you are covered for the full year, no taxes, and now you can ask your employer to file an exemption claim on your revised W-4. After that you have no withholding, and no need to ever file a 1040 again. It may be slow, but it is painless and stress-free...

As to the adhesion contract you were tricked into when signing up for Social Security, under Uniform Commercial Code 1-207, you are not bound by any unconscionable contract. Since you were not sui juris when you signed, the contract is not valid anyway. Rights may not be surrendered casually or unintentionally; contracts must be entered into knowingly and voluntarily. So if you did not know you were surrendering your rights, then you did not surrender them. But the Social Security contract is separate from the income tax. If you do not want to opt out of SS, just ignore that contract, as the parts you want are agreeable, and the others are invalid. The W-4 is the contract that begins the obligation to pay income tax. And you do not want to get into a fight with your employer.

Freed

Bentley
04-03-13, 03:24 PM
I made my deposit, endorsing on backs of checks, "to be redeemed for lawful money under 12 USC 411" at my credit union and the legal department called and refused to accept the deposits. They claimed to 'not accept any "restricted" deposits'. I asked if they were insured by the federal government (which places them in the federal reserve system and under the Federal Reserve Act) and they said yes, so I simply asked for them to put their objection in writing and to cite the law under which they were refusing to accept deposits. They said they will send a letter next week with this information. I'll post their response.

Bentley

mikecz
04-03-13, 05:25 PM
I made my deposit, endorsing on backs of checks, "to be redeemed for lawful money under 12 USC 411" at my credit union and the legal department called and refused to accept the deposits. They claimed to 'not accept any "restricted" deposits'. I asked if they were insured by the federal government (which places them in the federal reserve system and under the Federal Reserve Act) and they said yes, so I simply asked for them to put their objection in writing and to cite the law under which they were refusing to accept deposits. They said they will send a letter next week with this information. I'll post their response.

Bentley


Sounds good Bentley, would love to see the followup. I too have a letter in with my credit union, I put it straight to their legal team...


[QUOTE]
This leads me to a simple inquiry; I’m wondering if I can open an account with (your credit union), a non-interest bearing account, of which the balance cannot be used towards fractional lending? If I only deposit United States currency notes, defined in 31 USC 5115, found below in bold, it is illegal for members of the Federal Reserve System to use these funds as a reserve. Therefore, I would like to know how to request funds be stored in such a way.

(a) The Secretary of the Treasury may issue United States currency notes. The notes—
(1) are payable to bearer; and
(2) shall be in a form and in denominations of at least one dollar that the Secretary prescribes.
(b) The amount of United States currency notes outstanding and in circulation—
(1) may not be more than $300,000,000; and
(2) may not be held or used for a reserve.

[QUOTE/]

They responded to my last letter, we'll see about this one...

Chex
04-03-13, 06:45 PM
Who is using your SSN Card for identification purposes besides you? That a very good question.

At 14, one cannot voluntarily enter into contracts http://law.yourdictionary.com/contract

What Is the Legal Age to Contract? http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-legal-age-to-contract.htm

Generally speaking a minor cannot enter into a legally binding contract. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_contracts_made_by_minors_enforceable

"A birth certificate is not a form of identification"
The state agency that issues birth certificates will share your child's information with us, and we will mail the Social Security card to you. http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/237/~/request-a-social-security-number-for-a-newborn

A birth certificate is not a form of ID it is only used to establish a Social Security number. http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/2285

The Social Security number was originally devised to keep an accurate record of each individual’s earnings, and to subsequently monitor benefits paid under the Social Security program. However, use of the Social Security number as a general identifier has grown to the point where it is the most commonly used and convenient identifier for all types of record-keeping systems in the United States. http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/78/~/legal-requirements-to-provide-your-social-security-number

Specific laws require a person to provide his or her Social Security number for certain purposes. While we cannot give you a comprehensive list of all situations where a Social Security number might be required or requested, a Social Security number is required or requested by the following organizations: http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/78/~/legal-requirements-to-provide-your-social-security-number

Bank of America: Your Birth Certificate is NOT valid as ID!, page 1 http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread470440/pg1

Section 312: Special Due Diligence for Correspondent Accounts and Private Banking Accounts. This Section amends the Bank Secrecy Act by imposing due diligence & enhanced due diligence requirements on U.S. financial institutions that maintain correspondent accounts for foreign financial institutions or private banking accounts for non-U.S. persons.

Section 326: Verification of Identification. Prescribes regulations establishing minimum standards for financial institutions and their customers regarding the identity of a customer that shall apply with the opening of an account at the financial institution. http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/patriot/index.html?r=1&id=326#326

The appropriate “Identification Number” is determined by an institution’s CIP and will depend upon whether the customer is from the United States. http://www.bankersonline.com/aml/326whitepaper.pdf

For U.S. customers (both individuals and entities) a CIP should require a Taxpayer Identification Number, such as a Social Security Number, Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, or Employer Identification Number.

As for non-U.S. customers, a CIP should require one or more of the following: a Taxpayer Identification Number, such as a Social Security Number, Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, or Employer Identification Number; passport number and country of issuance; alien identification card number; or number and country of issuance of a foreign government-issued document evidencing nationality or residence and bearing a photograph (or similar safeguard).

See 31 C.F.R. 103.121(b)(2)(I)(A): http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/terrorist-illicit-finance/Terrorist-Finance-Tracking/Documents/bankrule.pdf

There are two exceptions to the above rule. A CIP may include procedures that accommodate a customer who has applied for, but not yet received, a taxpayer identification number. Such procedures must confirm that the tax ID application was filed before the customer opens the account and require the bank to obtain the tax ID within a reasonable period after the account is opened. A second exception allows credit card issuers to obtain the identifying information from a third-party source prior to extending credit to the customer.

31 C.F.R. 103.121(b)(2)(i)(B) http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/103-121-customer-associations-unions-19739609

Chex
04-03-13, 06:47 PM
"A birth certificate is not a form of identification or is it?" http://www.cookcountyclerk.com/vitalrecords/whatid/Pages/default.aspx

Primary Evidence of U.S. Citizenship (One of the following):*A certified birth certificate has a registrar's raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar's signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar's office, which must be within 1 year of your birth. Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes. http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.html

We can accept only certain documents as proof of identity. An acceptable document must be current (not expired) and show your name, identifying information (date of birth or age) and preferably a recent photograph. A birth certificate is not a form of identification. As proof of identity, Social Security must see one of the following primary evidence documents: http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/2281

then the 'entity' formerly known as the IRS steps in and intimidates the employer into not accepting it, in violation of said regulation.

TREASURY ORDER: 150-06 http://famguardian.org/PublishedAuthors/Indiv/MeadorDan/Articles/irsbegin.htm

TREASURY ORDER: 150-06 http://foundationfortruthinlaw.org/PDF/U.S.-SupremeCourt-IRS-Case-IRS-in-default-all-documents-thru-motion-for-ORDER.pdf

REVENUE PROVISIONS, Subtitle E - (amendments to the U.S. Code)"SEC. 742 , TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS REQUIRED AT BIRTH Link http://www.google.com/search?q=TAXPAYER+IDENTIFICATION+NUMBERS+REQUIRED+ AT+BIRTH&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-ContextMenu&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7MEDA

SSA - POMS: RM 00201.040 - Void Social Security Numbers (SSNs) - 03/26/2008 https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.NSF/0/4c0b1a9cd923d5228525754c00058761!OpenDocument&Click=

"The Social Security Act does not require a person to have a Social Security number (SSN) to live and work in the United States, nor does it require an SSN simply for the purpose of having one." http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/ChallJurisdiction/YourRightsAndSSNs.htm

According to the Social Security Regulations, a person must use a SSN if they apply for public benefits. An applicant for government benefits who does not have, or does not use, a SSN will be denied. Some people have sent letters to the Social Security Administration stating that they were "rescinding" their social security number. They publicly "give it back" so to speak. However, the Social Security Administration continues to maintain a record pertaining to each person using their social security account number. It's sort of analogous to the theme of "Hotel California" by the Eagles "you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave." We are not aware of any cases where the SSA agreed to expunge an adult’s record. Neither are we aware of any occasion where the SSA refunded any amount of contributions.

Applying to Have the SSN Application Removed From an Adult: Some people argue that when they applied for a SSN, they "unknowingly" entered into a "contract" with SSA and that by rescinding their number they absolve themselves of any commitment they may have unknowingly made.

But the simple fact is, Social Security is not a contract. This very important point is clearly brought out by Larry Becraft in his brief entitled "Comment Upon Voluntary Nature of Social Security." Therein, he states:

"Is Social Security a contract? A private insurance policy is clearly a contract because the policyholder makes a promise to pay money to the insurance company, which in turn agrees to likewise pay the policyholder if certain contingencies arise. These "promise to pay" elements are essential for a contract, but they simply are not present with Social Security. First, Social Security "payments" are not premium payments, but are taxes instead.

"Secondly, there is no corresponding and enforceable 'promise to pay' from the Social Security Administration to its 'beneficiaries.' [G]overnment contracts are very special and require an appropriation from Congress before money can be expended and a contract made. Regarding Social Security, the only 'beneficiaries' who have any claim against the public treasury are those for whom Congress has already made an appropriation, which can last no longer than a year. The rest of the Social Security claimants in America have no enforceable claim on public funds, and all they possess is a 'political promise,' upon which Congress can renege at any moment. If Congress decided tomorrow to cut off all Social Security, nobody would have any claim for payment. Thus, Social Security has never been and is not now a contract."
Simply applying for (and receiving) a Social Security number does not constitute the making of a contract. And additionally, the Social Security Administration has never asserted that Social Security was a "contractual" agreement. http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/ChallJurisdiction/YourRightsAndSSNs.htm#1.5.2

Sec. 208. [42 U.S.C. 408] (a) Whoever—
(1) for the purpose of causing an increase in any payment authorized to be made under this title, or for the purpose of causing any payment to be made where no payment is authorized under this title, shall make or cause to be made any false statement or representation (including any false statement or representation in connection with any matter arising under subchapter E of chapter 1, or subchapter A or E of chapter 9 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939[95], or chapter 2 or 21 or subtitle F of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954[96]) as to—

(A) whether wages were paid or received for employment (as said terms are defined in this title and the Internal Revenue Code), or the amount of wages or the period during which paid or the person to whom paid; or http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title02/0208.htm

If you are not a (government) employee as defined above and now that you’ve read the law, ask yourself, “Am I liable for income tax? Am I even an employee? In review, there is only one law that establishes liability, (§3403) for income tax withheld (§3402) in Title 26. In searching all 50 Titles of U.S. Code, it is the only law that the congressional search engine identified as pertaining to ‘income tax collected at source.’ How can Line 43, “TAXABLE INCOME” of the 2009 (or current year) 1040 form contain a true value?

Brian
04-04-13, 07:11 AM
Wow, Chex that's a lot of info. How about boiling it down to just: Don't use Bank Credit, demand coin. So So Security, Medicare, Obamacare are all just TAXES on the use/transfer of Bank Credit not issued by the Treasury.

1937 Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619: The tax on the employer is an indirect EXCISE TAX on the employer/employee relationship. The tax on employees is an indirect “special income tax,” which is “to be deducted from their wages and paid by employers” and “measured by wages paid [by the employer] during the calendar year.”

Bank Credit see: 1869 Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 U.S. 533
SCOTUS speaking about greenbacks: "This currency, issued directly by the government for the disbursement of the war and other expenditures, could not, obviously, be a proper object of taxation."
and
" The methods adopted for the supply of this currency were briefly explained in the first part of this opinion. It now [75 U.S. 533, 549] consists of coin, of United States notes, and of the notes of the National banks. Both descriptions of notes may be properly described as bills of credit, for both are furnished by the government; both are issued on the credit of the government; and the government is responsible for the redemption of both; primarily as to the first description, and immediately upon default of the bank, as to the second. When these bills shall be made convertible into coin, at the will of the holder, this currency will, perhaps, satisfy the wants of the community, in respect to a circulating medium, as perfectly as any mixed currency that can be devised.

Having thus, in the exercise of undisputed constitutional powers, undertaken to provide a currency for the whole country, it cannot be questioned that Congress may, constitutionally, secure the benefit of it to the people by appropriate legislation. To this end, Congress has denied the quality of legal tender to foreign coins, and has provided by law against the imposition of counterfeit and base coin on the community. To the same end, Congress may restrain, by suitable enactments, the circulation as money of any notes not issued under its own authority. Without this power, indeed, its attempts to secure a sound and uniform currency for the country must be futile.

Viewed in this light, as well as in the other light of a duty on contracts or property, we cannot doubt the constitutionality of the tax under consideration. "

and finally I offer this: Page 38 last paragraph into page 39 http://books.google.com/books?id=X4kgDkYxGrcC&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=Bank+Restriction+Act+of+1797&source=bl&ots=hd73AkiShr&sig=9Bk5BBbtm7LOckvqKLuxyqMfAyk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rbpMUY_EFueviAK-ooHIBg&ved=0CGYQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Bank%20Restriction%20Act%20of%201797&f=false

Could it not be any clearer that paper currencies NOT issued directly by the government and NOT redeemable in the coin of the realm are instituted with a built in blowoff/regulator valve known as the income tax? Without the income tax it would hyperinflate itself to death in no time. It serves to ground the system (if you want to put it into electrical terms).

Bentley
04-19-13, 04:43 PM
I am supposing you want me to cut a new path here. Something along the line that I remarked that there may not be fraud in light of remedy, to the post you quoted.

I like the way your mind worked its way to the question if I am understanding you correctly. In other words this post may just be the way my mind works and a complete misinterpretation of your post; I just like where you led my mind.

The Social Security in itself is a valid income tax and you cannot (in all my experience) ever have a bank or credit union account without a SSN. We start there. However, like you have heard me say, I have no SSN and therefore do the math; I have no bank account. So we work from there and as you know I consider the SS System an insurance company - elderly and other disability insurance. I paid premiums and when I have a use for that SSN I might write to the SSA for a reminder by Card what that sequence of numbers is on my insurance policy.

So if I had that much use for a bank account, like all you do, then I might do the same and establish the sequence of digits so I could open and use an account.

In my mind however, the SSN on the account would have nothing to do with the insurance policy that it is for in my mind. Now we arrive at the contemplation by the bank that I provided the SSN for income tax purposes - as a Taxpayer ID #. I did not. But I can just bet that since my bank account has nothing to do with me being old or disabled that the bank is requiring the SSN because they are.

In this situation I would add verbiage to defeating the SSN presumption on my Notice and Demand served on the Fed, recorded in the USDC and served on the bank.

Thank you!

I think you just improved the Notice and Demand template. I am always looking for stuff like that.



Regards,

David Merrill.
I should have replied awhile ago to your post here David, but I got busy exploring other posts on other topics. If I've somehow helped you think of a new Notice template, it was quite serendipitous on my part, I assure you, but thank you for the compliment anyway.

I eagerly await to explore what your creative and educated mind comes up with. Where did you learn this stuff anyway? Would Pastor Richard Standring be any of your sources?

Bentley

David Merrill
04-20-13, 01:03 AM
I should have replied awhile ago to your post here David, but I got busy exploring other posts on other topics. If I've somehow helped you think of a new Notice template, it was quite serendipitous on my part, I assure you, but thank you for the compliment anyway.

I eagerly await to explore what your creative and educated mind comes up with. Where did you learn this stuff anyway? Would Pastor Richard Standring be any of your sources?

Bentley

STANDRING provided only one great tidbit along the way. That is that Black's Fifth Law Dictionary is approved of by the Crown in a dedication at the end of the hardcover edition. That always stuck with me.

We have filters. - Like the small intestine. The liver and solar plexus resonate or stifle chemicals going through the intestinal wall depending on what your body needs in the blood. It is like that. My heritage is Patroons on both sides of my family so items related to admiralty and municipal (METRO) organization seem to filter through the screen and emerge consciously to me. I have the Mason library and museum available as with the federal repository (Government Documents).

The brain trust is a great echo chamber for playing with new ideas - as is this website.

Thanks for the great compliments!

Bentley
04-20-13, 04:19 AM
"A birth certificate is not a form of identification or is it?" http://www.cookcountyclerk.com/vitalrecords/whatid/Pages/default.aspx

Primary Evidence of U.S. Citizenship (One of the following):*A certified birth certificate has a registrar's raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar's signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar's office, which must be within 1 year of your birth. Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes. http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.html

We can accept only certain documents as proof of identity. An acceptable document must be current (not expired) and show your name, identifying information (date of birth or age) and preferably a recent photograph. A birth certificate is not a form of identification. As proof of identity, Social Security must see one of the following primary evidence documents: http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/2281

then the 'entity' formerly known as the IRS steps in and intimidates the employer into not accepting it, in violation of said regulation.

TREASURY ORDER: 150-06 http://famguardian.org/PublishedAuthors/Indiv/MeadorDan/Articles/irsbegin.htm

TREASURY ORDER: 150-06 http://foundationfortruthinlaw.org/PDF/U.S.-SupremeCourt-IRS-Case-IRS-in-default-all-documents-thru-motion-for-ORDER.pdf

REVENUE PROVISIONS, Subtitle E - (amendments to the U.S. Code)"SEC. 742 , TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS REQUIRED AT BIRTH Link http://www.google.com/search?q=TAXPAYER+IDENTIFICATION+NUMBERS+REQUIRED+ AT+BIRTH&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-ContextMenu&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7MEDA

SSA - POMS: RM 00201.040 - Void Social Security Numbers (SSNs) - 03/26/2008 https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.NSF/0/4c0b1a9cd923d5228525754c00058761!OpenDocument&Click=

"The Social Security Act does not require a person to have a Social Security number (SSN) to live and work in the United States, nor does it require an SSN simply for the purpose of having one." http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/ChallJurisdiction/YourRightsAndSSNs.htm

According to the Social Security Regulations, a person must use a SSN if they apply for public benefits. An applicant for government benefits who does not have, or does not use, a SSN will be denied. Some people have sent letters to the Social Security Administration stating that they were "rescinding" their social security number. They publicly "give it back" so to speak. However, the Social Security Administration continues to maintain a record pertaining to each person using their social security account number. It's sort of analogous to the theme of "Hotel California" by the Eagles "you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave." We are not aware of any cases where the SSA agreed to expunge an adult’s record. Neither are we aware of any occasion where the SSA refunded any amount of contributions.

Applying to Have the SSN Application Removed From an Adult: Some people argue that when they applied for a SSN, they "unknowingly" entered into a "contract" with SSA and that by rescinding their number they absolve themselves of any commitment they may have unknowingly made.

But the simple fact is, Social Security is not a contract. This very important point is clearly brought out by Larry Becraft in his brief entitled "Comment Upon Voluntary Nature of Social Security." Therein, he states:

"Is Social Security a contract? A private insurance policy is clearly a contract because the policyholder makes a promise to pay money to the insurance company, which in turn agrees to likewise pay the policyholder if certain contingencies arise. These "promise to pay" elements are essential for a contract, but they simply are not present with Social Security. First, Social Security "payments" are not premium payments, but are taxes instead.

"Secondly, there is no corresponding and enforceable 'promise to pay' from the Social Security Administration to its 'beneficiaries.' [G]overnment contracts are very special and require an appropriation from Congress before money can be expended and a contract made. Regarding Social Security, the only 'beneficiaries' who have any claim against the public treasury are those for whom Congress has already made an appropriation, which can last no longer than a year. The rest of the Social Security claimants in America have no enforceable claim on public funds, and all they possess is a 'political promise,' upon which Congress can renege at any moment. If Congress decided tomorrow to cut off all Social Security, nobody would have any claim for payment. Thus, Social Security has never been and is not now a contract."
Simply applying for (and receiving) a Social Security number does not constitute the making of a contract. And additionally, the Social Security Administration has never asserted that Social Security was a "contractual" agreement. http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/ChallJurisdiction/YourRightsAndSSNs.htm#1.5.2

Sec. 208. [42 U.S.C. 408] (a) Whoever—
(1) for the purpose of causing an increase in any payment authorized to be made under this title, or for the purpose of causing any payment to be made where no payment is authorized under this title, shall make or cause to be made any false statement or representation (including any false statement or representation in connection with any matter arising under subchapter E of chapter 1, or subchapter A or E of chapter 9 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939[95], or chapter 2 or 21 or subtitle F of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954[96]) as to—

(A) whether wages were paid or received for employment (as said terms are defined in this title and the Internal Revenue Code), or the amount of wages or the period during which paid or the person to whom paid; or http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title02/0208.htm

If you are not a (government) employee as defined above and now that you’ve read the law, ask yourself, “Am I liable for income tax? Am I even an employee? In review, there is only one law that establishes liability, (§3403) for income tax withheld (§3402) in Title 26. In searching all 50 Titles of U.S. Code, it is the only law that the congressional search engine identified as pertaining to ‘income tax collected at source.’ How can Line 43, “TAXABLE INCOME” of the 2009 (or current year) 1040 form contain a true value?

Your last paragraph comes from the document, "Liberty for Dummies" in post #18 of this thread.... try to give credit where credit is due.

Bentley

LearnTheLaw
04-20-13, 02:03 PM
Your last paragraph comes from the document, "Liberty for Dummies" in post #18 of this thread.... try to give credit where credit is due.

Bentley


It appears that Chex is trying to pass on useful info, not pass it off as a "Quote" from himself?

You can either use it or not, but attacking someone who is trying to help educate you may not be beneficial to you in the long run.

Bentley
04-20-13, 06:27 PM
It appears that Chex is trying to pass on useful info, not pass it off as a "Quote" from himself?

You can either use it or not, but attacking someone who is trying to help educate you may not be beneficial to you in the long run.

Whoa, Bro... nobody's attacking anybody here. Chex quoted family guardian paragraph and correctly referenced the link http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxe...SSNs.htm#1.5.2., and other references are correct. Probably it was just an oversight. Asking for consistency wasn't meant to attack anyone. Sorry for the misinterpretation.

Bentley

Franco
05-07-13, 11:03 PM
Would anybody know whether , “…the Nomen family” would be your Middle name(true name) or LAST NAME (legal name)? to me it shows capital –small case letters so it has to be true name)paragraph 1.
On paragraph 2 below , it shows “Nomen” and “NOMEN” ? Would that be “Nomen” Middle name, ‘NOMAN” ? MIDDLE NAME? OR “Nomen” Last Name, or “NOMEN” LAST NAME?
1. “Comes now Petitioner of the Nomen family making a special visitation by absolute ministerial right to the district court, "restricted appearance" under Rule E(8)….”
2. “The district courts have "exclusive original cognizance" of all inland seizures and
this includes vessels in rem (Rule C(3))
such as trust organizations and legal names (abbreviated name.
Nomen, PETITIONER NOMEN, Respondent, Henry Paulson, John Snow etc.)”
Above why Nomen, then PETITIONER NOMEN ?
Sorry can’t grasp it, here. All opinions appreciated Franco

Michael Joseph
05-08-13, 01:59 AM
Cognomen = FAMILY NAME.

Christian Name or Given Name or Baptismal Name = what most would call First Middle although that is incorrect in my opinion = True Name.

True Name + Cognomen [Family Name] = Legal Name

Some folks refer to the FAMILY NAME as the Business Name. I tend to Agree. Just ask Mr. Smith.

Respondent, Henry Paulson? - seems like Henry PAULSON is out of office these days - I'll wager he is enjoying a private capacity.

If I was you, and you are considering a Libel of Review pursuit, I would make myself very aware of EVERYTHING that is written in that LoR - BECAUSE once you issue it, it is your process, your issue and your liability. I "somewhat" modified mine within the confines of its intent.

It is an easy thing for a judge to look up a plagiarism :

1. Free Plagiarism Checker (http://plagiarisma.net/)

2. The Plagiarism Checker (http://www.dustball.com/cs/plagiarism.checker/)

Oh yeah because I love to tie things back to Scripture:

Job 32:21 Let me not, I pray you, accept any man's person, neither let me give flattering titles unto man.

1. Notice this verse specifies MAN
2. And Man's PERSON

Furthermore lets check out the Hebrew for Flattering Titles: I wonder what the Hebrew says:

H3655
ka?na?h

A primitive root; to address by an additional name; hence, to eulogize: - give flattering titles, surname (himself).


Now then Mr. SMITH do you feel flattered?

Lets see what Johnny B. has to say about Cognomen and Family Name, shall we?

COGNOMEN. A Latin word, which signifies a family name. The praenomen among the Romans distinguished the person, the nomen, the gens, or all the kindred descended from a remote common stock through males, while the cognomen denoted the particular family. The agnomen was added on account of some particular event, as a further distinction. Thus, in the designation Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus, Publius is the proenomen, Cornelius is the nomen, Scipio the cognomen, and Africanus the agnomen. Vicat. These several terms occur frequently in the Roman laws. See Cas. temp. Hardw. 286; 1 Tayl. 148. See Name; Surname.


Shall we see what Johnny B. has to say about Surname?

SURNAME. A name which is added to the christian name, and which, in modern times, have become family names.

2. They are called surnames, because originally they were written over the name in judicial writings and contracts. They were and are still used for the purpose of distinguishing persons of the same name. They were taken from something attached to the persons assuming them, as John Carpenter, Joseph Black, Samuel Little, &c. See Name.

Comment: So Johnny B. tell us that Family Name = Cognomen = Surname.

Shall we see what Johnny B. has to say about Name?

NAME. One or more words used to distinguish a particular individual, as Socrates, Benjamin Franklin.

2. The Greeks, as is well known, bore only one name, and it was one of the especial rights of a father to choose the names for his children and to alter them if he pleased. It was customary to give to the eldest son the name of the grandfather on his father's side. The day on which children received their names was the tenth after their birth. The tenth day, called 'denate,' was a festive day, and friends and relatives were invited to take part in a sacrifice and a repast. If in a court of justice proofs could be adduced that a father had held the denate, it was sufficient evidence that be had recognized the child as his own. Smith's Diet. of Greek and Rom. Antiq. h. v.

3. Among the Romans, the division into races, and the subdivision of races into families, caused a great multiplicity of names. They had first the pronomen, which was proper to the person; then the nomen, belonging to his race; a surname or cognomen, designating the family; and sometimes an agnomen, which indicated the branch of that family in which the author has become distinguished. Thus, for example, Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus; Publius is the pronomen; Cornelius, the nomen, designating the name of the race Cornelia; Scipio, the cognomen, or surname of the family; and Africanus, the agnomen, which indicated his exploits.

4. Names are divided into Christian names, as, Benjamin, and surnames, as, Franklin.

5. No man can have more than one Christian name; 1 Ld. Raym. 562; Bac. Ab. Misnomer, A; though two or more names usually kept separate, as John and Peter, may undoubtedly be compounded, so as to form, in contemplation of law, but one. 5 T. R. 195. A letter put between the Christian and surname, as an abbreviation of a part of the Christian name, as, John B. Peterson, is no part of either. 4 Watts' R. 329; 5 John. R. 84; 14 Pet. R. 322; 3 Pet. R. 7; 2 Cowen. 463; Co. Litt. 3 a; 1 Ld. Raym. 562; , Vin. Ab. Misnomer, C 6, pl. 5 and 6: Com. Dig. Indictment, G 1, note u; Willes, R. 654; Bac. Abr. Misnomer and Addition; 3 Chit. Pr. 164 to 173; 1 Young, R. 602. But see 7 Watts & Serg. 406.

11. When a person uses a name in making a contract under seal, he will not be permitted to say that it is not his name; as, if he sign and seal a bond " A and B," (being his own and his partner's name,) and he had no authority from bis partner to make such a deed, he cannot deny that bis name is A. & B. 1 Raym. 2; 1 Salk. 214. And if a man describes himself in the body of a deed by the name of James and signs it John, he cannot, on being sued by the latter name, plead that his name is James. 3 Taunt. 505; Cro. Eliz. 897, n. a. Vide 3 P. & D. 271; 11 Ad. & L. 594.


Comment: For all of you who believe so strongly in names - get a good read of 11. A name is simply a TOOL - a wrench in which one makes a Use.


Shalom,
MJ

Franco
05-08-13, 04:48 AM
Michael Joseph thank you for the education. I am glad I asked, I had no idea. If I need to further research I have a starting point now. I had not even heard the word ,”Cognomen, Nomen, pronomer”, until you wrote about it in your document. By the way it was still customary in some of my older families to give the son the name of the grandfather. I did it when I gave my son , my father’s name. However I am the last of the mohicans , it is not followed anymore by the new generations. (progress and change must go on)
I have come to believe that suitors on this cite are professionals in some profession or are very well educated people. By the way I understand what I needed to know. Thank you my friend , it was much appreciated.
Oh and thank you for the heads-up on the plagiarism checker.
Franco

EZrhythm
05-29-13, 12:37 AM
Job 32:21 Let me not, I pray you, accept any man's person, neither let me give flattering titles unto man.

1. Notice this verse specifies MAN
2. And Man's PERSON

Furthermore lets check out the Hebrew for Flattering Titles: I wonder what the Hebrew says:

H3655
ka?na?h

A primitive root; to address by an additional name; hence, to eulogize: - give flattering titles, surname (himself).




Excellent post and use of scripture!

Here is another; http://www.biblestudytools.com/proverbs/17-18-compare.html
A man lacking in judgment strikes hands in pledge and puts up security for his neighbor.

...I believe this also includes allowing one self to become surety for the FIRST MIDDLE LAST.

Michael Joseph
05-29-13, 01:50 AM
Excellent post and use of scripture!

Here is another; http://www.biblestudytools.com/proverbs/17-18-compare.html
A man lacking in judgment strikes hands in pledge and puts up security for his neighbor.

...I believe this also includes allowing one self to become surety for the FIRST MIDDLE LAST.

Thank you.



Pro_22:26 Be not thou one of them that strike hands, or of them that are sureties for debts.

and notice the curious language the the Army Captain uses:

Isa 36:5 ....I have counsel and strength for war: now on whom dost thou trust, that thou rebellest against me?

Isa 36:6 Lo, thou trustest in the staff of this broken reed, on Egypt; whereon if a man lean, it will go into his hand, and pierce it: so is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all that trust in him.

Isa 36:7 But if thou say to me, We trust in Yehovah our Elohim: is it not He, whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah hath taken away, and said to Judah and to Jerusalem, Ye shall worship before this altar?

Look how the enemy speaks of TRUST. I ask today where do people place their Trust - in Egypt because of its strong Military - that's where.

Isa 36:8 Now therefore give pledges, I pray thee, to my master the king of Assyria, and I will give thee two thousand horses, if thou be able on thy part to set riders upon them.

Isa 36:9 How then wilt thou turn away the face of one captain of the least of my master's servants, and put thy trust on Egypt for chariots and for horsemen?


Now then the Enemy goes to far - just like today:

Isa 36:14 Thus saith the king, Let not Hezekiah deceive you: for he shall not be able to deliver you.

Isa 36:15 Neither let Hezekiah make you trust in the LORD, saying, The LORD will surely deliver us: this city shall not be delivered into the hand of the king of Assyria.

Isa 36:16 Hearken not to Hezekiah: for thus saith the king of Assyria, Make an agreement with me by a present, and come out to me: and eat ye every one of his vine, and every one of his fig tree, and drink ye every one the waters of his own cistern;


Did you notice the enemy speaks of a Fee Simple estate - own vine and own fig - BUT the enemy shows himself - notice the curious word CISTERN. Wouldn't you prefer a well - a Cistern is only as good as the water in it. Once empty it must be refilled.

I like this song. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3g9_dnjaFY)

"They took all the trees, and put em in a tree museum
And they charged the people twenty five dollars just to see them"


That to me friend is an example of a cistern! But to the Spiritual Man - one who does not need Pastor to refill his cistern may rivers of waters - Spirit - flow out of his belly. That my friend is a well. Have you ever studied the city of Jerusalem. Did you ever notice that the Virgin Pool - is without the city? Consider what I am saying. So then the king built a conduit that would allow the water to flow into the city to the Pool of Siloam. Consider now what a cistern is and a well. I prefer the well.

Sign here and here and here and here and here.......

Shalom,
MJ

Chex
05-29-13, 12:09 PM
I prefer the well. Sign here and here and here and here and here.......


So I should just get up and walk away from the things I signed for? I had trust in you, and you raped me.

Michael Joseph
05-29-13, 08:20 PM
So I should just get up and walk away from the things I signed for? I had trust in you, and you raped me.

If you are asking me, then well, there you go again. Why ask if you don't trust in me? You really don't want me to answer this - I can tell. I am saddened that "you" raped "you".

This choice of words utilized in such as statement is a poor net cast upon, well, who knows "you"? Who is "you"? One thing is for sure it ain't me. But since one testifies, to quote: "I had trust in you" meaning that one made someone their sovereign - and what?, the sovereign made one do a thing one did not want to do? Well now, who again made one place one's trust there? I think the someone might be found in the mirror.

A door does not open by itself. I am still looking for one's name on a Dollar? I can't seem to find mine. How about yours? Do you see your name on the Dollar? But who is you? So I will just say I don't see "you" or the man or woman acting in or for the persona Chex, or for that matter, the persona named Chex upon the Dollar? Why is that? It is your money right? There I go again....who is "your"?

Cast this net upon some other waters - there are no fish here to collect.

Shalom,
MJ

Freed Gerdes
06-07-13, 03:12 AM
Let's try to identify some of Chex's pronouns. Perhaps he is referring to the US Treasury, which tricked him into debt servitude with words of art and legal presumptions. Suppose you make a demand for lawful money to the Federal Reserve; it is their money, so they have to redeem it. Now register your legal name in your state as a dba (a Ficticious Name, ie, a legal 'person'). Now you (the natural person declarant) have rebutted the presumption that you want to traffic in FRN's, and pay 'income' taxes on those. He (declarant) has also redeemed his estate out of the US Government's bankruptcy, thus removing the liens held by the Treasury due to the use of debt money, so now he has legal title to his estate, held under the legal name dba, registered and recognized by a state of the union. Thus he is no longer under the Treasury usufructuary trust, as he is no longer 'in the US,' but is now dba in a state. Since a trust only has validity when it has assets in it, by redeeming his estate he has collapsed the Treasury's trust, ie "I have no trust in the US Treasury." He now resides in the material world, in a trust granted to Man by God, where he again has unalienable rights, including the right to own property (this is still a usufructuary trust, but God gives better terms than the US govt). Thus he has chosen (which is a First Amendment right) to put his trust in the republic founded under the Constitution, which has accepted that the material world is in a trust granted by God ('In God We Trust' approved by US Congress in 1861), and forswears the trust granted by the US corporate govt on the presumption that he is dead (which has also been rebutted). Now there can be no constructive trust presumed by the courts since there is no original trust in the corporate government; there are only contracts, and those only entered knowingly and voluntarily. This would not be walking away from what you signed. It would be intentionally rebutting the presumptions by which the corporate government is trying to control you, since you volunteered. Call it unvolunteering.

Freed G

xparte
09-17-15, 05:25 PM
Going over the old posts is as important as finding a new friend .A busy travelled road one day is a peaceful drive another. highway 61 revised MJ Merrill Chx

allodial
09-17-15, 05:32 PM
Let's try to identify some of Chex's pronouns. Perhaps he is referring to the US Treasury, which tricked him into debt servitude with words of art and legal presumptions. ...

Was it the Treasury or Congress which created the FRB?

Chex
09-17-15, 08:14 PM
Suppose you make a demand for lawful money to the Federal Reserve; it is their money, so they have to redeem it. Freed G

LOL! Been there done that. I asked them and they said they have nothing to do with redemption of FRN's.

So who is the only beast left?

Was it the Treasury or Congress which created the FRB?

Richmond said " Federal Reserve Banks were established by the Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system. Many of the services provided to depository institutions and the federal government by this network of Reserve Banks are similar to services provided by commercial banks and thrift institutions to business customers and individuals. However, the Federal Reserve Banks do not provide banking services, including accounts, to individuals". https://www.richmondfed.org/faqs/frs

Freeman
01-13-16, 07:03 AM
Bentley, David prepared the generic suit (which exceeds the requirements for a simple generic demand for lawful money) as an example for me, as I was contemplating suing the Federal Reserve to make them enforce the demand on Bank of America, which has been offering to stonewall my demand. The key here is that the demand, based in Federal law at 12 USC §411, is self-executing: the law says explicitly 'they shall be redeemed on demand...' Thus all you have to do is make the demand ('Just say the word and I shall be healed'). Whether the bank responds correctly to your demand is not your problem; specifically, it is the Federal Reserve's problem, as they are designated as supervisors of the banks. Presumably you are at the adjunct where you are contemplating making the demand, in which case you can skip suing the Fed; just use the text specific to your demand, and serve it on your bank (a Certified Letter with return receipt requested is sufficient). Your copy of the letter/demand, plus your return receipt, proves that you made the demand, and that the bank received notice of your demand. At that point, you have redeemed lawful money, and transactions at that bank are now outside the jurisdiction of Title 26, ie, they are not taxable income. Does this clear up your confusion?

Freed

Are you able to start redeeming lawful by endorsing the back of the check before you send out the NaD that will be served to the bank? Is there somewhere I can read to what exactly can be redeemed as lawful money?

David Merrill
01-13-16, 05:34 PM
If you begin thinking of redemption as non-endorsement I believe you will start to understand your own subsequent questions.

Freeman
01-13-16, 09:18 PM
thanks david, i referred back to one of the articles you authored https://keystoliberty2.wordpress.com/tag/title-12-section-411/ and to another section on forum where you seem to elaborate more, I think I'm starting to make this a little more complicated than it has to be. The problem for me personally is the learning process, I am more of a hands on learner, and with the redeeming process I've been gathering too much information without putting it into context of actually working with it, so it feels as if I'm jumping around. But with some of the videos and audio files I've found on here it seems to be helping.

marcel
09-06-22, 12:44 AM
Are [Federal] Reserve Bank employees government employees?
No.

https://www.richmondfed.org/faqs/fr