Oh, so you have no lawful money bank account. Thanks for that.
Maybe allodial person does.
Oh, so you have no lawful money bank account. Thanks for that.
Maybe allodial person does.
The banks are *supposed* to simply provide notice to the Treasury Dept. when a bank account is opened without an SSN and open a non-interest bearing account. In some countries interest-bearing accounts are the only option.
I have tended to recommend to the furthest extent possible that accounts never be opened in one's name, non-statutory entities preferable. I'm unaware of have any bank accounts in my name. Even cops have complimented me on this point.
Greedy relatives and stalkers and shady folk aren't happy with that kind of thing when they can't find out where you bank or what name the accounts might be in and if one dies or becomes incapacitated they don't get anything through probate--so knocking you off for money loses its attraction (i.e. no probate and they aren't next of kin to a business).
I've heard stories of "good sweet daughters" who drained their mom's bank accounts and maxed out credit cards while she was in the hospital because of being certain mom was gonna die.
Wolves hate it when sheep aren't easy to eat.
OK thanks, sounds like you don't use bank accounts. Are you taking advantage of the remedy (from private credit) that Congress has made available?
Can still do it for company accounts. But as I mentioned, if making bonds/notes/bills are denominated in lawful money--they don't need to be 'redeemed for lawful money'. At the mortgage table and car note desk chances are the promise to pay involves "dollars in the lawful money of the United States (or United States of America)". The typical check is in DOLLARS and the $ symbol is typically in a box.
As mentioned, a fictitious reg. or a certificate of authority + an IRS EIN assignment can be utilized as part of opening accounts. Also a company can open accounts as a trustee/agent with account titles like "COMPANY CO AAF JOHN DOE".
Very interesting answer, thank you. If my questions make you at all uncomfortable simply tell me. I wonder ... if presented an out-of-state check as payment for services ... what would you do with it?
I could hand to one of my trustees or deposit it in the appropriate account myself. I tend to have the trustees take care of those things. The Trustee or whoever can deposit it in exchange for credit on account or mark it redeemed for lawful money. These days I can take a scan of a check and deposit it electronically. I have found using injket printers to be more convenient than stamps although I do have access to stamp making services.
Paypal is another viable payment receipt method.
Me and banks...long story. I avoid them. It became clear to me that in the US in the past 20 years or so purpose has been to obstruct/prevent/interfere and spy. In the past say five years I have spent more time teaching branch managers than getting useful services out of them. If I got involved directly it would likely be me talking with bank counsel rather than a teller. Of course, I am for redeeming for lawful money or non-endorsement. Point was -> inkjets can be used instead of stamps to do non-endorsement--using practice/test blanks helps prevent ruining a check. Knowing what color socks I wear probably isn't going to assist with remedy unless you want to be as cool as me. Have you met Shoonra yet?
P.S. Trying psychology on me is LOL. "These aren't are the droids you're looking for."
"They" call it a "Fictitious Registration" or "Fictitious Name Registration" i.e. where one 'registers' a d/b/a. Oddly enough one state had such a form that had an agreement to a prison penalty for making false statements or misrepresentations in connection with a fictitiousname registration...
Attachment 2270
--wuut?
For State of Colorado its referred to as "Statement of Trade Name".
P.S. As for fake ID, maybe try your local DMV or passport office?
The quality of the content here at StSC is astounding!
For your and the readers' sake I also add this:
Even internationally a bank such as Citibank will likely have an arrangement with a bank in say the UK whereby there is a post office box in UK where checks can be mailed for deposit to Citibank (USA) accounts. Basically two banks in different jurisdiction that are correspondents often have a system whereby one can send a check to a PO box and deposit in that country so that to the sender it seems like the deposit is being made locally. Queen Bank (UK) might have its 'USA gateway' bank as Bank of NY(USA) for the UK meaning someone in the US could deposit into an account at Queen Bank (UK) by check by sending the check to a PO Box at Bank of New York in the US!
Instead of Western Union, if you are in, say, Papau New Guinea and Granny is uncomfortable with sending you a check overseas or the like, you could have them send it to say a PO Box of their correspondent (you might arrange a special/indirect account # so that the deposit can be simple). To the Granny in the USA it would seem as if she was depositing to a USA bank. The banks would handle the correspondent arrangement internally and the funds would wind up at your bank at PNG. You might have to make special arrangements for a unique account number to simplify things for Granny.
As for fees, that would be on a case by case basis. Basically doing one's homework is key. You can go into any branch and ask for their list of international and domestic correspondents. I've been lied to by bank staff around the world but in the USA, they've tended to take it to a whole different level of lying.
I had bank staff lie to me once upon a time (surprise?) saying such didn't exist--I contacted the president of the bank and he was upset and forced them to hand me their book with the information I wanted.
Just FYI. Keeping a list of your banks international and domestic correspondents can be very helpful.
P.S. The same can apply to wire transfers or EFT (as the term is used overseas).
Something like this?
A bankers’ bank, which is organized and chartered to do business with other banks, is generally owned by the banks it services. Bankers’ banks, which do not conduct business directly with the public, offer correspondent banking services to independent community banks, thrifts, credit unions, and real estate investment trusts. Bankers’ banks provide services directly, through outsourcing arrangements, or by sponsoring or endorsing third parties. The products bankers’ banks offer normally consist of traditional correspondent banking services. Bankers’ banks should have risk-based policies, procedures, and processes to manage the BSA/AML risks involved in these correspondent relationships to detect and report suspicious activities. http://www.ffiec.gov/bsa_aml_infobas...al/OLM_045.htm or this http://listofbanksin.com/List-of-cor...WIFT-Codes.htm
Well not always necessarily a 'banker's bank'. The FRB is a banker's bank. The FRB is basically a correspondent system for banks--think correspondent as in 'pen pals'. By having accounts at a common FI (the FRB) banks can 'correspond' financially. Any bank that offers correspondent services might offer international or domestic correspondent services. Say you have an account with Tiny Bank in Arkansas. That bank might have a correspondent relationship with Bank of New York whereby someone can deposit into your account at Bank of New York as if it was done directly Tiny Bank. In other words you don't necessarily need to have an account at multiple banks to pull some things off and its possible to have an 'dummy account' at BoNY that BoNY that will cause deposits at BoNY to be deposited at Tiny Bank through the correspondent relationship. Basically one bank might provide services to yet another bank and vice versa. They simply correspond. If you look into the history of banks and credit cards, you'll likely see that money and post or courier services were usually 'married'. Look at Chase and Wells Fargo history. Banks provide courier services among other services or so-called services (if obstructing commerce is a service).
Of course Visa, Mastercard or Western Union would love for you to think that you always need them. The catch of course can be in the fees. If your transactions are frequent or high-dollar enough it might not matter. Are you surprised that it might cost a bank only $.20 cents to send a Wire Transfer but they charge $20 for the service?
Also MAJOR TIP: it is often easier to open an overseas account at a CORRESPONDENT OF YOUR BANK than any other bank. Because in a sense because that your bank has an account with that bank you already have an account. But no one told you--except me. And Captain Obvious would be pleading to interject that once you do that, it would be very very easy to fund that account through the CORRESPONDENT RELATIONSHIP.
Someone just anyone could just for fun go to their bank and ask for a list of their foreign/international correspondents and just give a general report here. There used to be a book that banks kept on hand that lists ALL KNOWN bank's correspondents in the world-thick like a phonebook. When you ask they might ask you to specify the country. You could ask for China. Ask them to give you all details: typically name of bank, IBAN, SWIFT, box service info, etc. You can even ask them for domestic (US) correspondents. That information allows you to see what banks your bank is connected to throughout the USA and throughout "the world".
Consider that this information is helpful if you travel and want to deposit a check into your USA account while you are overseas or vice versa. The information has always been there but...they weren't necessarily motivated to tell you...and perhaps you weren't all that motivated to ask.
Attachment 2272
I am hearing that people are having success opening a bank account without stating an SSN using a passport and a W-8BEN, indicating that the NAME is a non-resident alien.
http://famguardian.org/taxfreedom/In...lingStatus.htm
I like •3.17 Quit Social Security and Rescind the number assigned to you, and I want the contributions my employer and I put into the SSA account.
Termination at the request of the recipient.
There are 14 Updates appearing in the Federal Register for 20 CFR 416. http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/20/416.1333
Someone I know visited an SSA office and asked if there was a form that existed to terminate the card account, benefit etc. The desk clerk (helpful) searched for any such form. The desk clerk was asked if there was a Form 521 and if there were instructions. Being helpful (I witnessed this) she went to find her manager who insisted there was no such thing..no such for..no way to cancel/terminate the card/account etc. So the next step was to go get the form which was out in the car. Went to the same clerk, showed her the form. She showed sincere surprise, she was asked if there were instructions for the form. She went to the manager. When the manager saw the form (a butchish, redhead female) she could not contain her self. She SHRIEKED "HOW DID HE GET THAT?!" and red-faced, angry and caught in a lie by multiple witnesses scurried back into her office out of sight. So that form must be 'insignificant' right?
Form 521 won't cancel/terminate the card/account. It's a request to cancel your application for SS benefits. Doesn't apply to most of working America. http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/withdrawal.htm
Thank you for taking time out of your day to address our humble gathering.
AFAIK both the card itself and the account are a benefit. To cancel the account, I would suspect that a very direct written cancellation rather than a "request" to cancel might be better. If the form wasn't suitable for withdrawing the card/account benefit I suspect the branch manager wouldn't have been in such a storm.
Related: Withdraw from Social Security
Let us say ...
Mabel has operated a diner from a building near the road on her property for a long time. It's called Mabel's Kitchen. The business entity started as a sole proprietorship - Mabel Smith d/b/a Mabel's Kitchen. She never registered the DBA (Doing Business As) nor the trade name.
Now Mabel is getting on in years and her children now handle most of the work. Also, much of her business is now coming from catering & online sales of "Mabels" branded products. For these and other reasons Mabel considers incorporating the business but finally decides to form a trust - MABEL'S KITCHEN TRUST - on 2/19/2015.
Now on 2/20/15 everyone arrives at the diner and told the business entity has changed, but she doesn't change the restaurant signage and continues to answer the phone as Mabel's Kitchen. That's the trade name the new trust will continue to use. The business continues to use the old bank account seemingly without any issues.
Sole Proprietorships tend to be associated with Fictitious Name Registrations -> Mabel Smith d/b/a Mabel's Kitchen. MABEL'S KITCHEN TRUST (i.e. the trustee or the trust corpus in action) can file a fictitious name registration showing that it is d/b/a Mabel's Kitchen. If she got an IRS EIN assignment its possible she could have opened the bank account without filing a DBA locally.
The bank and the IRS can be given a copy of the power of attorney effectively given to the trustee/trust over "Mabel's Kitchen" and over any the existing accounts. She can give consent to the use of the trade name intellectual property in writing as part of the trust declaration. The new trust can also establish separate bank accounts. If Mabel never registered the old dba, likely the bank accounts are in the name Mabel Smith unless she managed to get the bank to open it that way--and so still she can do up a power of attorney to the trustee /trust.
It tends to be rather 'universal' that a DBA need not be filed if the 'name' of the business has the name of the proprietor. As in Mable Smith having a company name Mabel's Diner might be exempt from requirement to register a dba.
Mabel Smith will want to be very particular about how she forms the trust (it could be a living trust, revocable, irrevocable trust, etc.) and how real property, intellectual property or other property are transferred to the trust. Real property transfers might be best done by filing in the Real Estate records of the respective county/parish were applicable.
Depending on the way the new trust is established, Mabel Smith could be the senior trustee and appoint a successor trustee.
I've heard that LLC and trust entities are not required to file an annual report. Sounds like an advantage.
The same might apply to general partnerships (and sole proprietorship. Re: LLCs, might vary from State to State. Also, looking into what constitutes "doing business" might be worthwhile. Because one might believe something is "doing business" in a State when it isn't.
Related:
Relarded: Work for years paying 6.2% into Social Security, then terminate your eligibility for benefits so you'll never see a dime of it.
Some argue that corporations, LLCs, are as governmental entities, since their limited liability is the result of government fiat, rather than contractual dealings among individuals. Thus in some ways corporations have more rights than individuals.
It was not until 1886, after a series of cases brought by lawyers representing the expanding railroad interests, that the Supreme Court ruled that corporations were “persons” and entitled to the same rights (actually more) granted to individual people under the Bill of Rights. This sinister ruling, discussed by Thom Hartmann in his 2002 book Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and The Theft of Human Rights (Rodale Press) has led to the corporate dominance of the individual – a thoroughly un-American state of affairs. As Hartmann points out, the largest transnational corporations fill a role today that has historically been filled by kings. They control most of the world's wealth and exert power over the lives of most of the world's citizens. And they pretty much own the U.S. government: the revolving door between corporate boardrooms and the top echelons of all recent administrations is no secret.
http://www.objectivistliving.com/for...howtopic=14258
The way the STATE gets around God’s Law and thereby controls the People is by creating only an office, and not a real human.
This office is titled as “person” and then the legislature claims that you are filling that office.
Legislators erroneously now think that they can make laws that also control men.
They create entire bodies of laws – motor vehicle code, building code, compulsory education laws, and so on.
They still cannot control men or women, but they can now control the office they created. And look who is sitting in that office of a “person” — YOU.
Since corporations act only through their officers, employees, etc., the income tax statutes reach out to them when acting in their official capacities, but not as individuals.
This is the real purpose for Identifying Numbers -- cf. 26 CFR 301.6109-1(d) [(D) An individual, whether U.S. or foreign, who is an employer or who is engaged in a trade or business as a sole proprietor should use an employer identification number as required byreturns, statements, or other documents and their related instructions.] & (g)
Special rules for taxpayer identifying numbers issued to foreign persons https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/301.6109-1
and 26 USC 6331(a) and 26 CFR 301.6331-1, Part 4.
That is right. No man can require of another man to do anything. But if a man takes an office and that office has certain duties and obligations subject to certain liabilities and therefore benefits, then the man who is now in office can be made to perform upon his office.
Consider what happens when one UNDERTAKES on behalf of another. That is a one-sided contract. In my opinion, when one flips a cheque over and issues a "naked endorsement" that is a Nudem Pactum. Therefore in PRESUMPTION the office of TAXPAYER is filled by a Grantee/Trustee.
These offices are understood by Faith. But whereof is Love? Shall it be birthed by Faith? To hear the Religionists today you would think so. But this is not The Way. Faith should be birthed out of Love not the other way around. The system of persons requires a "higher power" to Administrate and promote Justice.
The premise is simple..... "If you give your Word, then perform your Word".
Enter insurance stage left. This insurance is the means to "attempt" to remove the Ever Living God from the midst of government. An improper oath of office is no oath at all and therefore the performance of said office requires the consent of men and women as Grantor's of their good Faith in Trust.
Basically, these bogus officers are independent business operators posing as officers of State being understood by insurance policies. "May I have your business card?"
Best Regards,
Michael Joseph
The 14th Amendment was about giving corporations status as citizens under the guise of giving so-called "negroes" access to citizenship. "negro" and and "necro" refer to 'dead' or 'civilly dead' of corporations, slaves and married women. Generally, brown-skinned people never needed the 14th amendment technically because they always had access to citizenship or nationality in the states of America. However, those who were "born slaves" and agreeably so were the only ones who the 14th amendment would help. But the trick was to malign brown-skinned people, coercing a franchise on people that didn't necessarily need it. Furthermore, it might be that career soldiers and military companies would need the 14th amendment. It might not be a coincidence that standing armies in the U.S. arrived around the time of the 14th amendment.
The reason they are filling roles historically filled by kings might be because they are under the direction of some king or sovereign.
Another thing about corporations...
Quote:
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. Genesis 1:30 KJV
According to Blackstone and the Congressional Record corporations regarded to be souless. Do corporations eat? The Congressional Record also shows that the Congress only legislates over corporations rather than over living souls.Quote:
And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
...
And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. 31And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. Genesis 1:28 and 30 ESV
Continuing re: corporations
Quote:
And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? 27He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.
Mark 12:26-27
Is it any surprise that in a corporate venue there could be said to be no "common law"?Quote:
Quote:
There is no body of Federal common law separate and distinct from the common law existing in the several States in the sense that there is a body of statute law enacted by Congress separate and distinct from the body of statute law enacted by the several States. But it is an entirely different thing to hold that there is no common law in force generally throughout the United States, and that the countless multitude of interstate commercial transactions are subject to no rules and burdened by no restrictions other than those expressed in the statutes of Congress. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Call Publishing Co.
181 U.S. 92 (1901)
Excellent post...by someone who never actually did this. Because if you did, you might find your experience to be similar to mine, where the bank decides it no longer wants to do business with you and closes your accounts.
Because believe me, when it comes to deciding between what the IRS wants and what a bank customer wants, the manager will choose the IRS every time if they want to keep their job.
I've had this happen to me twice when I went to war with the IRS to prevent them from getting my bank records back in 2010-2011. To solve this problem I simply stopped doing business with banks. They aren't trustworthy (to say the least) and don't deserve my business.