Done. Thank you.
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...and-healthcare
Printable View
Done. Thank you.
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...and-healthcare
This is AMAZING that I am reading this! I just, an hour ago, came from my bank asking to change/amend my signature card with the "Lawful Money" statement and the person I talked to said exactly what you have stated here. Thankfully she didn't make a decision based on her statement. She called "Legal" who said I must submit to them in writing why I want to add the statement to my accounts, which they will review and decide whether to approve the addition of said statement.
Any ideas what I should include as my "why"?
First off - get the request in writing.
As banks persist in exercising this option we might consider notifying the Fed about our demand, getting that into an evidence repository and just serving that same marked up Notice on the bank and forgetting about Signature Cards altogether. This is tiring.
Amen David!
*Make the demand by NOTICE.
*Use proper record forming.
Now where do the benefits of making the demand occur?
"...for all taxes, customs, and other public dues." [FRA Section 16 Note Issues; http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section16.htm ]
CC a copy of one's demand to any tax agency of perceived detriment and again don't forget proper record forming.
I have been trying to have the "Redemption" novation added to my accounts or even a plainly stated denial of my request. Here is what has transpired thus far;
This my original letter to M & T bank. Attachment 1210
In addition I called the headquarters in Buffalo, NY and spoke with the customer care manager. Here is the reply I got. Attachment 1212
In reply I sent the following; Attachment 1209 and as a response I got this; Attachment 1211
They are clearly trying to avoid being on record either allowing a lawful money acct., or denying my request for one.
I shall be attempting to open accts at BoA and or Wells Fargo next week.
Yes , Thanks for the post!
Interesting that both of the banks replies stated that if you had any questions about FRN's contact the U.S.Treasury......the first entity listed in 12 § 411!
This is my contention, screw the banks....send your Demand to the U.S. Treasury.
FWIW DARKMAGUS, you left your name showing on one of the docs.....make sure you redact your name on all posted docs!
Thanks gdude, I overlooked that. Actually my first posting had to be deleted because I left my ACCOUNT NUMBER on one of the docs! LOL Sheesh!
Oh well, won't be my account for long anyway.
Freed: You have gone to a great degree of trouble in your quest with BofA. I appreciate your adventurous spirit and willingness to share the details of your quest. However, I'm wondering if you are "tilting at windmills" like Don Quixote. I'm not being critical here, please don't interpret my comments in any personal manner. I'm just trying to clarify what your objectives are. Maybe the quest is your objective, I'm grateful that you would do that. However, if your objective is to actually get an account opened with "Redeemed in Lawful Money" (RLM) and associated verbiage on the signature card and have your direct deposit transactions deposited into it, then I'd make the following suggestion. Find a local state chartered bank and open an account there. I did that 3 or 4 years ago, and have been redeeming lawful money both with non-endorsed checks and like you with Social Security direct deposits. I have not tried to open an account for RLM in the last 12 months, but I have 3 accounts with the same bank all with RLM on the signature cards and have never heard a peep from them. Just my $.02 worth.
I was going through the responses and did not find exactly my case. I opened a bank account in 1996. Later on I changed it to a revocable living trust account. A few weeks ago, the bank rep said the bank needed an update signature card. I said no problem. I signed By: John Doe, trustee, authorized signature. Underneath there was plenty of space to write: All transactions on this account are intended by demand to be redeemed in Lawful Money per 12 USC 411. Nunc pro tunc. This new signature card was done on 11-29-2013.
I decided to go back to the bank rep who is also a notary and asked her to do a notarized affidavit with the following verbiage:
On this 9th day of December 2013, I attest that the proceeding and attached document is a true, exact complete unaltered photocopy made by me of the ABC Bank signature card for JOHN DOE, as individual and trustee for the account 1XXXXX123 with the original opening of the account of December 13, 1996 and revised on November 29, 2013. The following was added to the bottom of the signature card: All transactions on this account are intended by demand to be redeemed in Lawful Money per 12 USC 411. Nunc pro tunc.
The rep signed this and notarized this AND the actual signature card.
Today, 12-13, I got a call from the rep and was told I need to come back and change the signature card as the bank does not accept the verbiage. I said to the rep, please have the bank send me a letter. And the conversation ended.
So this is my question: I am way past the 3 days - RFC. In reading different posts, I see the bank CAN close the account AND in other posts, the bank will try and trick you to close the account. The fact remains that I do have a notarized statement and signature card. Does the bank have the right to close the account without my acceptance? Does the bank have the right to ignore the demand for lawful money? What type of deceptive tricks can the bank really do?
My first thoughts were if the bank sent a threatening letter, I would send a response "something like" - I am under the impression that ABC Bank is part of the national banking system and must provide service to the public. The entity I use, John Doe is public property and therefore you must provide service. I am deeply concerned for the well-being of the public and the use of FRN increases the public debt; therefore causing a serious harm to the public. I believe the bank has had ample opportunity to reject the signature card but has NOW since waived its right. Therefore, if ABC Bank refuses to follow the laws of the US, including but not limited to accepting the demand for lawful money per 12 USC 411, I am left little choice but to forward this information for review and investigation by the OCC, FRB and SOT. Yours truly, Nice Guy
Oh I should also tell you I have been banking not only personally for about 3 years but also business depositing business check "redeemed in lawful money" for about a year. On the business, I probably deposited $800k in checks LOL. I can not answer for certain but I can suspect the tellers may have not done any special processing on those checks. I do not want anyone fired.
Any suggestions would be appreciated. Tony
The banks' refusal of demands for lawful money are a stall tactic, designed to infuse doubt into the claim. The bank service agreement contains a lot of opportunities to create implied contracts, making you admit to being a 'US citizen' (read: debt slave), and stating that the bank will ignore anything written on the back of your check besides your endorsement. If you file your notice and demand in the public record, and then serve it on the bank, the demand will supercede the implied contracts on the bank signature page. But what if the bank denies your demand, as Bank of America did to me (thrice)? Can the bank refuse a demand for lawful money? Can they pretend that their refusal of your demand (notice: they did not refuse for cause; they claim the demand "has no legal significance") maintains the legal validity of your signature card on file? They can. Will it matter? I doubt it. Here is why: you make your demand, which takes your deposits out of the Federal Reserve fractional reserve lending system. These deposits of lawful money cannot be used for reserves. What it really means is that the bank cannot lend using your credit, because you refused to accept responsibility for the debt the bank wants to create in your name. By refusing to endorse new debt in your name, you avoid 'dealing in Federal Reserve debt securities,' which is the step which creates the irreccusable obligation to file a return and pay taxes on the private money you used. So you have no obligation to pay income taxes on these deposits. So you go to the IRS and file for a refund of all taxes withheld. The IRS says prove you redeemed. You produce (a copy of) your demand and the letter serving the demand on the bank. You have met the requirements of 12 USC 411: you made your demand. The bank, by pretending that your demand is meaningless, is just trying to plant that element of fear/doubt that maybe you can't believe everything you read on the internet. The banking cartel has been using lies, fraud, and misdirection since 1692, don't let it bother you; press on.
ps. I believe my bank wants to deny the demand because they do not want to have agreed in writing that my deposits are now special deposits, which must be returned in kind, rather than general deposits, which become unsecured loans to the bank. Bank of America has been planning for some time to go bankrupt, and the current plan is that when they do, they will confiscate the depositors accounts, which they can do because the account agreement they make you sign makes you an unsecured creditor, ie, you will stand at the end of a long line of secured creditors during a bankruptcy. Special deposits would be at the front of that bankruptcy line, as their confiscation would constitute theft by bailee...
Freed
I am not sure I got it when the suitor explained this to me. Look on the last page at the email he sent me. What he said is that by not being in the Table there are no set guidelines or forms for making your demand proper. I get that much easily.
What he said though is that you only have to prove that you have made your demand one time and one time only, and that is good for life.
Am I wrong to understand that unless a check (or similar instrument) is endorsed, it is non-negotiable? And that banks can accept deposits even endorsed in blank? I'm sorry to go over ground that I'm sure has been covered most exhaustively on this site, but unless there is an endorsement, then the instrument remains non-negotiable.
So "non-endorsing" is an attempt to enter an instrument into the banking system without liability. Great! This seems to be (to me) the source of all the problems with banks. They're just not set up to deal with demands for lawful money. I think that's why the statute says demand must be made at Treasury or at one of the 12 Federal Reserve Banks.
Now lately I've been wondering about sending notice of demand to the Treasurer (Rosie Rios), maybe even asking her to provide an identifying number of some sort identifying my particular demand (or asking her to agree to one I provide); and then continuing to make deposits at my normal bank by writing down on the back the account number only. When the checks clear, write a check made out to "Lawful Money" and use the cash. After all, the people from whom I accept a check are dealing in banking credit. It only seems fair to follow their request.
At that point - since I never actually receive anything but cash - I can't imagine why I would need to file a return.
Thoughts?
Below is the rest of the email... It does NOT say one only needs to do it ONCE. In fact ever since 9/15/2011, I have handwritten my exact specific declaration on the FACE of every check and deposit slip I issue.... just to make it CLEAR by a PREPONDERENCE of substantive evidence under their FRE Exception to Hearsay Rule 803(6)(B) that from that date onward "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2)" applies to ALL transactions even if it is missing thereafter on transactions like direct deposits, debit/credit cards, EFTs, etc, where it is hard to make a record of one's demand. Remember, by making one's demand TRANSACTION-BASED, it does not matter what the signature card has on it or not. The account does not matter - BECAUSE YOU MADE YOUR DEMAND TRANSACTION-BASED - Please get this point! It is CRITICAL! One does NOT have to send letters to the bank, IRS, FRS, IMF, Treasury or Employer and thereby stir up needless trouble! Okay? IMHO - K.I.S.S.
....
The Parallel Table of Authorities has no entry for 12 USC 411. This table's entries go in sequence from 12 USC section 391 to section 418. Section 411 is missing. This is confirmed at http://www.gpo.gov/help/parallel_table.txt, excerpted below:
[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Parallel Table]
[Revised as of January 1, 2011]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
PARALLEL TABLE OF AUTHORITIES AND RULES
12 U.S.C. <---------------------------> Corresponding C.F.R.
================================================== =====
378............................................... ...........12 Part 303
391....31 Parts 202, 203, 209, 210, 225, 240, 306, 317, 321, 341, 346,
..............351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 363, 375, 380
418.................................................. ......31 Part 601
461........................................12 Parts 201, 204, 208, 217
"Therefore it is legitimate and preferable to make one's demand TRANSACTION-BASED, to wit:
"lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411 and 95a(2)"
Using this exact wording above enables one to provide probable cause and justification for listing all transactions on a custom-made 1040 SUPPORTING SCHEDULE that have been presumed to be using FRNs!!!
Who can rebut that demand? And by what authority? 12 USC 411 does NOT specify any wording requirement or transaction frequency, and there is no corresponding CFR regulation that requires anything.
One does NOT need to put it on any bank signature card, or on any contract!
Just decide on the date one wants to begin the demand and then start hand-writing it on the face of one's checks and deposit slips, just under one's name and address in the upper left-hand corner of the document. This then stands nunc pro tunc (now for then), thereafter and forever, as substantive evidence per FRCP 803(6) governing exceptions to hearsay evidence, and is unrebuttable.
This is the starting date of one's FREEDOM. Make it memorable!!
I believe making a clear public record that creates substantive evidence of all transactions demanding lawful money is the key, all done in good faith reliance on 12 USC 411 and 12 USC 95a(2), AND on the Father and His Son, who evidently have commanded this as a red line in the sand to be observed by all parties (including Satan) in this issue, namely Mt 22:21.
Beware of becoming an unwitting tool of the Adversary by undermining and doubting the remedy provided by the Creator that He promised to provide to His People in 1 Cor 10:13.
Remember the words given to Joshua in Joshua 1:9, and to Peter by the Messiah in Mt 14:31.
So claim this promise of remedy. Be courageous. Have faith!
Peace."
And I add now: Beware of adding regulations WHERE THERE ARE NONE, and thereby making the road more difficult for those that follow us who have successfully gotten refunds!
SUGGESTION: As a second witness, one might also record a Declaration in the public record about this starting date of lawful money demands, and attach as Exhibits the first several checks and deposit slips... and several more throughout that year for good measure.
NOTICE: Lawful Money Demand (12 USC 411) is only 1/3 of the remedy - Full Discharge (12 USC 95a(2)) is second 1/3 - and Claim for Harm by a man in his court of record at a public court building using his record declared at the county recorder is the last 1/3. More info on this is available at iuvdeposit.wordpress.com
It looks to be an interesting year in 2014... 14 means "DELIVERANCE" in the Bible. The Passover, as you know, was on the 14th.
That sounds genius! Open an account with the US Treasurer, by number and use that.
Negotiable and Non-Negotiable take on an atypical meaning in terms of endorsement and non-endorsement.
Attachment 1484This particular image was a bounced paycheck.
The bank returned it but with the non-endorsement torn off.
Negotiating instruments involves fiduciary responsibility. What I mean in this context is that it is illegal in the corporate sense to trade down currencies. Except in the case of the Federal Reserve note (the Fed is only an instrumentality of the US because it has been sanctioned for its notes [stock certificates] to depreciate over time, by Congress] all stock certificates, even unit shares of a private trust are ALWAYS intended to increase in value over time.
Therefore the only legitimate trade for FRN's is to trade up, and the only currency available upward is US notes, a non-reserve currency.
I thought that those here should know about the following, and am open to reactions, thoughts, and ideas on what the next move is:
So …. for about a year now I have been outright cashing lawful money-demanded checks drafted upon my customer's KeyBank account, pay to order of my business. I am not a customer or account holder at Key Bank. Again, I just straight cash the checks. At times the tellers noticed the stamp, but no one ever said boo. [My stamp reads: "Demand: paper shall be redeemed in lawful money on account, 12 USC 411"]
Then, on November 22 a teller all-of-the-sudden said that she could not cash the check with the stamp on it since she wasn't sure about the endorsement on the back (even though she had just cashed one the week prior). She called her "Operations Leader" and left a message for that person, and then told me to come back with another check without the stamp and she could cash it. I left her my VM and asked her to get back to me with an answer from her leader, which she later did and confirmed in a VM . Meanwhile, that day I went to a different Key Bank branch and cashed the check.
Then today I went to back to that second branch and the guy there told me that he had been called by the teller at the first branch and told that the bank can't/won't cash the checks … something about them not being able to get the money back if the checks are bad … or some other such non-sense that the confused teller tried to verbalize but couldn't really other than 'we can't take it with this stamp'. He ended up giving me the "Operations Leader" number and told me to call her if I wanted an explanation, that the best he could do for me in terms of cashing the check is to get one without the "restrictive endorsement stamp"
So what is my next move? I believe it is to contact the Operations Leader and ask her if she and her tellers are giving me legal advice as to how to endorse my checks. And ask her to send me a letter formally stating the bank's position with respect to my demand for lawful money pursuant to 12 USC 411.
Any other thoughts or ideas here? Cheers.
Here are some examples of Notice and Demand:
http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/3...eanddemand.jpg
http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/2...demand2012.pdf
http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/8...ndboacorre.pdf
http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/8...andmay2013.pdf
Due to the above post about transaction-based non-endorsement I suggest that you go back to the first bank branch and try to cash the paycheck. Keep an audio recording of the event. When they refuse the non-endorsement single-strike-through the Demand. You already have a copy of the demand and when they cash it ask for a copy of both sides of the check, with the strike-through.
You have evidence that you made your demand.
When you make your demand then the bank has to (theoretically) keep your funds a special deposit - in your boss' account. Therefore the banking party is getting nothing in return for doing business.
There is another option that I hesitate to suggest. Your boss accepts your goods and services for pay. Does you boss know that his bank is being stubborn about paying an employee? Maybe your boss would like to change banks to one that freely pays his employees and does not give them grief about exercising rights?
Maybe next time your boss' bank refuses to cash a paycheck offer to call the CFO and report that behavior?
OK, here are my thoughts...
Let's try this PARADIGM shift:
The FRONT of a check is PUBLIC (people). We can place our demand there and it is being honored by the IRS as a lawful reduction. Isn't this all we need?
The BACK of a check is PRIVATE (Federal Reserve). In order for their private system to work,
ALL TRANSACTIONS are initially presumed to be private credit by their system. The is the "default" currency of their system.
However, this PRESUMPTION can be rebutted (by lawful money demands), and thereby make all of these transactions LAWFUL MONEY, per 12 USC 411.
NOTICE that 12 USC 411, by its very wording ("they shall be redeemed"), implies that private credit is initially presumed, and therefore needs "redeeming", but only "on demand". If the FRN's were NOT the default currency, then 12 USC 411 would not have been needed.
I believe this choice of which currency is to be used stems from Mt 22.21, and is DIRECTLY RELATED to TAXES.
There are two images on the FRNs. The LEFT side is Caesar's (Fed Reserve seal); the RIGHT side is God's (The Dept of Treasury seal). Look at the One Dollar Bill. Also notice the 2 different signatures.
I also believe that once this Mt 22.21 "red line" is crossed (by LM demand reductions no longer being honored by IRS on 1040), then involuntary servitude/slavery begins through compelled use of liability instruments, which can never truly "pay"/discharge obligations.
We have not yet reached that point... on a significant scale...
But when it does begin, then it will set in motion a prophesied chain of events that lead to the fulfillment of the archetype set by our ancient Israelite ancestors, with us formally petitioning (Ex 3:7-9, 16-17) our Creator for deliverance from FINANCIAL ECONOMIC SLAVERY, and those petitions, if we indeed wake up enough of His People to realize that this archetype is for US TODAY, will be answered by the Creator with a miraculous deliverance, as planned for and revealed by the Creator's Second Annual Holyday.
So until that day comes, I believe we need to heed the Messiah's warning in Mt 13:30 to let both the tares and wheat grow together, "until the Harvest" (the Spring Harvest typified by Holyday 3 - the Feast of Firstfruits - Pentecost).
This means, I believe, in practical terms regarding how we make lawful money demands, to NOT TRESPASS onto the BACK/PRIVATE SIDE of a check, or LEFT SIDE of a FRN. Let them monetize the checks, by keeping restrictive endorsements off of the back of a check. Let them continue to "grow" their debt by presuming it to be the default currency. God tells us the keep our hands off their system.
But, likewise, they must also let us "grow" in the use of lawful money, by letting us make our demand for same on the FRONT/PUBLIC/PEOPLE side of a check, and redeeming FRNs, and letting us claim tax reductions for doing so, because that money is God's!
Hope this make sense... It has been a long day, and I am getting pretty tired...
Peace.
Thanks for the replies, Dave and Doug.
By way of update … I went to a third branch about 25 miles north of town (was already there) and cashed the check.
@ DM. I thought about striking out the stamp and photographing it with the strikethrough. I would then have a photo of the back of the check without the strikethrough and then with, which would evidence that I had made the demand.
A couple other ideas I have had:
-in light of the earlier post in this thread about the demand relating to transactions, the idea was to to make one final deposit at the bank with the transaction language and then call it good going forward based on that transactional demand.
- I may also just try writing in the demand as "lawful money demanded and redeemed, 12 USC 411" and avoiding the stamp and seeing what they say about that.
@Doug. Can you show proof that the IRS accepts the lawful money reduction for demands on the front of checks? I am glad to know this, however, I do not believe that writing under the signature is a 'trespass' as long as the writing is done above the line. Restrictive endorsements like "deposit only" are made all the time, and I feel that the non-endoresement should be underneath the signature so that the check cannot be negotiated further.
This deserves some thought. Above you said:
So as I understand it, you are rethinking marking the backside of a paycheck with your lawful money demand. Fine. I am always looking for new perspectives as long as they are based in valid information.Quote:
It does NOT say one only needs to do it ONCE. In fact ever since 9/15/2011, I have handwritten my exact specific declaration on the FACE of every check and deposit slip I issue.... just to make it CLEAR by a PREPONDERENCE of substantive evidence under their FRE Exception to Hearsay Rule 803(6)(B) that from that date onward "lawful money and full discharge is demanded for all transactions 12 USC 411, 95a(2)" applies to ALL transactions even if it is missing thereafter on transactions like direct deposits, debit/credit cards, EFTs, etc, where it is hard to make a record of one's demand.
Your perspective on the new post - based in the Bible smacks of Futurism. Almost all Christians, and I have a good sampling here in Colorado Springs, are Futurists. So I have difficulty disqualifying it by any popular posture. I am however more prone to the Kingdom of Heaven being modeled after the kingdom of King David in biblical context.
However I am happy to assert that the Kingdom of Heaven is the sensation you receive whenever you radiate it - the Kingdom of Heaven.
Therefore I am prone to believe that God is working His plan through me as I am in the present moment. He is already answering my petitions for justice against elastic currency (abomination Proverb 11:1) by pointing me to the remedy and providing me a ministry - a voice - like here, the brain trust and soon even better more amplified lesson plans.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. I think the front side of the check is private to the issuer. For example you can strike through the Pay to the Order of : _______________ on your own checks that you issue but not on a check written to you.
If you deem "Futurism" to mean that the fullness of the Kingdom of Heaven is not yet completely and entirely manifest in this present consciousness and that there is more to come, then call me a "Futurist".
However, do not lump me in with the "Rapture" crowd or those who see no manifestation of the Kingdom of Heaven in this present consciousness. I believe the majority of "Christians" you label as "Futurists" fall into that 'no manifestation' category.
You must see that there is a significant difference there and that the term "Futurism" should not be used as a broad brush to paint these two together.
Sorry for any confusion about this... But, NO, I am not re-thinking how I demand lawful money for all transactions. I have always just made said demands only on the FACE/FRONT side of the checks and deposit slips that I issue.
Nothing else has changed. And it is working for me... BUT I have also made declarations of my status in the local county record, so that may also support this, for example, Declaration of Proof of Life, Declaration of Beneficiary, Solemn Act & Deed, etc.
Hope this clears it up...
BTW, I am NOT a "Futurist"... In fact, I believe this world's focus on the future "Millennial Kingdom" (starting with the 4th Holyday) is a MAJOR MISTAKE today, even as it was in Christ's day. It blinded His People to what was happening THEN, (the fulfillment of the 1st Holyday - Passover), just as much as it blinding His People NOW to the IMMINENT fulfillment of Holydays 2 & 3 concerning a literal MIRACULOUS DELIVERANCE and a literal kingdom of priests existing/reigning on Earth BEFORE the Messiah's return.
Perhaps you can call me a "Literalist"... taking the 7 Annual Holydays as literal BIG EVENTS (Milestones) leading to the final full Manifestation in Rev 22.
I believe that you and the BT are on that path to that ministry...
Some Crosstalk:
Quote:
With XX’s tag line I feel that you basically nullify your signature entirely. Ergo you make no commitment at all. Which is fine because the commitments are all made on the bills by the US Treasurer and Secretary. However this leaves your bank in a position where they are earning no money in any of your transactions. So you may encounter resistance, especially if you are earning any “interest” on any of the accounts.
[This suitor noticed on the website for issuing checks.]
I plan on utilizing my Credit Union's "Snap Deposit" smartphone app to take a picture of my checks and deposit them that way. Interestingly, I found this bit of apparent legal advice in the app's FAQ:
"Be sure your checks have no evidence of alteration or contain a restrictive endorsement."
On that Note:
So it looks as though absolute protection costs a little less than $300/year.Quote:
I deal with Citibank in NYC. I have been using the non endorsement for 3 years now. They always hold part of the funds for 5 days or so. They send me a letter everytime. I get charged 15(service fee) and 8 (atm fee) dollars every month to have an account there that is 0% interest bearing. They even turned away the irs a few years back when they attempted to levy the account saying they did not have any of their property in that account! I really enjoy using lawful money. Thanks David for cracking that nut!
Re: Citibank and IRS it might be helpful to know that the IRS is typically an account holder like any other account holder at a bank. The FRB/State Bank Charter system exists in a separate realm from the IRS and State Revenue systems. Thusly the bank's custodial roles are separate. Citibank could not in good faith transfer funds from one account holder (the attempted levy target) to another (IRS) without proper justification without Citibank incurring liability. AFAIK the bank simply within the same bank transfers from the target account to the IRS's account along with proper memoranda (particulars) and that is how the IRS gets its money--tax depositaries and such.
Re: $15 service fee. That sounds like a typical inter-institutional transfer fee. However, such is also a typical "service charge".
Perhaps the banks can only issue or multiply clearinghouse credit rather than lawful money.Quote:
However this leaves your bank in a position where they are earning no money in any of your transactions.
To further the paradigm shift, I would like to share with the group where are my thoughts more than the LM issue.
After several years of studying, I have found myself resonating with the Peaceful Inhabitant Process as opposed to Redemption, Common Law, Equity, UCC, etc. The PI process parallels spiritually and mentally where I am at in my life.
With this said. I am a living breathing self-aware soul, AND not a fictional Name or Property. That Name, I USE, IS property belonging to the State. Under the rules of usufruct, the owner [the state] of that property receives not only the benefits, but also is liable for any liabilities on behalf of that property, estate, end legis, name, individual, whoever, trust, etc.
Moreover, the reason why I like the LM endorsement is for mainly one reason: The use of FRN, by presumption, automatically increases the national debt. Any harm, whether intentional or not, is seen by the PTB as a belligerent act, meaning you are an enemy of the state. If I wish to live in harmony and peace with all men [and women], I would not want to create any public harm, as a "foreigner" under the current "war on the land" bankrupt state of emergency therefore the demand for LM actually is consistent with the status of peaceful habitation
I have been writing the endorsements on the back of the checks demanding lawful money. My comment really has to do with private and public. If you are using a Name, the Name is public. Everything [meaning all property, house, car, bank accts, etc] placed in the name automatically vests to the United States. You can not own it since the state holds the original title to that property or Name. You only are sent a "certified copy" of that property for your use, thus anything and everything you do in that Name, ultimately the state benefits from. This all has to do with the bankruptcy of the US.
Though I am far from an "expert", as long as that endorsement is on the back, I suspect the "intent" is all that matters. Its all public. Anyway, if Barry does not like it, he can just put a new law in the federal register and it shall become law [administrative public policy, that is, under bankruptcy]. ;)
Furthermore, I am sorry to disagree with you. God has nothing to do whatsoever with Caesar's money. It all Gods anyway, the error or sin of man is claiming property as his own that belongs to the Creator which was given FREELY to all men to be used, to have dominion over, possession and control but NOT ownership.
Update on the bank and the demand for LM on the bank signature card. I have no heard from the bank - but I am very ready. thanks David for
Tony
Quote:
thanks David for
Tony
I think I understand. We experience. God experiences.
I have come to believe that the Name (First Middle Last) is my property (right of use; that which is proper to i; a man, and exclusive of all others). The 'State' may have TITLE and OWNERSHIP in the legal world, yet said claim of property is made by a man. Having TITLE or OWNERSHIP is what makes one liable and obliged. I make no claim of TITLE or OWNERSHIP; only to property. Only a man can make a claim; so, another man must challenge your claim in open court on the record. The 'State' has no rights and cannot make claims. Those who act in capacity as officer for the State have no rights either, while in that capacity; they have privileges, duties and obligations. One of the most important duties and obligations is to secure, protect and restore property. Who are they oath-bound to perform this for? For men and women who make claims and have inherent rights which come from the Creator, Most High God. The standing and capacity of 'man' is higher that that of 'State' or 'officer' or 'judge' or 'president' or 'pope'.
Only 'man' is unlimited in his capacity; he can and may choose to be anything he wishes at any given moment in time. Which means, if it is of benefit to me, i can choose to be 'First Middle Last' in a particular situation. As soon as i choose not to be 'First Middle Last' then, i am not. These two choices can occur within minutes of each other. Who has the right to interfere with a man's right to self-determine and self-govern? Do you know of anyone? Only a terrorist interferes with a man's right to self-govern (terrorism is interfering with the proper function of government). The chief public servant BARACK OBAMA himself admitted recently in a speech, that we all have the gift of self-government (albeit he is confused as to who ultimately 'gave' that capacity to us).
The key to all this is to properly move, hold and keep our court(s) when someone (not a fictional entity) robs our property or interferes with our right to property. The 'State' doesn't do a thing, ever. The 'IRS' never robs any man's property, ever. Ultimately, it is ALWAYS a man or woman who robs property from another 'man' and it is that man or woman who robbed said property that must be held liable for that wrong. It matters not what capacity he or she claimed to be in at the time or what 'legal' basis was claimed; no man or woman has a right to rob another man's property, ever. Any attempted justification of the wrong from the 'legal' world (codes, statutes) is a further wrong committed against the man.
We must learn to act as men and women, bring our competent court(s) and know how to keep it when wrongs, harm or injuries are committed against us and/or our claimed property. Forgiveness is essential, and yet, restoration must be provided by those who have willingly placed themselves in a lower office/capacity than 'man' with the voluntary burden of duties and obligations toward 'man'. It was their choice to enter into that capacity and, to stay in honor, they must perform accordingly.
Paisan,
I do not mean to disagree with you but the right of use, possession and control is something different than ownership. The name is property, according to law. If you make a claim to that property, then you consent, by operation of law to act as surety as executor, administrator or trustee for that Name, or property, title estate, trust, ens legis, individual, person, whoever, infant, etc. When you say “I make no claim to title or ownership” how to you think property is claimed? It is through title. Through a piece of paper. The paper is fiction. It is in an image of the real; however, it is Caesar’s. You are correct only man can make a claim. I would prefer to let them challenge that I am their property, as TPTB would have to prove that claim that I am State property. The state can make claims and has rights because the people believe that and have CONSENTED to that. We agree that the government has an obligation to restore and protect property. Where we disagree is you think you own that property or claim that property – NAME as yours. It ain’t. It is yours to use but not own. When you claim that Name as your property, you are claiming a reversionary interest in property belonging to the State [legal title holder] where the US holds equitable title as protected purchaser under UCC 8-102D, through the purchase, paid to the state of said titles by the SSA.
I would like to comment further on the fact should you walk into any court or legal situation and you claim that Name and then decide to change your mind, it will be too late. You have already consented to act as surety for that property. You must not make any claim at all from the beginning. The only ones that do have the right to interfere with man’s right to self-determination is the man that consents to TPTB. Spiritually speaking, the devil has the right to deceive all men. The devil does not have the right to force you to consent to be deceived. Folks do this more than willingly. This is a subject to be further discussed in detail.
If you believe you are going to tell the court what to do, good luck to you. The court can only recognize its fictional property. Once personal jurisdiction has been consented to, you are playing in their sandbox. It is their rules that will govern you. The court can not hear a man’s claim. The man must use the fictional property name to being a claim into their “temple of Just-Us”. If the court has no juridiction over a man, then a man has no business being in court. Think about this. You can not be half-pregnant.
If whatever you are doing is working for you, great. I wish you the very best. I do not see how though.
If you want the public officials to do their oath-bound jobs of protecting the pubic as outlined in 63C Am.Jur.2d, Public Officers and Employees, §241, then I would stop intermeddling with the infant’s estate, making false claims to fictional property that you do not own, but have every right to use, possess, and control but NOT OWN, and let those public officers acting in their official capacity as trustee, administrator or executor do their jobs and protect state property by discharging all claims against said property.
You had been sent a copy of a usufruct compliant certified certificate for your use. The owner of said property reaps all the benefits and therefore must accept all the liabilities. United States v. Pewee Coal Co., Inc. - 341 U.S. 114 (1951), in part, “Like any private person or corporation, the United States normally is entitled to the profits from, and must bear the losses of, business operations which it conducts. When a private business is possessed and operated for public use, no reason appears to justify imposition of losses sustained on the person from whom the property was seized”. Furthermore, “that the Government chose to intervene by taking possession and operating control. By doing so, it became the proprietor and, in the absence of contrary arrangements, was entitled to the benefits and subject to the liabilities which that status involves.”
If anyone is interested in more of this “thinking”, you can start with www.notacitizen.com
Tony
Compare,
I disagree. A claim of property by a man does NOT rely on any paper and does NOT imply TITLE or OWNERSHIP. Only those who have TITLE and OWNERSHIP bear the burden and obligation for the 'thing' TITLED or OWNED. Property is 'right of use' of a thing, not the thing itself; nor is it a TITLE or OWNERSHIP claim.
If anyone wishes to dispute my claim, that someone must utter their challenge to my claim in open court, under oath or affirmation, on the record. A piece of paper is powerless and useless unless a man will verify what is upon it in living voice on the record. Who will challenge my claim that the Name is my property in open court? Do you really believe someone will take the stand and swear that the property i claim (First Middle Last) really belongs to the 'United States'? Has that ever happened? Who will verify in open court that i; a man, am surety or liable for debts against a fictitious persona?
If someone makes a claim that i am a debtor, that someone better verify under oath and on the record that the supposed debt is true and post due. The 'United States' cannot take the stand and neither can the 'IRS'. A man has a right to face his accuser, and whoever is named 'Plaintiff' must appear and verify the claim else there is no case.
With no disrespect intended, the error I see in your logic is you believe making any claim by a man through, say the court, is not implying ownership. This is where we disagree. As I explained previously, the mere fact that you claim, I am John Doe, automatically presumes you are making a claim to the property, estate, person which belongs to the state. You can not go into any court as John and make a claim OR even be heard as a defendant. The court can not move against a man only a fiction. You must use John Doe. If John Doe is property of the state, I see no reason why the state would even bother to dispute or challenge your claim that you are or are not John Doe. You simply fall under their jurisdiction. You are just held as surety for making such claim and thus you must follow the rules set by public policy. This is done in every court case. They know you are not John Doe but never dispute or challenge that claim. LOL.
Logically and of course you can disagree, if a credit card debt is taken out in the name of John Doe and you, the man go into court and claim to be John Doe, you will be held as surety. If you go into court and say anything remotely claiming anything, they will get you. If you go into court and say I am a man and I am not John Doe. You will be held as surety. Stating I am not something is making a claim.
However, if you have had success in doing things your way, more power to you
No disrespect taken. We disagree regarding the definition of claim; i believe a claim can be 'ownership' related yet not automatically so.
I do agree that if i go in their court that i cannot be heard as a man. However, a man has right of access to his court and if brought, held and kept properly, a man is the ONLY one that can be heard in said court. The courthouse is not 'court'; it is merely a venue to hold court. The courthouse is a public building and the people have right of use of it for their court, if they can keep it.
Again, you fall upon presumptions regarding the Name. My family Name is antecedent to the United States. My mom and dad gave me a Name and i can choose to use it as i wish. A presumption is just that; presumption unless and until someone living verifies the presumptive claim on the record. The accused has a right to face and question his accuser; that is ancient law still in effect for a man.
The question that usually gets one in trouble is, "Are you 'John Doe'?" Regardless of the answer, if one responds to 'you', one is admitting dual/capacity; man as surety for a person.
Attachment 1493
Jurisdiction and 'court' can be flipped when a man is present; and, when said man knows how to remain in that one capacity of 'man'. If i am accused, there is no need for me to say "i am" or "i am not" something; the accuser must verify what he/she is claiming of me; a man. Paper cannot speak and the record is not formed as verifiable until one speaks the claim in living voice. Why do you think the 'judge' must always ask 'you' to say who you are? What's wrong with taking the info off of the Driver's License or Birth Certificate or other paper/documents? Because the 'judge' knows that paper is worthless until it is given life by the living in viva voce.
I am fairly new to this concept and process so, as far as having success with this, i am still working towards moving my court and learning how to keep it. I have, however, had success in one instance regarding the return of property. My property (commonly known as a 'shotgun') was taken by a man acting as 'Deputy Sheriff'. It was being held in "PROPERTY" at the Sheriff's Office. I notified the proper party that my property is being held and that i wish restoration of said property. I was told i "must" sign an "affidavit" stating that i am NOT a "felon" or "wanted criminal" or other legal descriptions of things on their list. i simply said, "no thank you, i am a man and i wish restoration of my property". The man acting for the Sheriff's Office (attorney) repeated his demand. i repeated my requirement. He told me he would have to get back to me. When he did, he said, "we would like it if you signed the affidavit, however if you do not wish to, you are not required to do so."
On the day i went to collect my property, i was handed the affidavit again and told i must sign it. i informed the woman that you have my property and i wish restoration of it. She insisted that everyone must sign one of these because she demands it be done. I told her to seek advice from the attorney as he knows i am not required to sign your affidavit. I pushed that paper aside and filled out the form which read that i did collect my property on this date; i corrected some verbiage on it. When she returned she asked for a driver's license to match the Name and i showed her one. She went back to retrieve my property and handed it over. The other 'officer' (a man) who came out when we began discussing the affidavit changed his stance from one of 'backup' to humble servant and wished me, "Have a good day sir."
This instance is "gun" related in their eyes. Someone came in, declined their demands and claimed property. This happened at the Sheriff's Office and i left with my property without incident and without meeting their demands.
Keys:
i: a man; John Doe, claim my property and wish restoration at this time.
May I ask, are you following Glenn Fearn's or Karl Lentz info?
I do not disagree with you 100%; however, as I said I KNOW consistency is key. I have very little experience thus far myself. However, the study hours I have put in over these last two years amounts to a full time job. It was last year the "light bulb" went on with a silly debate back and forth about what I thought to be mine and legally CAN NOT BE MINE.
We all are on a path. I am grateful for several men who helped me see the light though I admit I was a bit stubborn in the beginning.
As far as this success above, I would consider this a victory; however, a "shotgun" was returned by the police. Victory yes, but I was more referring to court, IRS, etc. I will state this in a different way for the benefit of the group - in a simple quick way. Since the 1933, the US has seized all property, including the COLB or titles to "man". The State receives all the benefits of "man's future labor". Man has no where to go because he can not own or hold that original title. Technically the title was not even stolen, it simply was confiscated due to the US bankruptcy. Thus common law, based upon the 1938 Erie RR case, is MOSTLY dead. We now have public policy in its place. When a man claims ownership or to be that title called a Name where the state holds legal title in trust, man is "legally speaking" acting as a belligerent warring against the state, where all property IS vested in the state. If that title is property and is owned by the state, man CAN NOT make such claims to it. The state can only recognize and have jurisdiction over its property. Man is not property NOR can ever be considered property. Man can consent to be a person or property, thereby giving the court/government jurisdiction over it - the person, property, infant, estate, etc. thus CONSENTING TO BE SURETY, according to their rules or law.
The US Constitution/declaration of independence has nothing to do with man. It was a bunch of men that decided to form a "trust". Did you sign those documents? No! Ok then how are you a party to those documents? It was stated in the Paddleford case that No private person has a right to complain by suit in court on the ground of a breach of the United States constitution; for, though the constitution is a compact, he is not a party to it. It is an impossibility without your consent for any government "whatever" to move forward with jurisdiction without consent. Since the US bankruptcy, there is a declared state of emergency where all property has been seized. In my opinion, the best remedy NOW offered to man in order for him to have "remedy" is to allow the public trustee to administrate their property Name FOR EVERYTHING. Should man decide to "intermeddle" with the infant's estate or make claims to the Name, he subjects himself to public policy statutes.
If you want to restore what you believe to be your property, I am sorry to disagree, but you will find out that original title held in trust will NEVER be turned back over to you. I tried as have others. I was told quite frankly but vital statistics - YOU CAN"T HAVE THAT IT IS NOT YOURS. Do you believe that? I was shocked. If I were to obtain that original title, I would agree with you and common law would be available to me for remedy. I can't get that document, therefore, the best I can do is use that Name or property and not make any claim to ownership.
Finally, and this is the head twist, WE ALL MUST REMEMBER the Creator gave man everything FREELY. It was man or group of man that made up "graven images" similar to the real but is just fiction. The title to the car is a fiction and does not represent the actual car. The government owns that title not man. However man has the RIGHT to use, possess and control the real car. If I claim that is MY CAR, then I am liable. If I am pulled over and cop KNOWS that car he has jurisdiction over. He can seize that car with due process of law. If you OWNED that car, he COULD NOT SEIZE THAT CAR BECAUSE IT IS YOUR PROPERTY. Same thing with bank account and houses. When you use FRN, there is a lien on such property, then they get you by "owning original title to the Name".
I suggest everyone take a look into this matter a bit more. It sucks I know. I was not happy about this at first but now I feel liberated. Wow am I long winded lol
You can find Karl Lentz's Documents from his court case here
http://broadmind.org/Documents.html
And some of his audio
http://www.talkshoe.com/tc/127469
(12) “Property” includes any present or future interest, whether legal or equitable, in real, personal (including choses in action), or mixed property, tangible or intangible, vested or contingent, wherever located and however held (including community property and property held in trust (including spendthrift and pension trusts)), but excludes—
(A) property held in trust by the United States for the benefit of an Indian tribe or individual Indian; and
(B) Indian lands subject to restrictions against alienation imposed by the United States.
If someone makes a claim that i am a debtor, that someone better verify under oath and on the record that the supposed debt is true and post due. The 'United States' cannot take the stand and neither can the 'IRS'. A man has a right to face his accuser, and whoever is named 'Plaintiff' must appear and verify the claim else there is no case.
(13) “Security agreement” means an agreement that creates or provides for a lien.
(3) “Debt” means—
(A) an amount that is owing to the United States on account of a direct loan, or loan insured or guaranteed, by the United States; or
(B) an amount that is owing to the United States on account of a fee, duty, lease, rent, service, sale of real or personal property, overpayment, fine, assessment, penalty, restitution, damages, interest, tax, bail bond forfeiture, reimbursement, recovery of a cost incurred by the United States, or other source of indebtedness to the United States, but that is not owing under the terms of a contract originally entered into by only persons other than the United States;
and includes any amount owing to the United States for the benefit of an Indian tribe or individual Indian, but excludes any amount to which the United States is entitled under section 3011 (a).
(10) “Person” includes a natural person (including an individual Indian), a corporation, a partnership, an unincorporated association, a trust, or an estate, or any other public or private entity, including a State or local government or an Indian tribe.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002
I have heard many good things about Karl Lentz; however, in all my studies, I found that "using common law" currently under this state of emergency ain't going to fly. I do not mean to suggest EVER, but mean suggest rarely. With this said, I asked the people in the group of Not a Citizen what opinion they had of Karl. [really because I did not want to take the time to listen to the talkshoes] - this is some of the feedback I got:
He [Karl] also appears to believe the bankruptcy is no big deal and said, so what. That is the US government that went bankrupt, not us. While that is true, he seems to not get the real ramification of it. The States also went bankrupt.
One guy was trying to point out how the States are required to use only gold and silver as money, but he seems to think that doesn't matter either stating something to the effect, well this how the State rolls now.
I don't think he knows how the Government not only went into bankruptcy and continue to operate under it today, but how they also seized all titles to all property along with having taken all the gold and silver from the States and the private sector removing everyone's ability to pay anything. Everything since the bankruptcy is supposed to be discharged, not paid for by the people as a debt. The US Government took on the liability to pay all debts when they entered into their bankruptcy. That is in their own statutes at large stating the Comptroller of Currency is to pay all the bills.
FURTHERMORE
I listened to Karl Lentz talk and while I can see some of the stuff he says making some sense, he seems to be confused on his beliefs in other areas.
For example, he says if you owe a debt pay it. While that may be correct in a normal sense, it is not correct in today's world based on the current system. He also contradicts himself here because one part he says we are the creditor. Well how does a creditor owe a debt when all credit comes from the man?
How does a man pay a debt with no money to be able to pay a debt?
When all there is is just an "internal" currency created for "internal" use within the Government between its federal reserve system, federal reserve banks, and all national banks, and FOR NO OTHER PURPOSES ARE AUTHORIZED, and that "internal" currency is just DEBT itself, HOW can a man ever possibly pay a debt?
When a government removes all money to pay a debt with from the private sector, and replaces it all within an "internal" currency, and a government seized ALL TITLES TO ALL PROPERTY, including title to the commercial legal Names, HOW can a man possibly pay any debt?
HOW can a man even possibly have a debt?
ALL existing DEBT is all debt owed by the Government, not private men. ALL CREDIT created comes from the energy of men using the commercial name held by the State!
and FINALLY
I heard some claim success using his process, which of course I have my own beliefs as to why they could work because by claiming to be a man and not a artificial person, that in itself places the court into corner where they cannot address that issue without exposing the truth of what is really going on. So to protect the truth from getting out it pretty much forces the court to just dispose of the case just to conceal the truth, which by dismissing it that gives those the belief this process is valid and the way to go.
I believe it is the same manner where some use the executor of the estate stuff where if done right that places the court into a catch 22 position where if they continue they expose the truth thereby forcing them to just dismiss and dispose of the case.
Think about it. What is the court going to do? Publicly state you cannot be recognized as a man therefore you cannot invoke common law? Or publicly expose you cannot be of any office of executor for that estate because you are not a party to that estate and can't be any such thing because the State s not appointed as such a thing over its estate?
AGAIN I AM NOT LOOKING TO DEBATE KARL OR HIS WORK. I wanted to know what some others thought. Some think he is great and others think he is not so great. In the beginning I used to think Tim Turner had all the answers, then we move on to learn differently.
I believe what was "seized", if anything (I cannot verify), was the "2nd dimension world" of legalities and paper TITLES. If one wishes, and/or finds it necessary, to operate in that world, there are remedies to invoke as well. If one is not concerned with the 2nd dimension, than the law is the common law (unwritten) and there is only testimony and claims from living men. NOTHING in the 2nd dimension or "legal world" supersedes man and his living voice on earth.
The 'judges' know this, however, there are so few who can remain as a man when bringing court, or answering a claim from another, that 'successes' are also few. There are certain words to use, and not use, in order for the man to keep his court as superior to the realm of codes and statutes. These 'Shibboleth' are what the 'judges' are listening for in order to determine whether or not a 'man' is before them. One wrong word, or wrong response to a question, will make or break you. They are essentially 'gatekeepers' and will not permit the ignorant or incompetent to pass. However, when it is without doubt that a 'man' is present and remains in his superior capacity, the 'judge' is relegated to 'public servant' and 'man' is the public. Again, this does not happen very often since we were all mis-taught, subject to societal conditioning and, most importantly, derelict in own self-awareness, self-determination and self-governance. It is up to each of us to learn to stand as men and remain in that superior standing at all times. That does not mean violence, aggression, belligerence or combativeness; it means knowing and living what is true and honorable; and, being aware that we live above the 2nd dimension of paper.
I also disagree with some of Karl's opinions regarding money and debt, however, it is hard to get a good grip on his stance since he shifts from one side to another depending on who he is talking to. I have heard him say the same similar things that you offer (Tony) regarding money and debt. Perhaps he also is listening for 'Shibboleth' and gives some people one answer and others another answer depending upon how far he feels one is in their journey. His stuff is very powerful, but it will fail miserably if one does not know it and live it as a 'way of life'. He gives no 'silver bullets' or 'templates'; only knowledge and vocabulary that a 'man' should know.
May I finally say - I wish you the best with what ever remedy you are most comfortable with. As for me, I have been there and done that. The 12 USC 411 is about the most "statutes" the Person, I USE, is going to incorporate into a remedy, as in my point of view, the increase in public debt is a public harm and therefore my intent is NOT to create or add to a public harm, as all are my brothers and sisters. Even though the US debit HAS NOTHING to do with me, I still feel as a "foreigner" on this land, I do not wish to create presumptions or controversies. Using FRN does just that.
For those that are a little more Bible oriented [I do not really subscribe 100% as the infallible word of God] and are interested in a very long video presentation in 14 parts, I can recommend Servant King with Marcus. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GSR...Y1ZxJB&index=1 The jist of this is - You are either with God or against. There is no half way.
I would also recommend www.notacitizen.com
I am also recommending Boris and the discharging of any reversionary interest [12 USC 95a] http://creoharmony.blogspot.com.au/2...ersionary.html
Tony