Hmm. So now I wonder if banks required endorsement before the Federal Reserve came into existence.
Printable View
The title holder has to assign the title to the payment ... somehow. Bearer instruments of course escape the requirement for endorsement. Title to a non-negotiable can be conveyed by assignment (perhaps consider the backside of stock certificate). Title to the money inuring from a negotiable instrument can be conveyed by endorsement. An endorsement can be in blank or it can be special. Similarly there are general deposits and there are special deposits.
One of the biggest change with the FRB was the obfuscation of money-related knowledge in public schools in the United States of America.
A study of the history of public schooling in the U.S., and the influence of certain well-known Families is easy to accomplish and might be fruitful. A member of the Rothschild family wrote one of his brothers and complained that he had trouble starting a banking operation because the people there were too smart--this was 1700s or 1800s. I'm unaware of anyone stating that such and such was public school's responsiblity. However, economics and the like was probably 10)% removed from the curriculum of most US high schools come 1970. These days you might learn how to endorse a check in blank and how to balance a check book (i.e. backwards accounting). If you are training public officials, you'd figure them having a clue about money might be a good idea. Not to mention a famous economist who made it clear that the made it through PhD in the 60s without studying accounting. :) For the U.S, public schooling seemed come into full swing just in time for scrip to come into play. Public schooling ... its for schooling the public no? So why the reference to private economics? Do you believe that the public doesn't have anything to do with money and that teaching about money isn't the responsibility of public schools ... even teaching it to would-be public officials is just out of the question, huh? So public officials should learn about money in private only?
So I should somehow feek OK about funding schools which promote idiocy and then whine about the ill-effects of crime and poverty? Should some "hood kid" put a 45 up against my skull in a quest for some mad skrilla I should remind him that financial education starts at home, right?
***
There are those who have asserted that German influence on college-level business and economics courses following WWII led to utter crappola being taught to the typical MBA. I foretold that one day GM or Chrysler would be taken over by a German auto company simply because the Germans saw to it American business leaders would be dumbed down to the extent that GM or Chrysler would hit the dirt in bankruptcy. I wanted a quote faxed or emailed to me for a hotel room. I never got it from any of three U.S. hotels. They sneered at me and insisted that I should just go online. They lost out on probably $50K in business. However, I got a quite in writing in 2 days from an overseas hotel. I wanted a quote from an auto dealer by fax or by email. They argued with me that they only would do that if I came in. I got one in writing via email from overseas in 2 days. They'd even ship it to me. Go figure.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51SwjUeQDLL.jpg
Read it and...weep?
The word " Public " in the phrase public schools is in name only; (local schools around here went from a city corp to a county corp)
Wake County Public Schools
1150 Forestville Road
Wake Forest, NC 27587-7600
Wake County Public Schools in Wake Forest, NC is a private company categorized under Public Elementary and Secondary Schools. Our records show it was established in 2010 and incorporated in North Carolina.
http://www.manta.com/c/mw2vt84/wake-...public-schools
Yes, it is all tied in. Private company operates in interest of it's shareholders and if Rothchild is the biggest shareholder, then the chips will fall where they may. You want your child to get a good education you stick them in a different private school of your choice, hopefully a better one without alternate interests or you home-school them.
Statutes are for statutory employees and those who take on the liability to act as a statutory employee.. i.e. trustee for the public names. Them names are the corporations, not you unless you consent to be one of them.
The Supreme Court has ruled: "All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process…"
Rodriques v. Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor) 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985)
From their own words -
North Carolina General statutes:
Chapter 4.
Common Law.
§ 4‑1. Common law declared to be in force.
All such parts of the common law as were heretofore in force and use within this State, or so much of the common law as is not destructive of, or repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the freedom and independence of this State and the form of government therein established, and which has not been otherwise provided for in whole or in part, not abrogated, repealed, or become obsolete, are hereby declared to be in full force within this State. (1715, c. 5, ss. 2, 3, P.R.; 1778, c. 133, P.R.; R.C., c. 22; Code, s. 641; Rev., s. 932; C.S., s. 970.)
Under the common law do you not have the right to protect yourself from thugs with a 45 cali ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflecting_pool
Here is another one:
resolution n. a determination of policy of a corporation by the vote of its board of directors. Legislative bodies also pass resolutions, but they are often statements of policy, belief or appreciation, and not always enactment of statutes or ordinances.
So the next time someone fires off HJR 192 at you, let them know it is not law, just a policy.
HJR - House Joint Resolution
Hey motla, over at the Q Famspear has accused you of posting a fake quote:
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/view...php?f=8&t=7892
And I suspect Famspear is our very own "jesse james."
As I have said before I do not take too much stock in the opinions of Quatloos, it is not like they have ever fabricated anything.
It was my interpretation of the case based on my own knowledge, my quote as well as in the case itself was about winning
an argument over being denied due process. It was there for you all to look up and read through to form your own opinion
about the case because that is all case law is " court opinions ", that in which he did. Instead of reading into the case though
he let EGO get in the way.
Literally break down the word Quatloos though and what do you get? A kamikaze pustule with nothing to lose.
Um, OK. I got a fictional currency that first debuted on Star Trek in 1968, The Gamesters of Triskelion ...Can't speak for anyone else but, none of my posts over at Quatloos.com have been approved for over 2 months now. Censorship via extreme moderation. What are you so afraid of Famspear? My take is I've learned too much truth (much of it learned here at Planet Merrill) and they don't like me sharing it.Quote:
The brains speak, identifying themselves as the Providers, ancient beings of pure intellect that pass their time gambling between one another, wagering sums of "quatloos" over the outcomes of the contests. They demand to hear Kirk's own wager. He tells the brains that he and his team can defeat the drill thralls. If Kirk's crew are victorious, the brains must free the Enterprise and let the team, including all thralls, go. The Providers must in turn end their death games and use their knowledge to teach the thralls how to start a free society. If Kirk loses, he promises a lifetime of entertainment in further competitions with the entire ship's crew.
________________________________
You Earth people are most stimulating.
And this is what lead me away from pete hendrickson. Pete would misquote court cases altogether.
He even lead people to beleive his version of "privilege" to suit his defunked and misguided "cracking the code", and being of no surprise, is found in the "FICTION" section of public libraries
The diverse opinions (squabbling) being generated around Motla68 lately seems to be, from all parties thought out and substantiated. My stance is that as long as people can articulate their arguments without resorting to evidence of a poor vocabulary - words like liar, and bullshit, then people who enjoy it may read it and those who do not can avoid it. My hope is of course that this kind of bickering will not detract from intelligible threads.
ohh "conspiracistic." That's an awful big non-word for a lowly carpenter. Yes, thanks to Cracking the Code and Planet Merrill, I've won. I've beaten the banksters' system of wealth extraction. And now we work to set all of America free. Here's the two 60-second Swiss America ads refused by the networks: https://www.swissamerica.com/offer/tv.php
oh and the reason you're so bored over at the Q is ... you've squelched all debate, silenced all your critics via extreme moderation. Whaddya expect? You've only got 17 users online. You've become an incestuous little clique of 1 percenters laughing at the 99%.
I'm not a carpenter nor am I famspear or even associated with quatloos (only when I was in my early early 20's was a a carpenter)......................electrician!
Actually "conspiracist" is a word.
And no you haven't yet won.
This lawfully money wont hold any water at all.
Remember that court case where a employer paid in gold coin to skirt under the 600.00 minimum requirement to report?
He was convicted of fraud because the coin was worth much more than the face value.
Yeah you rememebr that case but done want to bring it up.
You are only left alone because you have control over reporting to the SSA..................and thats it. It has nothing at all to do with Hendrickson or Merrill. The gold coin case proves Merrill is wrong.....and well hendrickson was convicted so you havent proven you won anything.
That brings on a big chuckle here!
I don't see it that way. All it proves is that you have not watched my videos.
Public Money v. Private Credit.
Federal Reserve Act - Remedy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B-Buo5XXoY
To read the article alone Click Here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e16PNkWlPZA
Yes, conspiracist is a word, but you said "conspiracistic." You really have a hard time not misconstruing what others say, don't you? As for the employer paying in gold coin, we already explained. If the gold was purchased with unredeemed private credit of the Federal Reserve, then guess who has first lien on it?
Lawful money is holding water just fine for us J. I'm sorry you're unhappy with my win.
EDIT: Pete Hendrickson has released this 27-page book today.
THE SHIELD
This is more of an expansion on (post #202)... if an instrument is payable to order, it cannot be paid until the order is affixed. A mere signature of the payee without any extra writing is akin to writing "Pay to bearer". You might do well to look study negotiability of promissory notes and ancient "Statutes of Anne". There are likely a few treatises which reference such. "Pay to" vs "Pay to the order of".... assignment vs. negotiation. Negotiation is merely a convenient way of assigning title however it may open doors for the Law Merchant to apply whereas "Pay to" might not invoke the Lex Mercatoria.
[ Post #202 > http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...ull=1#post5649 ]
We evolve in our thinking.
This poem is difficult to read through because of the distracting doodles, but it has some interesting themes.
I have put this to memory and when I recite it to The Science of Mind crowd, they are quite impressed. The line about 'being the first to walk on land' goes over well I suspect because we love the idea of the Christ Mind and that performing miracles through metaphysics, mastery of the natural law, is available to us too. That is indeed the stuff that the kingdom of heaven is made of. However it has a dual meaning to me. The other meaning has been in me for many years now as I lead people to notify the admiralty that they are courts of competent jurisdiction (courts of record) and therefore are capable of keeping their feet dry.
That is and always has been the purpose of the 1789 'saving to suitors' clause.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Watched some of both videos and not one of them addresses my concern about the tax imposition within Social Security and how Social Security 3121(a) "wages" are included in the wages (3401(a)) which the government defines for deduction and withholding.
Most working class Americans didnt pay income taxes until 1940. 1939 was the first year they were subject to withholding and deduction for the Section 1 tax only to find themselves filing their taxes by April 15th in 1940.
1940 is 27 years after 1913 when the reserve act came about. So Dave lets be honest by addressing why millions of Americans didnt pay taxes for 27 years until 1940 and yet used the same fiat reserve notes we use today?
This 27 years is a big hurdle to overcome Mr. Merrill as history is proving the fiat endorsing theory of yours isnt corralating with unprecedented historical fact. You have 27 years of explaining why millions of Americans didn't pay taxes until the enactment of Social Security.
I'm not at all trying to discredit you Mr. Merrill. As you say we evolve in thinking which I beleive we get sharper and sharper in understanding when the correct questions are posed and (honestly) answered.
I believe the article in my first video does but that you missed it.
Quote:
Two years after H.J.R. 192, Congress passed the Social Security Act, which the Supreme Court upheld as a valid act imposing a valid income tax: 'Charles C. Steward Mach. Co. v, Davis' 301 U.S. 548 (1937).
I can knock off twenty years of your twenty-seven with the original 1913 charter for the Fed Banks of twenty years.
You might see that the Supreme Court did not address how Social Security qualified as a valid Income Tax for four more years after that so that is twenty-four of your twenty-seven years right there. In the Introduction to The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin Delano Roosevelt we find that the New Deal was not invented as a Logo for the Bankers' Holiday and the War on the Great Depression until 1938.
That would sound about right. The income tax as Hitler came into power would be like a war chest. Here is the formation of the new trust in 1933:Quote:
Most working class Americans didnt pay income taxes until 1940. 1939 was the first year they were subject to withholding and deduction for the Section 1 tax only to find themselves filing their taxes by April 15th in 1940.
You can see how that is a far cry from a fully formed income tax system for the new Fed banks in general. Presuming your comment to be true it took seven years to implement the New Deal Trust, if that is what you want to call it. It took seven years to complete a formal taxation system in America. That sounds reasonable, considering that there being an alternative to endorsing private credit was kept secret through fraud by omission. Albeit there was a much more prevalent sense of patriotism then, according to my veteran father anyway, a lot of people would have chosen to redeem lawful money by demand.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. In my Dad's final days I read a great deal of Carroll QUIGLEY's Tragedy and Hope; The History of the World in Our Time out loud to him. It drew some great recollections as his long term memory was excellent. We discussed things like you are saying, usually just before my reading aloud knocked him out like a light.
P.P.S. Above me in the shelf are the five years of the Roosevelt Administration from 1932-1936. And the full set is available to me at the federal repository. If you really wanted to outline what you are saying in detail about the implementation of the Income Tax that would be a great way to do it. For the April 15th Deadline though, you might have to go earlier by a few years (1861):
If the SSA sold the revenue stream from contribution to the US Department of the Treasury, that might have been enough to make it a tax.
Re: endorsements, I'd have to chalk it up to the attorneys-at-bar. I recall how adamant a bank was back in the mid 90s about absolutely NOT making any changes to the format of checks --that is, if they printed them. They offer free check printing because its not likely that you'll go print your own. There are at least two ways to make something payable to order:
orQuote:
Pay to the order of...
The attorneys probably suggested the former over the latter. With the latter (the 2nd one) there shouldnt be any need to do anything but "show ID". There'd be no need to endorse the 2nd at the drawer's bank, of course, the payee wanted to give an order. Of course, the same "Pay .. to the order of" verbiage pervades Quickbooks and perhaps almost every popular check printing or accounting software package on the planet. You're just not "supposed" to know there is any alternative because the conditioning and misleading called "education" is just "supposed" to work.Quote:
Pay to ......................... or order
If you cross the Pacific to, say, New Zealand you dont see that kind of wording on checks. Instead you see something like..
http://ts1.mm.bing.net/images/thumbn...167a9ff348028dQuote:
Pay ...
The sum of...
http://unipr.waikato.ac.nz/news/imag...nicaFraser.jpg
Dont know why April 15th is of any big deal here?
You Dave act as though this 37th congress session is a big deal.
I dont care what day they picked as a deadline to file as it doesnt matter. The matter and point was a majority of the American population didnt file until 1940.
And your previous post about shaving off twenty years and something about 4 other years.................what point are you trying to make here?
Your premise is that the mere use or having fiat in your pocket imposes the income tax by your very own words!
Well.................what does the reserve bank charter of 20 years have to do with anything?
The private federal reserve doesnt and cannot impose any taxes on Americans like the Social Security act does. Nor does the reserve act classify occupations as "employment" which the definition comes from Title 5.
So which is it Mr. Merrill?
Does or does not the reserve act with its "supposed" hidden fiat imposition cause taxation or not?....you cant have it both ways......or can you?
You know over at another site a quatloosers has chimed in saying you are legally a nutcase. Even showed the document stating you cannot be legally held accountable. basically it says nobody should take you word for anything. And from the looks of this you are waffling back and forth much like Hendrickson did and still does when confronted with facts that cause his theory to spiral down in a flaming crash.
I dunno where the notion of the FRB imposing a tax comes in. Perhaps the FRB cannot impose an income tax, but perhaps it or one or more banks can hold one or more persons as surety for paying its own taxes. One explanation with respect to U.S. income tax is that between the 60s and 70s corporates started looking for ways to dump their tax liability on their employees. (The W4 perhaps plays a role in this.) In the issue of endorsing private credit--or rather being a surety on an instrument imparted with private credit through some customary means --in the issue of that having a significance as to income tax, I suppose the effects might be different with an employer-employee type arrangement as compared with an company-contractor type relationship.
Also perhaps the difference between 1930s and 1940s and now is that even the silver dollars were removed from normal circulation. In any case, I don't recall any suggesting of the FRB imposing a tax. Having fiat money in your pocket imposes income tax? Hmm I maybe missed that notion being implied here. Employer-employee relationship and income tax seems to be what it was confined to.
Thank you for that Allodial! I am making some headway with that.
That is the significance of the Thirty-Seventh Congress alright! The implied trust about money became express - IN GOD WE TRUST - 1863.
I would like to say that I am sorry you have become bored with Quatloos - but I am not. I wrote a thread early on about my being thick-skinned with you Quatlosers. Since members here are verifying remedy exists all the time now, I think that goes double for you. I enjoy the new troll here but if you start detracting from the entertainment and education values of this website I will deal with you appropriately.
P.S. By that last remark I mean only for you to stay focused on this:
The private federal reserve doesnt and cannot impose any taxes on Americans like the Social Security act does. Nor does the reserve act classify occupations as "employment" which the definition comes from Title 5.
I have the Fed Act and USC Title 5 handy but will leave it to you to support that for us.
So which is it Mr. Merrill?
You must explain the premise clearly if you expect me to choose between an ultimatum. In other words if you want to try agitating me about my sanity and so forth, then maybe you will establish that you are coming from a proper finding of facts first please?
It appears that he is insinuating that you to have asserted such re: FRNs/Income Tax. However, it may be that he is using an "argument seeding" tactic typical of litigation attorneys or interrogators. The conversation is about eating eggs. Then the argument seed is "So you killed your cat with an egg? Don't you think that doing such a think is terrible?" Of course the response they're hoping for is: "I didn't kill my cat with an egg." So then from there its "So exactly what did you kill your cat with?"Quote:
I think you are joindering Allodial into my posts, but I don't think that is what he is saying.
http://img.thoughts.com/3a02ajr00o554tg.jpg
Trolls.
****
Re: sanity.
The interesting thing is that a psychologist's inability to distinguish imaginary things (i.e. "the State") from reality perhaps makes him/her ...insane.
P.S. Thinking about thinking is said to be neurotic behavior. A profession dedicated to thinking about thinking....would be neurotic, no?
Thank you Allodial;
That is a new diagram for me. Maybe it is the old "So you used to beat your wife tactic." tactic?
I knew it was not the one I am used to though. When I would make three great points at once then the rebuttal would be only on the weakest point and the two great points would seemingly fall by the wayside.
Hello, I would like to quickly comment on this issue, which is to say the "lock-in" process (or the 'LTR 2801C'), the IRS abuses purely under a 'color of law' as surely your payroll dept. could very readily provide the IRS your recent withholding history and as well the IRS most certainly has all of your prior tax filing on microfiche. Below is an excerpt from a notice I had sent to my payer last year:
Concerning 26 U.S.C., to date by way of my own research, I have been unable to locate any statutory authority directly empowering the IRS to issue its infamous “lock-in” letters as “single and zero” by proxy, which so being the case indicates that all such letters are in reality 'color of law' bootleg documents providing no binding legal obligation for enforcement and that all such notices are but contrived farces. The IRS has been granted only authority to implement procedures through regulations to establish for individuals their legitimate claim of allowances for deductions, exemption, etc. as so defined by statute, they have not been granted authority to restrict such rights from them (notwithstanding that they have also been granted authority to issues civil penalties upon those that are committing fraud with concern to such allowances, e.g., 26 U.S.C. § 7205).
i. The only regulatory statute I have located on this subject matter pertains to only authorizing such increases in withholdings at the employee’s request, see 26 U.S.C. 3402(i)(1) — ‘Changes in withholding’:
“The Secretary may by regulations provide for increases in the amount of withholding otherwise required under this section in cases where the employee requests such changes. …”
See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...2----000-.html
ii. The only regulation concerning such notices/letters is found within 26 CFR Sec. 31.3402(f)(2)-1(g)(2)(i) — ‘Withholding exemption certificates’ (which (being merely a 'regulation') is superseded in context by the scope prescribed under statute) and is intended only to ensure that employees are claiming only what they are lawfully entitled to and not to be enforced as a venomous form of maximum withholding punishment (the IRS does none of the below, save for issuing the harrassing letter):
“Notice of the maximum number of withholding exemptions permitted--(i) Notice to employer. The IRS may notify the employer in writing that the employee is not entitled to claim a complete exemption from withholding or more than the maximum number of withholding exemptions specified by the IRS in the written notice. The notice will also specify the applicable marital status for purposes of calculating the required amount of withholding. The notice will specify the IRS office to be contacted for further information. The notice of maximum number of withholding exemptions permitted may be issued if--
(A) The IRS determines that a copy of a withholding exemption Certificate submitted under paragraph (g)(1) [“An employer must submit to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) a copy of any currently effective withholding exemption certificate as directed in a written notice to the employer from the IRS or as directed in published guidance.”] of this section or otherwise provided to the IRS contains a materially incorrect statement or determines, after a request to the employee for verification of the statements on the certificate, that the IRS lacks sufficient information to determine if the certificate is correct.
(B) The IRS otherwise determines that the employee is not entitled to claim a complete exemption from withholding and is not entitled to claim more than a specified number of withholding exemptions.
…”
See: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_20...02(f)(2)-1.htm
Hey there Weston!
Its been a long time since we talked over at your site.
Just last week i tried to log in and couldnt remember my password.
To reply to your post..................read regulation 26cfr 1-1.1 for the reason you think the IRS cant slap a lock in letter.
The key to this is your consent to being their subject.......................the federal "US citizen".
US citizens are regulated and taxed heavily.......................the People are not!
Thank You Jessie...Contract ...................Corporate Info
Under the notion of "pre-existing duties," if either the promisor or the promisee already had a legal obligation to render such payment, it cannot be seen as consideration in the legal sense.
In contract law in the United States, the pre-existing duty rule is a legal concept relating to when the performance of a legal duty is classified as consideration.
Generally, performing a legal duty which is already owed under a contract does not constitute consideration, unless that duty is unclear or honestly disputed.
That is, once a party agrees to do something under a contract, that party cannot change the terms without consideration and expect the new terms to be enforceable.
This is expressed as the legal duty rule, and usually occurs in one of three different ways: Wikipedia
Well since you bring up "duties" somewhere on the Social Security website one condition in participating is paying all duties (taxes) associated with participating in SS.
Both the impositions found at 26usc 3402 and 26usc 3101 are "pre-existing duties" to pay the taxes associated with participating in Social Security.
Has nothing at all to do with lawful money or fiat money.
Are those not all but hidden taxes anyway? With them all going directly into a general fund with nothing being earmarked for a specific purpose; just the same as "Obamacare", yet another pointless tax hike at 2.5/5-percent (or more) annually. With the federal government reserving the right to terminate such entitlement programs at anytime they see fit, which subsequently could result in the forfeiture of any future benefits in those programs or in greatly reduced benefits from such entitlements, dependent upon nothing but the generosity of whoever is holding the House at the time.
What jesse is describing (correctly, by the way!) is explained very well right here:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxe...ipdiagrams.pdf
Hbert
Federal income tax is separate from the other two.
FICA has to do with SS.
Medicare has to do with social insurance .... interesting.
If Medicare is a social insurance program ... the tax you pay is your premium in contribution to the program....
Interestingly enough, France and Canada also have Medicare or some form of social insurance program. I have a hunch this may be international in scope. If this is the case, then there are greater implications not spoken ....
Insurance is squarely in the realm of Admiralty/Maritime law.
It is not unlawful for government to tax a benefit given (per the Supreme Court). I've seen this in one of the Supreme Court cases on Social Security. I'm guessing it is Flemming v. Nestor (1960), but don't quote me on it.
If you accept a benefit from government, expect there to be a tax.
If you want to reduce your exposure to taxes, decline the benefits :).
Cease to be a beneficiary.
No its not unlawful for the government to tax a benefit................especialy a benefit that comes directly and administered from the government itself.
Social Security is a federal government benefit program that has no mandatory participation clause in it whatsoever............its all voluntary.
And its voluntary to participate because in doing so you proclaim under penalty of perjury to being a 14th amendment federal "US citizen" having but a scant Bill of Right protections of the Constitution.
If they would have such a mandatory participation clause in the benefit Act it would be in violation of the US Constitution on many different levels.
Do you think they could force every American to participate if this mandatory participation labels you a second class citizen that has a little Bill of Rights?
This fight against taxation boils down to "RIGHTS" not money!