Is Non-Endorsement the same as Demanding Lawful Money?
This is one of many questions that I have because this is confusing me as I have gotten different answers.
When I first heard about this remedy, it was advised to make a stamp to put on the back of your checks that says:
DEPOSIT FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUNT OR
EXCHANGE FOR NON-NEGOTIABLE FEDERAL
RESERVE NOTES OF FACE VALUE
ACC#:________________________
And I just got the stamp in the mail :D
However, now that I found this site, I am hearing that it should've been:
REDEEMED LAWFUL MONEY
PURSUANT TO 12 U.S.C. SS 411
My question: is there a specific/appropriate time to use each one, is one better than the other, or do they both serve the same purpose?
One answer that I have received is that I would want to have TWO stamps, the former being to stamp on the back of the check, and the
latter to stamp on the memo/signature line on withdrawal slips.
Personally, I really don't care what they do with my money on the back end, whether they lend it out or not. I just want my demand for
lawful money to be on record. So would it make sense to just get the latter stamp and use it for withdrawal slips?
For example:
Scenario 1:
Instead of depositing the whole check, I cash part of it and deposit the rest and fill out the form like this:
http://i43.tinypic.com/1zh00sw.jpg
Scenario 2:
When depositing the check, I stamp on the back the "instructions/endorsement":
http://i39.tinypic.com/oidk00.jpg
Scenario 3:
Any time after I deposit the check, and I make a withdrawal, to do it like this:
http://i43.tinypic.com/24vm929.jpg
Should I just do all three, or would one cover the others?
Proposed Modification of Notice and Demand
Quote:
Originally Posted by
David Merrill
Notwithstanding.
That is a tricky word in that Notice and Demand.
I am just mentioning it because it might be clearer that only contracts outside the scope of the fraud by omission are spoken of here. Otherwise it might seem contradictory that all contracts are void nunc pro tunc, but those by provision of law or contract are still good.
Might I suggest this wording instead:
"Not withstanding any other provision of law or contractual obligations; NO{delete this, and substitute]
As the above demand is my explicit choice under the option provided in 12 USCode 411, the highest law of the land, to eschew any and all use of
Federal Reserve credit, no provision of any contract for private credit with any lesser entity shall be construed to act or operate in any way or manner to eliminate, diminish, supersede, or otherwise modify any provision contained within this Notice and demand. This Notice and Demand is
now on and for the lawful record and is within the cognizance of the United States. Any and all parties
claiming to preside, act or operate from within that realm are duly advised."
Please advise whether this suggested form is preferable, especially whether "law of the land" invites difficulties with regard to admiralty law.
Freed
[Edited several weeks later:] After giving this some more thought, I perceive that the 'notwithstanding' issue can be resolved by emphasizing the explicit, which always takes precedence over the implicit. Since the Fed Reserve and its bankster minions want to create a record which proves that you are a taxpayer, but do not want to mention lawful money, their contracts always use inference and assumpsit to achieve their purpose, but this is implied agreement, which can be trumped by explicit demand. So the Notice should say:
This Notice and Demand is now on, and for, the lawful record and is within the cognizance of the United States. This Demand is Explicit for the Redemption of Lawful Money. No term of any other contract, which term seeks to establish, through inference, assumpsit, or words of art, that an implicit request has been made to use Federal Reserve credit, shall supercede this explicit Demand, or impair such Demand in any way. Any and all parties claiming to preside, act or operate from within that realm are duly advised.
It would seem that with this Notice and Demand on record, you would be free to contract for a bank credit card, using lawful money... the contract specifies a debtor/creditor relationship, but it does not specify the notes in which the credit balances would be kept. Seems to me that the bank would now be in the position of having to rebut your presumption.
Freed