Check Non-Endorsement Verbiage

I have listened to the YouTube video at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uGn-G5tbE8
which is a discussion about Lawful Money with David Merrill, Keith Edward, and Michael Joseph.

In the video, which is an audio recording, there are three different non-endorsements of the Fed verbiages given. These are:

"Redeemed in Lawful money pursuant to 12 USC 411",

"Redeemed lawful money per title 12 section 411",

and

"Demand for lawful money, per Title 12 section 411"

These are to be followed by a signature in this format:

<first name> <middle name> , dba <first name> <middle name> <last name>

Are each of these as good as the other? Are there circumstances where one would use one and not the other?

There is mention that only lawyers should use the word "pursuant", and everyone else should use "per" instead. I use "per". But my question is about the word "in". How important is it that the word "in" be there?

I have been using a semicolon instead of a comma before the dba. How important is this difference?

In the discussion it is also stated that what is to follow the dba is exactly what is on the driver's license. What I see in block letters on my California License is

LN <my last name>
FN <my first name> <my last name>

Then on the lower left hand corner I see where I have written my signature in script writing only my first name and my last name. So there is an inconsistency here between the block lettering and my signature in that in my signature my middle name is missing. Does that mean it should also be missing where I write the name of the trust (<first name> <middle name> <last name>) after the dba in the non-endorsement? Or should it be the entire name of the trust (<first name> <middle name> <last name>) ? I have the same question for my credit union account's signature card. I intend that on my next visit to my credit union to ask to sign a replacement signature card and put the non-endorsement there.

Not every check I deposit has my middle name. I have heard in the video to use in the trust name part of the non-endorsement exactly the name on the front part of the check. Is that also true if that excludes my middle name? Or should I include my middle name in the trust name part regardless?

Would there be any reason for me to go to DMV and get a replacement license that includes in my signature my middle name?

I have seen advice elsewhere about not using script for the names on the non-endorsement, that instead it is best to use block lettering instead of a signature in script for the names. Is correct? Is there really any advantage in doing that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephen

I have listened to the YouTube video at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uGn-G5tbE8
which is a discussion about Lawful Money with David Merrill, Keith Edward, and Michael Joseph.

---

Read the verbage in 12USC411. A claim whereupon relief may be granted - "They shall be redeemed on demand....."

Therefore in my simplistic mind - "Demand is made [present tense] for Lawful Money per 12USC411" contemplates a claim upon which relief may be granted to make a use of PUBLIC MONEY subject to the terms of use established in Statute. Therefore, in my opinion, there remains a trustee to stand surety for the existing notes and there is no need for me to stand as accommodation party for new "book entries".

I suppose the word "per" could be changed to "in accord with"....my intent is my own.

I have used or have seen others use a Notice sent to the financial institution that states- "All transactions are deemed to be performed in lawful money persuant to 12 USC, SEction 411"
In this way it is not necessary to endorse each check with the lawful money verbage. It is also not necessary to be relatively too picky about the particular words used because in commerce it is the intent of the writing that counts.

I concur with that general notice. I also am convinced that the language should stick with "Redeemed" rather than demanded because it keeps with the wording of statute. This is to avoid p*ssing contests should any controversy arise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allodial

I concur with that general notice. I also am convinced that the language should stick with "Redeemed" rather than demanded because it keeps with the wording of statute. This is to avoid p*ssing contests should any controversy arise.

---

allodial. I like the fact that you understand your deeds. I myself see no need to notice a bank of anything. The bank is simply a "store" just like Walmart or any other "department store". My notice is my demand upon the signature card. I express my will upon my signature.

Nevertheless, if one thinks he/she should notice another, let that one follow his own conscious thought. Who am I to say it is wrong. I would that each man think for himself. I used to notice everyone but then I realized that was a waste of my time. I understand my deeds by my own intent. I sit in my court at the common law under YHVH.

Remember that FDR said "If we can persuade people to deposit their salary checks into our newly formed Trust Accounts....." The prefix DE means to abandon claim, right, title...etc. But when I make a demand I am claiming. But again to each his own according to his/her conscience.

This is all about the intent of the writer of the law and the subsequent code. Who here has first hand knowledge of such intent and/or is certified to interpret either?

Is the "demander" also the "redeemer"?

Does "They shall be redeemed upon demand" mean that redemption of notes is an automatic function/effect of a demand made?

Does it mean that someone who is authorized to redeem "shall" redeem when a demand is made? When? Isn't "shall" a future tense verb?

Unless someone here can say with 100% certainty that he/she has first hand knowledge of the intent of the writers, I would suggest that our only concern is to make the demand for lawful money known through the vessel used for such activity.

My opinion is that if it is not we that are the trustees, then we have no business declaring that something has been redeemed; is it we who are buying something back?

Our only obligation, if we wish to be outside the scope of the Federal Reserve's jurisdiction when handling their issued notes, is to make the appropriate demand and keep a lawful record of our transactions.

Whether the obligatory party chooses to fulfill the duty of redemption or not ("shall") has no effect upon our affairs.

. The prefix DE [defendant legally at law]means to abandon claim, right, title...etc. But when I give notice[lawful]I am claiming only common sense in law be redeemed and restored with me as claimant or complainant, giving notice as it effects a financial trust why support state claims the defendants abandonment .My claim is giving respondents discovery as Me a claimant complainant or Plaintiff the term used in some jurisdictions as state vs the party who initiates a lawsuit can also be known as an defendant .counter claim has a respondent in any civil action .My claim no piss no bucket or court window to throw a no standing respondent out off. I stand or i don't .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xparte

...... I stand or i don't.

---

“The judgment of a court of record [a court operating under the Common Law only; NO statutes allowed] whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on all the world as the judgment of this court [the U.S. Supreme Court] would be. It is as conclusive on this court [the U.S. Supreme Court] as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it." U.S. Supreme Court decision in Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203. [cited by SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLBereans

Is the "demander" also the "redeemer"?

---

I maintain that the claimant issues forth demands whereof he/she seeks relief. In my humble opinion, They shall be redeemed on demand is a requirement upon those who hold an oath of office. The one who demands does so without duty. The trustee must keep the ledger/accounting.

I keep it as simple as possible. I make my demand for Lawful Money and what is given to me is of little accord. I have fulfilled the law what is left is for the trustee to perform his/her duty to the public.

Therefore it is my opinion that the "demander" is not the "redeemer".

There you go.........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael Joseph

I maintain that the claimant issues forth demands whereof he/she seeks relief. In my humble opinion, They shall be redeemed on demand is a requirement upon those who hold an oath of office. The one who demands does so without duty. The trustee must keep the ledger/accounting. I keep it as simple as possible. I make my demand for Lawful Money and what is given to me is of little accord. I have fulfilled the law what is left is for the trustee to perform his/her duty to the public. Therefore it is my opinion that the "demander" is not the "redeemer".

---

Just sign check as: REDEEMED IN LAWFUL MONEY PURSUANT TO 12 USC 411

The point being, in conclusion, it’s not a legal determination that’s up to the Treasury, the Treasurer, the Secretary of the Treasury, the bank teller or the bank notary, judge or the IRS.

This is a decision to demand lawful money that’s up to you, by remedy. You’re the one who makes the choice.

A woman in a small Maine bank had the bank manager demand that she strike through the restricted endorsement (is what it was called up there).

DEPOSITED FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUNT OR EXCHANGED FOR NON-NEGOTIABLE FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES OF EQUAL VALUE

She was a single mom. She had to. Her demand was clear and witnessed by the notary at the bank.

The following week she hand wrote a simpler demand for lawful money, and it worked fine.

REDEEMED IN LAWFUL MONEY PURSUANT TO 12 USC 411

Thank you John-Henry Hill.

Demand [its my wish as "demander" bringing forth a true remittance ] Christ truth within .redeemer savior friend In God we trust ,well under his Law redeem restore all contracts redeem my standing faith and trust in this office. authorized as "demander" Authority as redeemer. The claimant is assigned remedy by default [chexkmate ]cant pawn the lawful King. [MJ] final decrements know who p*ssing straight ] should any controversy arise avoid 3rd person sudden bladder relaxation that can produce a deemed defendant. "demander" a sympathetic nervous activity yet discrete reduction in (a numerical quantity).the instruction decrements the accumulator by one.

It might be that redemption is an actual ministerial or governmental act (think Minister of Finance or Minister of Agriculture kind of ministerial) whereas demand can be in any capacity.

Notice timely given establishes intent rather than allowing presumption to take hold--its that simple. Giving notice to the bank and cc-ing the attorney general or states attorney for the respective county or the Secretary of the Treasury should be enough rather than 'papering' the universe.

At first I too used "DEPOSITED FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUNT OR EXCHANGED FOR NON-NEGOTIABLE FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES OF EQUAL VALUE". The first bank I tried that at was far away from where I lived so most transactions were done by mail. I got a call from that bank's teller to tell me she could not accept that endorsement because "it transferred liability to the bank". Later I asked if they would accept the one that began with "Redeemed". She said she would not and that I should simply sign it.

The second bank I tried the one beginning with "Deposited" the teller summoned the bank manager. After some discussion between them they did accept it, but the teller said it was "very iffy".

Now I am using a Trodat stamper that says

Redeemed Lawful Money
Pursuant to 12 USC § 411
www.law.cornell.edu/uscode

I no longer bank at the first bank above. All the banks I do business with now accept this one beginning with "Redeemed" above without question. I believe this is due to the ignorance of the teller. In an ignorant teller's mind what money that we are dealing with here wouldn't be lawful? :)

It is a sad state of affairs that a fast one has been pulled on the public which has been tricked into using an instrument of exchange that represents a debt liability instead of a value. That is the way the real world works. There are lot of people who want what's yours, and so work out ingenious ways to get it. That includes the banks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH9OIIJcQM8 :)

I still need to know:

If the absence of my middle name where my cursive signature is on my driver's license has relevance regarding whether I should include my middle name in the trust name portion of the non-endorsement. Currently I am including it on the reasoning that including it makes a complete trust name.

If there is any benefit to using block lettering for the names instead of a cursive script. Currently I am using block lettering.

Whether it makes a difference whether I use a comma or semicolon between my family name and my trust's name. Currently I am using a semicolon.

The question whether to use the one beginning with "Redeemed" or "Demand" has stimulated an in depth debate among senior members. Although I appreciate seeing the different viewpoints, I was hoping for a simple answer. :)

Names are givin does a birth date get memorial only upon its death? Are all births NAMED RECORDED ONLY AS BIRTHS SEE ATTACHMENTS? The JOHN DOE BIRTH certificate or DEATH CERTIFICATE has no middle Name bank is [STATE]needs my john henry or DOE this [;]separates any memorial from a just given and registered birth vs just my given Name thats not been registered . As george a contributing senior member once wrote marking endorsing giving birth to a NAME needs only the signatory Xohn first Xenry middle ; Xoe or just X well a simple man or a wise man knows X = plenty for officials who make use of latin or ROMAN CIVIL CODE seperate X = me. The simple answer is the truth and its easiest to memorialise ifX= YOU (a numerical quantity).the instruction decrements the accumulator by one. 9/10ths of civil law = X Decimation was a terrifying form of punishment in the Roman army. ... Decimation – Murder by Tens ... And as a grim reminder to the rest of the army, he then ordered every tenth man remaining to be executed for good That said, just because someone possesses certain property does not necessarily mean that the person is legally *entitled* to possess the property. As noted above, another person may seek legal recourse to obtain the property, and through those legal proceedings, the court could certainly declare that the other person is entitled to possess the property.X;parte we know who owns the paper endorsing who,s death X when my # s up thx stay 1% in law Ralph Sonny;Barger at the end of the day your gonna know my Name

ATTACHMENTS A carefully crafted Name has exposed me "UNITED STATES" as a NAMED corporation DOB July/ 04 /76 this info is hearsay until a # matches the NAME if a number was only hearsay. When Is a number like a Name a full NAME has CUSIP Number
CUSIP stands for Committee on Uniform Securities Identification Procedures. A CUSIP number identifies most financial instruments, including: stocks of all registered U.S. and Canadian companies, commercial paper, and U.S. government and municipal bonds. The CUSIP system (formally known as CUSIP Global Services)—owned by the American Bankers Association and managed by Standard & Poor’s—facilitates the clearance and settlement process of securities.

CUSIP numbers consist of nine characters (including letters and numbers) that uniquely identify a company or issuer and the type of financial instrument. A similar system is used to identify foreign securities (CUSIP International Numbering System or CINS). CINS employs the same nine character identifier as CUSIP, but also contains a letter in the first position to signify the issuer's country or geographic region.

For more information about how the CUSIP process works, you can contact CU-SIP Global Services at (212) 438-6500 or visit its website. How did i get this far without can i have your CU-SIP number please with just giving a NAME I have two given names what one helps those two have no cusip attachments like DOB DL# BC# SSN# SIN# a letter in the first position to signify the issuer's country or geographic region.Issuer is a legal entity that develops, registers and sells securities for the purpose of financing its operations. Issuers may be domestic or foreign governments, ..The LAST NAME IN ANY COMMERCIAL ACT WILL APPEAR AS FULL NAME WITH ALL OR ANY GIVEN JOHN DOE DOE JOHN can [Who can redeem a given Names Me ] Definition of issuer: Legal entity (such as a corporation, investment trust, government, or government agency) that is authorized to issue

headquartered in New York City, United States, and a division of McGraw Hill Financial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael Joseph

The one who demands does so without duty. The trustee must keep the ledger/accounting.

---

MJ what does that mean "The one who demands does so without duty." and who exactly is the trustee who must keep the ledger/accounting?


verbage I like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chex

MJ what does that mean "The one who demands does so without duty." and who exactly is the trustee who must keep the ledger/accounting?

---

A claim is equal to a demand - but if the claim is made WITHIN a certain Law Boundary, then that claim must have a mechanism upon which relief can be granted. Since I don't find my name upon the notes I do not have the Management of those notes in circulation and the use of those notes is subject to the Statutes developed and understood by those who consent to the Use.

What I mean is I move the exchange upon certain understandings based on my demand or lack thereof. If I lack a claim, then I will have a duty to give accounting [you might call that a return]. Otherwise, I have no duty to give an accounting as I was not responsible for the Ordering up of new book entries.

See it is by MY ORDER of which the store performs. Therefore since I took on the management, I also take the liability.

There always remains a presumption and the trustee must give account if demanded of him to prove his/her innocence. Therefore just to comprehend uses and trust one can escape duty in claim. I claim Lawful Money by demanding it. See at once I bound myself within a certain law boundary.

Consider, is it lawful to use USN's to buy in say China? Only if the heads of State [husbandmen] have entered upon an agreement! For the citizen [wife] is subject to the heads of State [husbandmen]. See this is Romans 13 and the heads of State are subject to God in Oath to the "people" and "God". For to tort a man is to tort God. For know ye now that ye are the temple of God.

Therefore we see the demand is made "subject to" the Code: 12USC411. Which is merely a reflection of a rule within a law boundary. I use the term "rule" very crudely now. But I think it gets it done. So therefore as a BENEFICIARY I demand Lawful Money - which is a PUBLIC BENEFIT - but at once I am GRANTEE in receipt of the benefit of the Use of Lawful Money undertaking now in and for the United States Districts. For you have just as much right to use lawful money as I do. Only thing separating my ability to make that use from another is KNOWLEDGE.

Officers of State occupy upon certain offices. Seems Jacob Joseph LEW is Governor of the IMF and Secretary of the Treasury. Of course it is also true that notice to agent is notice to principal. The IRS as you know is not an agency of the U.S. government.

See in Diversified Metal Products vs T Bow Company Trust we find that the proper party in suit would be the United States of America. Now ask yourself who established the Use of the notes? Was it not the United States of America in Congress? Now not to go to deep down that rabbit hole but merely to touch on the demand is made FOR something of which relief may be granted within the Law Boundary whereof said demand issues unto and grant thereof.

In the end money in any form is only as good as the willingness of the people to place their trust in that exchange medium. Thusly money is understood by Faith.

IN GOD WE TRUST

History used to be boring now boots are on the ground.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States....

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2

The federal government owns or controls about thirty percent of the land in the United States. These holdings include national parks, national forests, recreation areas, wildlife refuges, vast tracts of range and wasteland managed by the Bureau of Land Management, reservations held in trust for Native American tribes, military bases, and ordinary federal buildings and installations. Although federal property can be found in every state, the largest concentrations are in the west, where, for example, the federal government owns over eighty percent of the land within Nevada.

The narrowest conception, which can be called the proprietary theory, maintains that the Property Clause simply allows Congress to act as an ordinary owner of land. It can set policy regarding whether such lands will be sold or retained and, if they are retained, who may enter these lands and for what purposes. Under this conception, the clause confers no political sovereignty over federal landholdings. Unless one of the enumerated powers of Article I applies, such as the power to raise armies or establish a post office, political sovereignty over federal lands remains with the several states in which the land is located.

Bless you my friend.

..it amazed me how adeptly he (Michael Joseph) could take complex subject matter, like trust law and break it down so I could understand it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chex

History used to be boring now boots are on the ground.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States....

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2

The federal government owns or controls about thirty percent of the land in the United States. These holdings include national parks, national forests, recreation areas, wildlife refuges, vast tracts of range and wasteland managed by the Bureau of Land Management, reservations held in trust for Native American tribes, military bases, and ordinary federal buildings and installations. Although federal property can be found in every state, the largest concentrations are in the west, where, for example, the federal government owns over eighty percent of the land within Nevada.

The narrowest conception, which can be called the proprietary theory, maintains that the Property Clause simply allows Congress to act as an ordinary owner of land. It can set policy regarding whether such lands will be sold or retained and, if they are retained, who may enter these lands and for what purposes. Under this conception, the clause confers no political sovereignty over federal landholdings. Unless one of the enumerated powers of Article I applies, such as the power to raise armies or establish a post office, political sovereignty over federal lands remains with the several states in which the land is located.

Bless you my friend.

..it amazed me how adeptly he (Michael Joseph) could take complex subject matter, like trust law and break it down so I could understand it.

---

Thank you. I give glory to God. When I truly began an earnest study of the Bible absent any priest or preacher who was trying to tell me what it meant - it was then that I began to get glimpses at the original trust. And with more study, I began to see that the model is replicated in the earth so that one day those who are entirely carnal and literal might begin to see what is the truth. For the model only reflects that which is true. You might say the Light comes from the Sun but is not the Sun.

Hue-man kind. This post makes my day. I appreciate your kindness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chex

..it amazed me how adeptly he (Michael Joseph) could take complex subject matter, like trust law and break it down so I could understand it.

---

that had to be the most direct and to the point post and also the best one (or at least top 5) MJ has ever written here from my perspective! easy to read and without many sidetracks into off-topic. not that he goes off topic often but for those of us reading that lack a broader range of understanding on these matters, often it sure seems off topic and just adds more confusion.

I really like it when the members here get on the main subjects that started this forum, especially when they get down to the brass tacks technicalities. that really helped me start to grasp what all this fuss is about. and I have been following these methods for many years now. much prior to this forum.

that was a great post MJ.

thank you george.

Once when I was at college I overhead my Physics professor speaking to my Chemistry professor. They were talking about how the sciences are all connected but that few can perceive the connectivity and thusly they remain somewhat blinded to the bigger picture.

Like Jay Vincent, one of my early mentors, used to say - it is all one huge connected string. One makes leaping bounds when one connects philosophy to science. Therefore as for my part, I understand the world without when I have better understanding of the world within my consciousness.

Just like Madonna said "You hold the Key". I pray that you find your way thru your red [reed] sea.

absent any priest or preacher Practising Cathaholics Without any Protesting Wasps to keep Basilica in familiar (in the Roman Catholic Church) a person rendering certain services in a pope's or bishop's household. Also i am thanking MJ for any Man that is given a wisdom is under the grace of God when it is imparted it glorify s the WORD forget in the beginning get u some word and wisdom with grace to till at or the end .Glory is what lifts a spirit from where its bound. Is the crew bound for glory it appears a voyage and its route has been set. whats not biblical about this crew are we not persecuted plagued offered kingdoms this could be yours.I have respect for law Gods simpler said for all Gods crew.

I appreciate the opinions contributed to this thread. But in the end the only thing that matters is which, if any, of the non-endorsement verbiages have been an effective defense in court in regard to taxation. Can anyone cite any case law regarding these non-endorsements?

In my opinion, the only "case law" you will find on the record is that which skews the intent and proper claim of demand of lawful money so as to deceive the public and charge the unwitting "defendant".

The same "verbiage" can be utilized by many different people with many different outcomes. The only way to provide "an effective defense" against attack is to handle the matter honorably according to the rules of common law which, by the way, are unwritten - this is still a common law land.

All claims, no matter the nature of the pursuer or cause, should be handled in the same way. Know your rights and learn how to reserve, protect and exercise them. The right "verbiage" will not carry the day as a "silver bullet" or an "abracadabra" remedy. At best, it serves as a reference and benefit to the pursuer since it most likely is said pursuer who is subject to, and obligated to know, the relevant "law" being cited.

That does not, however, automatically prevent deception or tricks of the attorneys and "judges" during a case or proceeding which may cause one to fall victim and be held liable.

Stephen -- it has been said many times here......REMEDY is between your ears

So knowing to your very core that what you are doing is right & true, "sticking to your guns" [in a defense] would be a no-brainer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ag maniac

Stephen -- it has been said many times here......REMEDY is between your ears

So knowing to your very core that what you are doing is right & true, "sticking to your guns" [in a defense] would be a no-brainer.

---

There are countless Patriots who thought they had found remedy in law, stuck to their guns, and lost regardless of how legally correct their case actually was. Examples are Lindsey Springer, Sherry Peel Jackson, Joseph Bannister, William J Benson, etc. Many of them went to jail. Tom Cryer was one of the outlier exceptions, and he won not on proving his position on tax law, but by proving lack of criminal intent.

It does not matter what written law says. We have seen it does not matter in non tax related court decisions such as those that have upheld Eminent Domain abuse (Kelo), and upheld tainted Asset Forfeiture before a conviction (the Fourth and Fifth Amendments do not make any exceptions regarding assets made tainted by suspicion or mere accusation). All that really matters is operating law.

And so I ask again: Have any of these non-endorsement verbiages prevailed in operating law? I want to avoid finding out it won't by ending up in jail, or by being forced into an expensive tax penalty deal that will impoverish me for the rest of my life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephen

There are countless Patriots who thought they had found remedy in law, stuck to their guns, and lost regardless of how legally correct their case actually was. Examples are Lindsey Springer, Sherry Peel Jackson, Joseph Bannister, William J Benson, etc. Many of them went to jail. Tom Cryer was one of the outlier exceptions, and he won not on proving his position on tax law, but by proving lack of criminal intent.

It does not matter what written law says. We have seen it does not matter in non tax related court decisions such as those that have upheld Eminent Domain abuse (Kelo), and upheld tainted Asset Forfeiture before a conviction (the Fourth and Fifth Amendments do not make any exceptions regarding assets made tainted by suspicion or mere accusation). All that really matters is operating law.

And so I ask again: Have any of these non-endorsement verbiages prevailed in operating law? I want to avoid finding out it won't by ending up in jail, or by being forced into an expensive tax penalty deal that will impoverish me for the rest of my life.

---

If one doesn't know his/herself and one seeks justification from another, then that one had best not seek any remedy to their current condition. Thusly, that one will receive unto himself exactly what he believes. That is Divine Law. And no law of man will ever change the Divine Law. Essentially this one does not comprehend the causes which manifest the current effect. One cannot change the effects immediately for that would break Divine Law. One must first put into action causes which will manifest a different effect. Thusly the status quo cannot be changed immediately.

Thou shalt have no other Gods before Me.

A double minded man is unstable in all of his ways. Thusly if one seeks justification and judgment from a court, then that one submits to that Court. Meaning that one has placed his/her trust in a system. As such, generally speaking if one places a trust in another one should obey. That too is Divine Law.

Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey;...

Therefore one must first define REMEDY. Remedy from what exactly? How can one define remedy if one does not understand the causes which brought the effects that one seeks remedy. If one has no understanding of the Law Boundary which closes the effects, then one is unable to obtain remedy. Why? Because one is relying upon a Survey which one lacks knowledge.

And as always the answer keeps coming back over and over again to: Remedy truly is just from one's self. For if I truly believed then I would do that which was necessary. And that which is necessary is to frame remedy in context so that a plan might issue from my MIND. Then my Will and my Thought would align in Love as I move in Faith upon my Honor seeking the good for Me and other men and women of Honor. Which is to say I have given my Word - so be it done.

I hope you find that which you seek. Ultimately that which your mind dwells upon will manifest.

Best Regards,
MJ

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered.Talk about [double minded]Christ the only tax protest that ever matters is knowing who owes Caesar a true Name or a registered one JESUS CHRIST NAZARENE give chezzy august his tax Jesus Christ; and a true Name or me John James; if its your name then dont be ashamed of the gospelThe Christ is was and forever [ROMES inguinal] our true foreign national his single kingdom and single minded exemption. The TRINITY true God true Christ true Me One must sort out what's hateful and the rest will matter little as its moot .Christ ends little in suffering in a registered world but what a BALANCE Christ provides when we offend a tax man or a registered gun its just in the true nature and spirit of Christ . pythons life of brian a great satire that re presents that tragic truth.a bible cut & paste .my bible cherry pickin gets me a pass if on point when a man casts that first stone if its double minded its hardness quickly becomes dust being care less or correct is ones investment a shareholder and its dividends stock brokers beware .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLBereans

In my opinion, the only "case law" you will find on the record is that which skews the intent and proper claim of demand of lawful money so as to deceive the public and charge the unwitting "defendant".

The same "verbiage" can be utilized by many different people with many different outcomes. The only way to provide "an effective defense" against attack is to handle the matter honorably according to the rules of common law which, by the way, are unwritten - this is still a common law land.

All claims, no matter the nature of the pursuer or cause, should be handled in the same way. Know your rights and learn how to reserve, protect and exercise them. The right "verbiage" will not carry the day as a "silver bullet" or an "abracadabra" remedy. At best, it serves as a reference and benefit to the pursuer since it most likely is said pursuer who is subject to, and obligated to know, the relevant "law" being cited.

That does not, however, automatically prevent deception or tricks of the attorneys and "judges" during a case or proceeding which may cause one to fall victim and be held liable.

---

Good points. Merely carrying the same sword that someone used victoriously will go how far? "David beat that giant with that a sword that looks like this one so I'm gonna buy it and carry it with me." I have ever encouraged the simplicity of: mastering and learning the principles which serve as foundations for all. Jesus Christ alluded to the same did he not?

For a few bucks, good books on contract law and trust law can be had via Amazon (actually since I started recommending the Calamari Perillo book they are instead of $5 a piece now $30+ even up to $100). For next to free the same: but at your local law library. And it might require a few months of turning off the television and reading through the books. Contract law is the foundation of all laws related to money, bills of exchange, bond, etc.

In learning about law, I would first start with a law dictionary and a book on contract law. I highly favor Calamari and Perillo's. Blacks law dictionaries and Bouvier's and even better Giles can be obtain online FREE although a printed law dictionary set like Bouvier's is highly recommended. IMHO the Calamari Perillo book is worth sitting around for hours and hours with a highlighter going over ever single word especially the parts about formation of contracts and contractual remedies.

If I were to establish a law school, I would make the Calamari / Perillo book foundation for contract law classes + an updated caselaw book. If you try to steal my Calamari -Perillo book, I might poke you with a fork.

Attachment 2783

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephen

I appreciate the opinions contributed to this thread. But in the end the only thing that matters is which, if any, of the non-endorsement verbiages have been an effective defense in court in regard to taxation. Can anyone cite any case law regarding these non-endorsements?

---

That is another piece of evidence. All we suitors who redeem lawful money are never brought to court over it. There is never a contest or controversy; we just win. The IRS sides with David Merrill and lets us keep our earnings. THERE ARE NO CASES. It's as if they are afraid of us or what a judicial review of non-endorsement might reveal.

Thanks for pointing that out, Stephen. At the end of the day ... would you rather join the countless convicted who endorsed private credit of the FED, or all we non-endorsers who never see the inside of a courtroom?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lorne

That is another piece of evidence. All we suitors who redeem lawful money are never brought to court over it. There is never a contest or controversy; we just win. The IRS sides with David Merrill and lets us keep our earnings. THERE ARE NO CASES. It's as if they are afraid of us or what a judicial review of non-endorsement might reveal.

Thanks for pointing that out, Stephen. At the end of the day ... would you rather join the countless convicted who endorsed private credit of the FED, or all we non-endorsers who never see the inside of a courtroom?

---

lorne here is the thing, one must choose for himself. Which means fear must be conquered. Most folk have learned the method to conquer fear is by and thru knowledge. But this is only part of the equation. For one can assimilate all the knowledge one needs and yet still remain static in fear. And what is yet even worse in apathy.

Until one really knows for self, then all remains in conjecture. Consider carefully the following:

Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Mat 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

Is it okay to steal? Consider carefully before you answer.

There is this blog posting at:
http://quatloosia.blogspot.com/searc...lawful%20money
that seems to contain a lot of bad news for the redeem for lawful money legal theory. I am seeking to independently verify the case results given in that blog. At the moment I do not know where to look.

How can an IRS agent make a judicial decision?

Get a PACER subscription and you can look for yourself.

I recall how annoyed it made me that finally, after years of my posting on Quatloos Wserra (Wesley SERRA) discovered that suitors are actually extant. Wserra began searching for Libels of Review to ridicule.

I suppose that you might have to take the post above to heart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lorne

That is another piece of evidence. All we suitors who redeem lawful money are never brought to court over it. There is never a contest or controversy; we just win. The IRS sides with David Merrill and lets us keep our earnings. THERE ARE NO CASES. It's as if they are afraid of us or what a judicial review of non-endorsement might reveal.

Thanks for pointing that out, Stephen. At the end of the day ... would you rather join the countless convicted who endorsed private credit of the FED, or all we non-endorsers who never see the inside of a courtroom?

---

If you think any suitor filed so as to get any authority in a federal judge, you might view the LoR's as failures.

But I assure you that the star "victim" of Wserra's ridicule is still using the LoR and keeping the various pests at bay. I will even risk disclosing a little private conversation. It may save you some time and effort. Notice the date on that thread/blog. And consider that through about a dozen Refusals for Cause that I know about, the IRS and the State have done nothing but try this and that paper presentment only to have it Refused for Cause. Then they wait a few months and try something else, a different approach from a different agent or office...

Very annoying indeed but then they are getting paid to do this so I guess I understand. The taxpayer jurisdiction keeps treating its employees well for useless harassment.

Read emails from the bottom up.

Quote:

---

That gives me great comfort.


I sometimes lie awake and scared...then I pray and ask God give YOU wisdom...
THANKS for all...I refuse to be part of that "society".

On Sep 22, 2015 1:29 PM, "David Merrill" <> wrote:

This "new"-ness indicates how well R4C works so far.


From:
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 2:18 PM
To: David Merrill
Subject: RE: I received another threat...

Yes, new...



On Sep 22, 2015 1:16 PM, "David Merrill" <> wrote:


Of course Refuse it for Cause immediately.

Is this new though? It does not sound the same as before.



From:
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 12:19 PM
To: David Merrill
Subject: I received another threat...

Hi David;

I received a notice of "Intent to Record a Notice of State Tax Lien.
Should I just R4C again?

---

P.S. Considering how old that thread and blog are, and that there are no injuries to speak of to any suitor who masters Refusal for Cause and Recording in an evidence repository, I think it is inaccurate to say that I/We are in any trouble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephen

There is this blog posting at: http://quatloosia.blogspot.com/searc...lawful%20money
that seems to contain a lot of bad news for the redeem for lawful money legal theory. I am seeking to independently verify the case results given in that blog. At the moment I do not know where to look.

---

Bank v. Supervisors, 74 US 26 - Supreme Court 1869