Good Morning Fellow Living Sentient Beings,

While doing a simple search on Google, I came upon this website. I asked at least one other being (someone who is much more knowledgeable than me) his opinion about your website. His immediate reply was very positive; this "forum" (if that is the proper term) and those involved with it were HIGHLY recommended. As I read some of the threads, I quickly saw the wisdom and plethora of information being shared. I also quickly realized that I have a lot more studying to do and will need to go back to "square one" to properly administrate my private affairs and the PERSON.

I had digested some of the misinformation (my fault for neglecting due diligence) on the internet and made some choices, that now (after I have read only a few threads on here), I think were erroneous, and possibly damaging. I wish to rectify and get back on track and do things correctly. If there are three (3) must-haves that I need to do now, I am open to suggestions. As much as I am not proud of sharing mistakes, I notice that others seem to learn from what I have done wrong.

1) I have not filed tax returns for 2013 and 2014, due to the erroneous belief that it was voluntary and that the IRS can simply send me a bill and then I would deal with that appropriately. So, I am in the process (reluctantly) of resolving that issue and filing for those two years, like I have in the past.

2) I can not exactly specify the exact date, but it has been maybe a year since I was "endorsing" checks for deposit by simply writing REDEEM FOR REAL LAWFUL MONEY, NO FEDERAL NOTES, no signature. I do something similar when writing checks. Even before I was aware of the truth of lawful money, I always had a dislike for paper money and would get rid of it as soon as I could. Well, the information in this forum and the constructive feedback of trusted friends has allowed me to see clearly that that was wrong too. So, I have contacted my bank to schedule an appointment to change the signature card and discuss the possibilities of opening an entirely new account, if that is necessary.

Note, I have not done anything further yet, as of today. I've been going through relevant threads and digesting all information, saving documents, in addition to researching (confirming) some of what is being shared here.

My goal is not to waste anyone's time. Instead, I wish (in the near future) to actually be able to contribute in some way.

Respectfully, DJ Lamb

Welcome DJ!

Yes, this is the place for you now in your current evolution.

Click Here - I suggest the stamp for your pocket (get the Slim Stamp). Get the stamp and waiting for it a few days will set the pace, that you should not be in a hurry. We also will have a different (subscription) style website up and running soon. Here is an introductory video about that.

This run on the Fed is really in progress!

Dj there must be a run on this stamp because they have it ready to ship.

I appreciate it. Is the color of the ink on the stamp critical? Is the type setting small, compact enough for both the the front and back sides of checks?

Ask for red ink in the Slim Stamp - that is good for about five years, so Tim said. It is small enough for a Memo line on a withdrawal slip and of course the Endorse Above this Line space.

I appreciate it David. Based on the previous comment "waiting for it a few days will set the pace", is it better to use the red ink stamp when re-doing all necessary documents (signature card etc) versus hand writing "Demand for Lawful Money Pursuant to Title 12 USC §411" in order to get this critical component accomplished asap (like this week). I have already emailed the bank and the lady wanted to take care of it over the phone, but I explained to her that I wish to physically meet with her to go over what I exactly want (plus, I want to get my ducks in a row).

I have noticed (as I am reading and digesting threads) that some are opening new accounts. Is that strongly recommended, even if the bank honors the demand, gives one no hassles, and all paperwork on file is lawfully correct? I "have" three accounts; one for the PERSON, and two dba accounts - none of which are interest bearing (free checking accounts) accounts with First Citizens. And of course, I've been using a SSN, so I would assume that has to be taken into account. BEFORE joining this group, I had a desire to opt out of SS and mail back the card, but my studies in that are null, so I have not done anything until I am educated on the pros and cons of such an act.

And if these questions could have been answered somewhere in the threads, docs, and archives that I am trying to read and digest as quick as I can, I apologize.

Off topic: I was not aware of the True Name until joining the forum; I've been using a Taken Name. If the True Name is the correct, proper, and lawful administration of private affairs, then I would be known as Michael Joseph. Obviously, there are other beings who use the 'same name', so I would presume (have not read enough yet on this) the use of a private SEAL or thumbprint allows one to differentiate between those beings with identical True Names ??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djlamb

I appreciate it David. Based on the previous comment "waiting for it a few days will set the pace", is it better to use the red ink stamp when re-doing all necessary documents (signature card etc) versus hand writing "Demand for Lawful Money Pursuant to Title 12 USC §411" in order to get this critical component accomplished asap (like this week). I have already emailed the bank and the lady wanted to take care of it over the phone, but I explained to her that I wish to physically meet with her to go over what I exactly want (plus, I want to get my ducks in a row).

I have noticed (as I am reading and digesting threads) that some are opening new accounts. Is that strongly recommended, even if the bank honors the demand, gives one no hassles, and all paperwork on file is lawfully correct? I "have" three accounts; one for the PERSON, and two dba accounts - none of which are interest bearing (free checking accounts) accounts with First Citizens. And of course, I've been using a SSN, so I would assume that has to be taken into account. BEFORE joining this group, I had a desire to opt out of SS and mail back the card, but my studies in that are null, so I have not done anything until I am educated on the pros and cons of such an act.

And if these questions could have been answered somewhere in the threads, docs, and archives that I am trying to read and digest as quick as I can, I apologize.

Off topic: I was not aware of the True Name until joining the forum; I've been using a Taken Name. If the True Name is the correct, proper, and lawful administration of private affairs, then I would be known as Michael Joseph. Obviously, there are other beings who use the 'same name', so I would presume (have not read enough yet on this) the use of a private SEAL or thumbprint allows one to differentiate between those beings with identical True Names ??

---

Start handwriting the demand until your stamp arrives. You have become aware; start making the demand. Keep a record of your demand too.

I have not handled a check for over twenty years so I do not have much experience myself. Sometimes people want my signature on Sign-In rosters. If I inquire they often tell me, Don't worry, that is just for our records. - And they are just trying to tell me that they will not be giving my name to others, but they do not tell me what they want it in their records about. Then they explain, That is so we know how many people use our Center. So I write, "One Person". Or "No Name Given". - A filler so they know one man or one consumer paid and came through. There is an idea - "1 Consumer".

When somebody makes me sign for a cash refund I used to write "Lawful Money". That way the hardware store chain or whatever does not know my name at all. They however have my signature so I would pull out my camera and take a photo for my records. That would make them very uncomfortable because now I have a list of endorsers, and they gave me their names and so transfers the Power of Attorney... Now I have a Slim Stamp in my pocket but have not used it yet.

I don't like toying with people but now consider these power plays to be them toying with me first. I make it a game; to claw through my own conditioning. I take radical responsibility and own my buttons. But I think one day I will simply remove the list of whatever class action they want me in and fold it up and put it in my pocket - Thanks for the offer but I will need time to think about it. They might even call the police - I might explain, They handed it to me and then wanted it back! I gave them the clipboard back, officer.

They wanted me to join some class action of Fed District endorsement without even disclosing the nature of the suit!

Attachment 2069

So I hereby transfer Power of Attorney over to you and any other non-endorsers:

Attachment 2070Attachment 2071

If you endorse private credit all that means is that FRANKEL has Power of Attorney over you; you have given or his principal the Federal Reserve (Districts) your name by signature bond. You are not part of our class action called "suitors" after the 'saving to suitors' clause of 1789.

You being Michael Joseph might get confusing indeed. How you identify yourself is secondary to you understanding your identity. If you paid in full then you don't owe them, even information, or especially information.

I appreciate that. Yes, I have been handwriting (the Demand) it correctly AFTER joining this forum. I have no desire to "use" my True Name in this forum, hence why I simply use a stage name I use when performing in front of audiences. I should have framed my question more specifically. Based on what I have read thus far, it is recommended to use (if necessary) the True Name (for me, it would be Michael Joseph) vs the LEGAL name (Mike Lamb). I agree, name is secondary; KNOWING WHO YOU ARE is most important. I am thinking of simply using Michael-Joseph (nothing more)

For awhile, I stopped using checks and only used (when necessary) USPS Money Orders, but due to cost and inconvenience, I went back to checks. I will research checks more precisely in the forum (I just have not found that thread or article that covers checks in more detail) - the goal being to not use them any more.

Again, I appreciate it David. All of my questions are probably redundant in such a group of this magnitude. I do not wish to rush, but I would like to get a few things done (in place) before the end of December.

1) Stamp
2) Formal Notice (stating the Demand for Lawful Money etc)
3) Change the signature card at the current bank I maintain accts at
4) I have to research or give Formal Notice to "my EMPLOYER" also (STATE UNIVERSITY) at some point. As expected, such a corporation that gets some amount of FEDERAL FUNDING does things a certain way - direct deposit, W4s, etc.

I have not paid in full. I've kept them from withholding by completing a new W4 (I am aware that I am [the name] still under contract because I consent to such a contract) every year. With the limited knowledge I had, it was the only way to keep the EMPLOYER from extracting from my labor. So, when I do go back and file for 2013 and 2014, I will end up "owing" them, with interest (for 2013). I don't like it, but my mistake, so there are consequences for my actions.

May your weekend be very pleasant, DJ Lamb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djlamb

I appreciate that. Yes, I have been handwriting (the Demand) it correctly AFTER joining this forum. I have no desire to "use" my True Name in this forum, hence why I simply use a stage name I use when performing in front of audiences. I should have framed my question more specifically. Based on what I have read thus far, it is recommended to use (if necessary) the True Name (for me, it would be Michael Joseph) vs the LEGAL name (Mike Lamb). I agree, name is secondary; KNOWING WHO YOU ARE is most important. I am thinking of simply using Michael-Joseph (nothing more)

For awhile, I stopped using checks and only used (when necessary) USPS Money Orders, but due to cost and inconvenience, I went back to checks. I will research checks more precisely in the forum (I just have not found that thread or article that covers checks in more detail) - the goal being to not use them any more.

Again, I appreciate it David. All of my questions are probably redundant in such a group of this magnitude. I do not wish to rush, but I would like to get a few things done (in place) before the end of December.

1) Stamp
2) Formal Notice (stating the Demand for Lawful Money etc)
3) Change the signature card at the current bank I maintain accts at
4) I have to research or give Formal Notice to "my EMPLOYER" also (STATE UNIVERSITY) at some point. As expected, such a corporation that gets some amount of FEDERAL FUNDING does things a certain way - direct deposit, W4s, etc.

I have not paid in full. I've kept them from withholding by completing a new W4 (I am aware that I am [the name] still under contract because I consent to such a contract) every year. With the limited knowledge I had, it was the only way to keep the EMPLOYER from extracting from my labor. So, when I do go back and file for 2013 and 2014, I will end up "owing" them, with interest (for 2013). I don't like it, but my mistake, so there are consequences for my actions.

May your weekend be very pleasant, DJ Lamb

---

Great! We are happy to help. I gather you mean Notice and Demand (template attached) on the Fed Bank nearest you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djlamb

I appreciate that. Yes, I have been handwriting (the Demand) it correctly AFTER joining this forum. I have no desire to "use" my True Name in this forum, hence why I simply use a stage name I use when performing in front of audiences. I should have framed my question more specifically. Based on what I have read thus far, it is recommended to use (if necessary) the True Name (for me, it would be Michael Joseph) vs the LEGAL name (Mike Lamb). I agree, name is secondary; KNOWING WHO YOU ARE is most important. I am thinking of simply using Michael-Joseph (nothing more)

For awhile, I stopped using checks and only used (when necessary) USPS Money Orders, but due to cost and inconvenience, I went back to checks. I will research checks more precisely in the forum (I just have not found that thread or article that covers checks in more detail) - the goal being to not use them any more.

Again, I appreciate it David. All of my questions are probably redundant in such a group of this magnitude. I do not wish to rush, but I would like to get a few things done (in place) before the end of December.

1) Stamp
2) Formal Notice (stating the Demand for Lawful Money etc)
3) Change the signature card at the current bank I maintain accts at
4) I have to research or give Formal Notice to "my EMPLOYER" also (STATE UNIVERSITY) at some point. As expected, such a corporation that gets some amount of FEDERAL FUNDING does things a certain way - direct deposit, W4s, etc.

I have not paid in full. I've kept them from withholding by completing a new W4 (I am aware that I am [the name] still under contract because I consent to such a contract) every year. With the limited knowledge I had, it was the only way to keep the EMPLOYER from extracting from my labor. So, when I do go back and file for 2013 and 2014, I will end up "owing" them, with interest (for 2013). I don't like it, but my mistake, so there are consequences for my actions.

May your weekend be very pleasant, DJ Lamb

---

I like you name. If you didn't know:

Michael: Who is like God
Joseph : Who gives the increase

Nimrod is a HUNTER of souls. Will you bow your knee and lose your "maidenhead"? The headless horseman as it were? One who is headless is in need of another to act for him. I think David Merrill makes that point very well. Speaking of the horse = flesh; that is a horse of a different color - that being the white horse that went forth to conquer and is conquering.

The mind makes it real.

Shalom,
MJ

P.S.

Southhampton Dock - Pink Floyd

They disembarked in '45
And no one spoke and no one smiled
There were too many spaces in the line
Gathered at the cenotaph
All agreed with hand on heart
To sheath the sacrificial knives

But now
She stands upon Southampton dock
With her handkerchief
And her summer frock
Clings to her wet body in the rain
In quiet desperation knuckles
White upon the slippery reins
She bravely waves the boys goodbye again

Still the dark stain spreads between
Their shoulder blades
A mute reminder of the poppy fields and graves
When the fight was over
We spent what they had made
But in the bottom of our hearts
We felt the final cut

======

confirmed suspicions of the holocaust to come....the sun is in the East even though the day is done...

David, correct. From one thread I read, MOST banks are considered part of the FED, correct? So, serving notice and demand at the First Citizens Bank would be sufficient, though, I think I will also place the document (or similar) at the Register of Deeds office, so it is public.

I had read the importance of a Declaration too (put on public record), but my studies/reading has not digested all of that, yet.

Michael Joseph, correct. Good name. Last year, I was getting frustrated to a certain degree that I was considering taking an entirely different name all together, because there was so much LEGAL crap tied to the given name; as though it was soiled. Frustrated, because I actually "like" the name given to me, though it is the same as my father's. In addition to that frustration, I evenly (briefly) researched local native tribes to see if I can join one of them. As I go through all of the resources and sharing here, I don't think I will have to go to such lengths to keep the private separate from the public (still frustrating, if one allows IT to get under one's skin).

In the meantime Michael Joseph, I will go by DJ Lamb while in this forum, which I actually don't mind at all, though it is a "title" and a fiction (a role I have developed over the years of performing - the title was necessary to keep me separate from all the other Disc Jockeys out there; and there are a lot of them).

I believe that FDIC pretty well covers Membership as formal Fed Banks. However when the rubber meets the road, the OCC and Treasury are not very picky about what qualifies a State Bank by definition. This is how by just signing up for the trust (1933) one is treated like a Fed Bank. FDR allowed the common bank account holder to help save the Fed from the run during the Bankers' Holiday.

If the check is made to "Michael Lamb", is "Michael Joseph" a third party?

Don't forget there is another side to it all.

House Votes On The $1.1 Trillion Cromnibus Bill: Live Webcast
Attachment 2081

Wall Street Moves To Put Taxpayers On The Hook For Derivatives Trades

Attachment 2082

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLBereans

If the check is made to "Michael Lamb", is "Michael Joseph" a third party?

---

Chex! I cannot decide if the imagery is amusing or disturbing, or both...


Welcome BLBereans;


I think you will enjoy yourself here.

There are many mental models and "third party" to me means you are trying to fit "third party intervener" from UCC and STRAWMAN recent history on transactions. I prefer sticking to the idea that the commercial court will find the man or woman, by any name suitable as Defendant and Trustee with fiduciary responsibility to settle any charges against the Trust, by whatever legal or full name - express, constructive or even implied.

One establishes the Record, usually by becoming a "suitor" with a Libel of Review in the USDC and published on PACER. This way the suitor becomes the court of record. The Clerk Instruction is the method for future Refusals for Cause. The Libel of Review is fluff wrapped around the initial Refusal for Cause. The Lesson Plan is basically three parts:

1) True Identity
2) Record Forming
3) Redeeming Lawful Money

Your question addresses number 1). The objective of adopting the True Name is to know one's true identity. This helps you understand various trust relationships that are formed, legally only by you, the living man or woman. Mental convolutions abound. I explained this yesterday, clearing up some delirium by saying how difficult it would be to slap handcuffs on a fiction!

The true identity (First Middle) is the truth about one's name, but it being distinct from any legal name on any legal agreement provides the ability to Refuse for Cause. This right also extends to novations - (innovations) - when the other party notifies you of changes to a current agreement too. For example, when you start non-endorsing - Redeeming Lawful Money - you are announcing a novation. Since your novation is the remedy provided by Congress the IRS attorneys never refuse your novation for cause.



Regards,

David Merrill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

I believe that FDIC pretty well covers Membership as formal Fed Banks.

---

David ‘Opening a door without knowing who is on the other side.’ can be a little dangerous.

FDIC Search Sometimes we have to dig a little deeper to know what going on.

When someone posts here majority of the facts can be checked, Sorry if the photo was confusing sad but true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Chex! I cannot decide if the imagery is amusing or disturbing, or both...


Welcome BLBereans;


I think you will enjoy yourself here.

There are many mental models and "third party" to me means you are trying to fit "third party intervener" from UCC and STRAWMAN recent history on transactions. I prefer sticking to the idea that the commercial court will find the man or woman, by any name suitable as Defendant and Trustee with fiduciary responsibility to settle any charges against the Trust, by whatever legal or full name - express, constructive or even implied.

One establishes the Record, usually by becoming a "suitor" with a Libel of Review in the USDC and published on PACER. This way the suitor becomes the court of record. The Clerk Instruction is the method for future Refusals for Cause. The Libel of Review is fluff wrapped around the initial Refusal for Cause. The Lesson Plan is basically three parts:

1) True Identity
2) Record Forming
3) Redeeming Lawful Money

Your question addresses number 1). The objective of adopting the True Name is to know one's true identity. This helps you understand various trust relationships that are formed, legally only by you, the living man or woman. Mental convolutions abound. I explained this yesterday, clearing up some delirium by saying how difficult it would be to slap handcuffs on a fiction!

The true identity (First Middle) is the truth about one's name, but it being distinct from any legal name on any legal agreement provides the ability to Refuse for Cause. This right also extends to novations - (innovations) - when the other party notifies you of changes to a current agreement too. For example, when you start non-endorsing - Redeeming Lawful Money - you are announcing a novation. Since your novation is the remedy provided by Congress the IRS attorneys never refuse your novation for cause.



Regards,

David Merrill.

---

One party writes a check out to another party who is Michael Lamb. If Michael Joseph is not Michael Lamb, then Michael Joseph is neither of the two original parties involved which makes Michael Joseph a third party.

Is this logic part and parcel to "UCC/Strawman"? I don't know since UCC/Strawman is not where I was going or where I came from.

My studies are lacking, but the use of the word party seems "legal" to me. I don't see parties. Any "party", fictional entity, or PERSON who writes a check out to Michael Lamb/Mike Lamb/Michael Lamb II merely represents commerce between two "dead" entities. To me, Michael Joseph is alive and privately administrates the NAME. Michael Joseph does not own it. Michael Joseph merely administrates the interchange/transaction, no different than any other entity, i.e. DJ Lamb Productions, IBM, or Walmart. To me, Michael Joseph is not surety for any of it, but is lawfully recognized and competent as the sole administrator for such party (name). That is how I simplify it. I am alive, everything else is dead, unless I am actually contracting with another being, so that agreement would include our True Names, not any "parties".

I suppose this relates to the strawman, but I simply see something as either fiction (dead) or real (alive), and act accordingly. I am me. To define me in any capacity is to dictate who I am, which is not possible, without my consent.

The core truth amongst all of this (some of it crap), is that living, sentient beings simply NEED to keep their promises to each other. If you say and agree to do something for someone else, you do it. That's it. The essence of legal tender stems from NOT keeping one's promises (word, bond, whatever). For those who break their "promises", there should be a consequence. Unfortunately, over history, so many have not suffered just consequences, and instead, have gotten away with as much as they can, due to others ignorance and/or consent. Note, this does not include force, which is obviously criminal. To force someone else to do something is NOT a real contract/agreement/promise in any capacity; it is merely a reaction to survive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djlamb

My studies are lacking, but the use of the word party seems "legal" to me. I don't see parties. Any "party", fictional entity, or PERSON who writes a check out to Michael Lamb/Mike Lamb/Michael Lamb II merely represents commerce between two "dead" entities. To me, Michael Joseph is alive and privately administrates the NAME. Michael Joseph does not own it. Michael Joseph merely administrates the interchange/transaction, no different than any other entity, i.e. DJ Lamb Productions, IBM, or Walmart. To me, Michael Joseph is not surety for any of it, but is lawfully recognized and competent as the sole administrator for such party (name). That is how I simplify it. I am alive, everything else is dead, unless I am actually contracting with another being, so that agreement would include our True Names, not any "parties".

I suppose this relates to the strawman, but I simply see something as either fiction (dead) or real (alive), and act accordingly. I am me. To define me in any capacity is to dictate who I am, which is not possible, without my consent.

The core truth amongst all of this (some of it crap), is that living, sentient beings simply NEED to keep their promises to each other. If you say and agree to do something for someone else, you do it. That's it. The essence of legal tender stems from NOT keeping one's promises (word, bond, whatever). For those who break their "promises", there should be a consequence. Unfortunately, over history, so many have not suffered just consequences, and instead, have gotten away with as much as they can, due to others ignorance and/or consent. Note, this does not include force, which is obviously criminal. To force someone else to do something is NOT a real contract/agreement/promise in any capacity; it is merely a reaction to survive.

---

All words are defined according to the jurisdiction one claims to be operating from or within. There is "common speech" among living people in a certain society which is understood by the members of that society - for the most part. "Sounds legal" does not make it "legal" unless one is operating in a "legal society" or realm.

The word "party" means a side divided from another; two parties, one on either side.

If the check denotes that XYZ Company "Pays to the order of.... Michael Lamb", then XYZ is the first party and Michael Lamb is the second party. The living Michael Joseph is neither of these two ergo my question...

"If the check is made to "Michael Lamb", is "Michael Joseph" a third party?"

You make me wonder how close one has to be to the truth to discern between a legal society and criminal syndicalism?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

You make me wonder how close one has to be to the truth to discern between a legal society and criminal syndicalism?

---

Are you suggesting I am not close to the truth or that the "legal society" has resorted to barbaric and violent tactics in order to continue functioning?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLBereans

Are you suggesting I am not close to the truth or that the "legal society" has resorted to barbaric and violent tactics in order to continue functioning?

---

I am sorry. I see how it might be read that way! But neither, unless you consider barbaric and violent tactic as dishonest banking.

I was saying that legal society and criminal syndicalism are the same. Dishonest banking (fractional lending) certainly leads to a Congress that can cause war without constitutional declaration process... So I guess I see your point.

If anything I was admiring the Truth you were pointing out to us.


P.S. I think I get it! You are talking about "legal" society as a good thing, as opposed to society. I was thinking of legal society as when the leaders give license to be corrupt - like the Federal Reserve Act.