My first steps to redeeming Lawful Money are underway, but I need guidance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bentley

Chrysler v. Brown 1979
[Footnote 23]
There was virtually no Washington bureaucracy created by the Act of July 1, 1862, ch. 119, 12 Stat. 432, the statute to which the present Internal Revenue Service can be traced. Researchers report that, during the Civil War, 85% of the operations of the Bureau of Internal Revenue were carried out in the field, "including the assessing and collection of taxes, the handling of appeals, and punishment for frauds" -- and this balance of responsibility was not generally upset until the 20th century. L. Schmeckebier & F. Eble, The Bureau of Internal Revenue 8, 40-43 (1923). Agents had the power to enter any home or business establishment to look for taxable property and examine books of accounts. Information was collected and processed in the field. It is, therefore, not surprising to find that congressional comments during this period focused on potential abuses by agents in the field, and not on breaches of confidentiality by a Washington-based bureaucracy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bentley

It was the Tax of 1862 which gave a wartime income tax through the creation of the Office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue within the Treasury dept, and then it was eliminated in 1872.

---

How does the passage which you've provided support any of the assertions in your statement above?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bentley

Also, try googling "Pollock v Farmers loan-1895"

---

Pollock v. Farmers (1895) is very lengthy. What passage in the this case states that income taxes are unconstitutional?

1. Yes, my first two initial fed checks I cashed I did not cross out “the order of” and one check paid to me by apartment mgr. for a refund. The rest I have crossed out “order of”.
However I have a question, wouldn’t it be an alternation of a government document? See below: § 3-407. ALTERATION.
•(a) "Alteration" means (i) an unauthorized change in an instrument that purports to modify in any respect the obligation of a party, or (ii) an unauthorized addition of words or numbers or other change to an incomplete instrument relating to the obligation of a party.
(b). also in the past when I did cross out wordings , I crossed it out, initial it and dated it. However doing that on a govt. check would clearly draw attention to bank clerk.
2. You stated, .” I am surprised that your bank has not come back on you for your non-endorsement (restricted endorsement).” In this case wouldn’t the following apply?
§ 3-104. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT.
•(e) An instrument is a "note" if it is a promise and is a "draft" if it is an order. If an instrument falls within the definition of both "note" and "draft," a person entitled to enforce the instrument may treat it as either. (note: I signed it with First,Middle ;dbaFIRST LAST Title 12 sec 411 redeem in lawful money. That would show my intentions for the Bank to pay in lawful money.) so wouldn’t they have to treat it as a restricted endorsement?
3. The day I opened the account with Chase bank and signed the signature card to have all my transactions and deposits redeemed in lawful monies Title 12 USC 411, I requested a non-interest bearing checking account. The bank Rep who opened my account and later the bank manager stated my account is non-bearing interest checking account. So if I a have a non-interest checking account I am paying no interest. If paying no interest my monies are lawful monies because they are not been fractionalized.
4. In one of my certified letters to the Chase Bank Mgr. I also included a “Notice and Demand” letter as you have posted on you cite. I include the wording like, “notice to agent is also notice to principal”. Also made sure it included : Be it now known to any and all parties forevermore that I amFirst Middle and the PERSON known to others as FIRST LAST, have made and still do make, my demand for lawful money for any and all dealings and transactions, including transactions on all my bank accounts. Also to include : No contractual obligations 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.(do I still have to fill notice and demand with Federal Reserve Bank as well?)
5. I will very soon have to change to direct deposit in accordance with the law.
(a). I will not be able to cross out “the order of” because I will no longer see the check.
(b). so when I fill out an account check and cross out “the order of” on the account check to take out my monies , will that also solve the problem on “pay to the order of ” on the fed. Check that was transferred directly to chase bank.?
© Dave . As for the “being a U.S. citizen (or not) just bring up side issue and trouble” I am not clear on what you mean without specifics.
Thank you David and once again appreciate your response
, Franco

I answered your questions. Re-read your posts and you'll see why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bentley

Hello David,

My credit union did not accept my deposit precisely because it stated they could decline any deposit they chose in the agreement pamphlet, and they claimed that the 'redeem' wording was a restrictive deposit. What's my next step then, a generic notice and demand to them?

Thanks,
Bentley

---

Yes. More likely notify the Fed and then serve that process on the credit union. There are samples around here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Yes. More likely notify the Fed and then serve that process on the credit union. There are samples around here.

---

Would one do that by using the generic notice and demand?

Thanks,
Bentley

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bentley

I answered your questions. Re-read your posts and you'll see why.

---

Actually, you haven't answered anything, hence the further questioning.

So far, you are off by 1 year as to the absolute beginning of income taxes in America.
You have cites that don't support what you claim and your cites are without any linkage to sources of anyone to review.
You have yet to substantiate a single point of your assertions.

At this point, I'm unsure if you could find anything on the Revenue Act of 1862.

I've got a feeling you've been wrapping yourself in Internet yarn ....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franco

1. Yes, my first two initial fed checks I cashed I did not cross out “the order of” and one check paid to me by apartment mgr. for a refund. The rest I have crossed out “order of”.

If you did not 'non-endorse' by putting your demand for LM on the back, they were paid in FRN's and are taxable

However I have a question, wouldn’t it be an alternation of a government document? See below: § 3-407. ALTERATION.
•(a) "Alteration" means (i) an unauthorized change in an instrument that purports to modify in any respect the obligation of a party, or (ii) an unauthorized addition of words or numbers or other change to an incomplete instrument relating to the obligation of a party.

The party here is the drafter, ie, the govt. Your demand for LM comes after negotiating the instrument; your bank obtains FRN's or credit from the drafter's bank. Then they redeem these for LM, then deposit the LM in your account. There is no need to alter the instrument on the front; all your choices are on the back.

(b). also in the past when I did cross out wordings , I crossed it out, initial it and dated it. However doing that on a govt. check would clearly draw attention to bank clerk.
2. You stated, .” I am surprised that your bank has not come back on you for your non-endorsement (restricted endorsement).” In this case wouldn’t the following apply?
§ 3-104. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT.
•(e) An instrument is a "note" if it is a promise and is a "draft" if it is an order. If an instrument falls within the definition of both "note" and "draft," a person entitled to enforce the instrument may treat it as either. (note: I signed it with First,Middle ;dbaFIRST LAST Title 12 sec 411 redeem in lawful money. That would show my intentions for the Bank to pay in lawful money.) so wouldn’t they have to treat it as a restricted endorsement?

Most banks can and will treat that as a restricted endorsement. BofA says they will ignore anything you write on the back! This is why you need to get your demand on the signature card, or notice them for the entire account.

3. The day I opened the account with Chase bank and signed the signature card to have all my transactions and deposits redeemed in lawful monies Title 12 USC 411, I requested a non-interest bearing checking account. The bank Rep who opened my account and later the bank manager stated my account is non-bearing interest checking account. So if I a have a non-interest checking account I am paying no interest. If paying no interest my monies are lawful monies because they are not been fractionalized.

A no-interest account means the bank is paying you no interest, because you are not letting them loan against your credit. Deposits in FRN's can be used as reserves for fractional reserve lending (means the bank lends out more money than they have in deposits). Used to be the bank paid you interest for the privilege of lending against your credit, but under the current financial repression scheme, banks don't pay (significant) interest on any accounts. By not letting the bank use your deposit as reserves for fractional reserve lending, you avoid the 'use' of FRN's, and thus avoid the obligation to pay income taxes on the deposit (which is assumed to be income for tax purposes; this is why the account agreement wants you to admit to being a US citizen (hence 'taxpayer'), and providing a SS#, so the IRS can track your taxable income).

4. In one of my certified letters to the Chase Bank Mgr. I also included a “Notice and Demand” letter as you have posted on you cite. I include the wording like, “notice to agent is also notice to principal”. Also made sure it included : Be it now known to any and all parties forevermore that I amFirst Middle and the PERSON known to others as FIRST LAST, have made and still do make, my demand for lawful money for any and all dealings and transactions, including transactions on all my bank accounts. Also to include : No contractual obligations 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.(do I still have to fill notice and demand with Federal Reserve Bank as well?)

If the bank accepted your account with the demand for LM on the signature card, you should be good. Be sure to keep copies of your signature pages somewhere safe.

5. I will very soon have to change to direct deposit in accordance with the law.
(a). I will not be able to cross out “the order of” because I will no longer see the check.

see above; your account is redeemed in LM before deposit

(b). so when I fill out an account check and cross out “the order of” on the account check to take out my monies , will that also solve the problem on “pay to the order of ” on the fed. Check that was transferred directly to chase bank.?

see above; your account contains LM. Should you wish to purchase some asset and acquire legal title, as well as equitable title, you need to prove that you are paying in LM; a copy of your signature page should suffice. Then write on the front of your check, on the For line, Paid in Full in Lawful Money. You can do this even when cashing a check against your account for cash; this proves that you have LM in the form of FRN's. David stamps his LM FRN's with the "Redeemed" stamp. This is helpful when paying for District Court services, but you can also pay by check from a LM account.

© Dave . As for the “being a U.S. citizen (or not) just bring up side issue and trouble” I am not clear on what you mean without specifics.

You are a 'US citizen' if you have a SS#, or if you are accepting any other government benefit. Claiming you are not a US citizen will be a flag for the IRS, and will cause conflicts if you have a SS#. As discussed earlier in this thread, it is your cestui que vie trust which is the US citizen (it is a legal, fictional entity, a corporate 'person' which holds title to assets in your estate, for your (the live person's) benefit). You are signing the contract with the bank as an accomodation party for your trust; the bank cannot contract with you, the live person (since the bank is not a live person).

Thank you David and once again appreciate your response
, Franco

---

There is a lot to learn on this site, and you can get into trouble if you start doing new stuff without understanding the legal underpinnings of why you are doing it. As Stevie says: "When you believe in things that you don't understand, then you suffer. Superstitution ain't the way."

Gerdes after reading what you said, I am doing fine. I got it covered, thanks to your explaination. I am still at the basics. As a matter of fact, I did my taxes for 2012; I came out owing a small amount.
1. I didn’t file with a demand for lawful monies; I am not ready, maybe next year. I fill burned out, and all the V.A. medication doesn’t help either.
2. My next step, if new information doesn’t come out, looks like it will be filing the criminal complaint form (not signed), with a cover letter in an evidence depository. I will need to open one.
3. I see on some threads in the forum, where some people say they filed Evidence reposiotory in a United States District Court (federal) and other say they filed in a county recorder. Actually I have never being able to find information explaining why and when you file in a county recorder, local District Court, etc. Do you file there before opening the evidence repository in the U.S.D.C. and why?
3. I am also one of the people who filed the CTC process. Went to tax court 3-times. I lost three times. No collections yet.
4. However, my last Tax court case was for 2006. It was held in 2010. Court didn’t rule until 2011. I went to CDPH in 2012.
5. The CDPH last ruling was in May 2012. They denied my motions. This presentament is a about a year old. I can’t use it. My next one will be the garnishment letter if they sent one.
I filed my last document with CDPH, telling them I had exhausted all administrative remedies, so I was filing in District Court under equity law. It has a two year filing time limit.
6. Through all this years I have not been garnished, except for about 6-months for small amounts, then it abruptly stopped. (it was grace) Now they are starting again; it’s close to $50,000.00.
7. My main issue is stopping the collection, whenever it happens. That’s why I got interested in this cite. So far, I have read that the filing of “omission by fraud” procedure will only stop the frivolous penalties. I am ok with that.
I am taking my time to keep reading through this cite’s threads, and other cites. I am also having to use my “black’s law” and “Webster’s” quite a bit lately.
Gerdes , once again thank you, for the lesson. Your support is appreciated. Franco“There is no such thing as gratitude unexpressed. If it is unexpressed, it is plain, old-fashioned ingratitude.” ~Robert Brault

Thank you for your input Franko.

Quote:

---

Do you file there before opening the evidence repository in the U.S.D.C. and why?

---

In the Libel of Review process one publishes the Summons at the county clerk and recorder. This is done by getting two summonses authorized and if the clerk and recorder can return one original quickly that is the one used for service on the Defendant - usually the US Governor for the UN's IMF - Secretary of the Treasury. This "primes" the clerk and recorder for publishing the Default Judgment which is signed and sealed by the suitor.

It is a true judgment res judicata. - Meaning that it stands until overturned by the facts. Publication establishes the new suitor as a court of record. Courts of record are courts of authority and albeit not always recognized by the officials it helps the new suitor to get remedy as intended in America wrapped up in mental understanding. The actions and processes of becoming a court of competent jurisdiction in light that all the federal judges are taxpayers (recused for conflict of interest) and all "judges" in general are in an association called the Bar, means that this position is available by becoming trustee for that resulting trust.

This in a nutshell is why suitors remain satisfied with the Lesson Plan and its products. The LoR produces a published foreign judgment signed and sealed in the "exclusive original cognizance" of the United States.

When helping a new suitor through this process I only focus on the Lesson Plan, not the details of the situation.

Quote:

---

1. I didn’t file with a demand for lawful monies; I am not ready, maybe next year. I fill burned out, and all the V.A. medication doesn’t help either.

---

If I delved into the private details I would likely in your case prod you into filing for a refund before you have your mind wrapped around the concept of remedy. The "remedy" reflected back to you might not be anything but you having to deal with a $5K fine - albeit that only happened one time in reality and the suitor knows where he invited that FrivPen - in a phone call that he made to the IRS.

One can establish a good understand in the simplicity of the law - which is the Lesson Plan. There is a little indication that refunds are coming in freely, no FrivPens. - Like the IRS knows now that this is remedy as intended. [Looking at rough statistics - general impression - the IRS is at a stage where they are sitting on lawful money refunds, like they do not know what to do this year. Also a lot of people are getting their full refunds and not talking about it (much) which is the 'don't jinx it' approach.] But I still advise an evidence repository through the Libel of Review process. The evidence repository proves you are keeping a record.


Regards,

David Merrill.

P.S. The Lesson Plan is still:

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

I explain this from where the new suitor can understand it. For example yesterday a new suitor was describing his experience with the STRAWMAN REDEMPTION and Pete's Cracking the Code. He already has a smattering in 2) and 3) so I explained in depth about 1), around the STRAWMAN theory:

Quote:

---

If you believe your name is John H. Doe then you are easily convinced to be trustee for the JOHN HENRY DOE constructive trust. If you behave like you are the trustee then you are the trustee. If you know your name is John Henry then you can Refuse for Cause any fresh presentments intended to prod you into becoming John Henry Doe, the trustee and responsible fiduciary (for settling any charges) for the JOHN HENRY DOE.

---

By speaking in terms and symbols he understands he was able to see the benefits in proceeding with the Lesson Plan.

David first of all thank you for the creation of this cite to help other people , it is much appreciated.
I have not respondent to your detailed information on your last reply because I got hit with garnishment a few days ago.
I am figuring out on how to reply. I received a letter from the Chase Bank :
1. The envelope is not dated: the document only shows: March 07,2013 through April 4, 2013.
2. Now I know the presentment came from IRS. However the Chase Bank did not include a copy of the IRS levy. So does presentment 72 hour rule begin when I get a copy of IRS levy(presentment) from the following:
(a). the IRS (b) the social security admin. Telling me my benefits have been garnished/Levied.
Or © does the bank notice suffice? I am going to bank tomorrow to see if they can provide a copy of IRS notice of garnishment to them.
3. The document from Chase Bank stated: We have reduced our legal processing fee.
On March 24,2013 we reduced the legal processing Fee to a maximum of $75.00 per order.
This fee is assessed for the processing of any garnishment, tax levy, or other court or administrative order against an account. This change will be reflected in your account agreement; all other terms remain the same. If you have questions, please call us at the telephone number listed on this statement or visit your nearest Chase branch.
Consolidated balance summary
Assets
Checking and savings account beginning balance this period ending balance this period
Chase premier plus checking xxxxxxxx $25.00 $25.00
Chase premier plus checking xxxxxxxx $596.00 $126.00
Chase premier plus checking xxxxxxxx $25.00 $25.00
TOTAL $646.00 $176.00
TOTAL ASSETS $646.00 $176.00
ALL summary balances shown are as of April 4, 2013 unless otherwise stated. For details of your retirement accounts, credit accounts or securities accounts, you will receive separate statements. Balance summary information for annuities is provided by the issuing insurance companies and believed to be reliable without guarantee of its completeness or accuracy.
This monthly service fee for this account was waived as an added feature of chase premier plus checking account.
Thank you for your military service and commitment to our country. Your monthly service fee was waived as a benefit of Chase Military Banking.
I do have an account for the other checks , but I haven’t transferred my other accounts to the bank yet.
Reason is because the OPM or VA have to give me notice before my account is garnished. Without a notice its unlawful, but then it’s the IRS. So if they go after my V.A. and Office of Personnel Management (OPM) account , they will need to notify me and get a written approval from me or else they will have to take me to court.
I am going to publish the summons with the county clerk and recorder
and open the evidence repository as soon as I can.
I am going to have to work on this. Will let you know how its going along.
Once again thanks for all the help and support you have provided.
Franco.