Serving the Federal Reserve System

A few thoughts I've been working through...

If I serve a demand on a bank within the Federal Reserve System to redeem lawful money for all monetary transactions, I, for all practical purposes, have served my demand on the entire Federal Reserve System which includes: banks, credit unions, any other institution which issues Federal Reserve Notes, and all Federal Reserve Banks.

As stated in Memorandum to First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Jerome Daly, or the Credit River Money decision, the judge describes the relationship between the First National Bank of Montgomery and the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis: "...for all practical purposes, because [their] interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank...."

Notice to principal is notice to agent. Notice to agent is notice to principal.

A succinct example of a Notice of Demand to serve on the Federal Reserve System:

Notice of Demand

All monetary transactions, from whatever source derived, associated with the person Karl N XXXXXX, are demanded to be redeemed in lawful money pursuant to 12 USC 411.

The 16th amendment to the United States Constitution uses a catch-all statement, "from whatever source derived," to give power to Congress in all instances to lay and collect taxes on incomes. In my tax preparation experience I always thought what an ingenious statement it is, to throw a blanket cover over all sources, in order not to miss an opportunity to lay and collect taxes on incomes. I included the statement in the Notice of Demand because it, I believe, provides a similar all reaching power in that all monetary transactions associated with me are conducted in lawful money.

Very helpful. The simpler the batter.

I like that better than signing for a cash refund at Lowe's, Lawful Money.

I really hate that phrase "from whatever source derived". I believe it is meant to purport something that just is not so to the common folks. To the lay person they take it as "all that comes in". However that is just not the case. The SCOTUS made that fairly clear in the decisions regarding the 16th in the years after its purported ratification.

I believe the "sources" referenced are those deriving from GovCo sponsored activities, privileges, and things within the scope of taxing. However with the advent of corporate currency (FRN's) GovCo hit the jackpot by going around the restrictions of direct taxation by "loaning" FR credit/notes secured by good assets (your paycheck). This process started in 1933 with the removal of gold and the banking act, was solidified by the SSA act, war taxes of WW2, withholding at source, the removal of silver, and finally the removal of greenbacks in '71.

In hind sight it becomes clear. Nip it in the bud, make your demand early and often.

Some saw what was coming: http://www.archive.org/details/usmon...rpor00crozgoog

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian

Some saw what was coming: http://www.archive.org/details/usmon...rpor00crozgoog

---

Nice find Brian, thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian

I really hate that phrase "from whatever source derived". I believe it is meant to purport something that just is not so to the common folks. To the lay person they take it as "all that comes in". However that is just not the case. The SCOTUS made that fairly clear in the decisions regarding the 16th in the years after its purported ratification.

I believe the "sources" referenced are those deriving from GovCo sponsored activities, privileges, and things within the scope of taxing. However with the advent of corporate currency (FRN's) GovCo hit the jackpot by going around the restrictions of direct taxation by "loaning" FR credit/notes secured by good assets (your paycheck). This process started in 1933 with the removal of gold and the banking act, was solidified by the SSA act, war taxes of WW2, withholding at source, the removal of silver, and finally the removal of greenbacks in '71.

In hind sight it becomes clear. Nip it in the bud, make your demand early and often.

Some saw what was coming: http://www.archive.org/details/usmon...rpor00crozgoog

---

That is the kind of contribution I like to see too.

I believe that your point is lost in conditioning to endorse. It is a great point though. Ergo back to redeeming lawful money to negate the obfuscation around all sources doctrine.

Credit River ..

is a " non-decision "

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Binbokusai Yagyuu

Credit River ..

is a " non-decision "

---

The Credit River Money Decision was in full authority of the Township. The authority was discredited by the state. Say what you will, I have never heard anybody say that Mr. MORGAN with the bank was lying on the witness stand.

To understand my point though, about home rule and self-governance you might want to listen to my account with the former clerk Jerry MAAS a few years before he retired. I contacted him by phone to get my rendition of the decision, as you see published directly from Audrey BROWN in Minnesota at the county court. He was intrigued and enjoying himself and helping me out quite a bit, running errands for me for the fun of it. He found it interesting that since I had put the Opinion, Judgment and Decree on the Libel of Review Audrey was keeping the entire case in her desk drawer rather than to keep pulling it downstairs in Records.

At one point though, the attorney for the Township advised Jerry to drop all communications with me. Which he told me he was going to do. I told him he was remiss as clerk to let Audrey be the custodian of the case at the county courthouse when it was a Township matter to begin with. Jerry was a bit taken aback that I was ungrateful for all the running around he had been doing and we parted less than friends.

I am getting to the point.

I did a search and found Jerry's resignation letter a few years afterward.

Quote:

---

The recent allegations by a Credit River resident point out that feelings are running deep on certain issues, particularly the question as to what form of government should be adopted.

Personally, I have not taken a position on the subject of incorporation, not that it makes a difference because the clerk does not vote on the issue. My only desire has been that the board gets enough information to facilitate a good decision. The other allegations made date back two to three years, and while there is a plausible and reasonable explanation for each, I don’t feel that arguing out such detail in the newspaper will accomplish anything at this time.

---

Reading between the lines and even with the text it is clear that even as of 2010 the Credit River Township is not incorporated. That is important to my point. Between the lines is that Jerry was trying to keep everybody fully informed when considering the option of incorporating the Township, and came under attack for trying to edify people. Conjecture has it that Jerry was mentioning the Credit River Money Decision and the fact that Jerome DALY lived in his "foreclosed" house for a couple decades after the decision.

The appeal and discrediting never really hit home there in Credit River.

my only point, is that is was an 'opinion", of a "justice" court

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Binbokusai Yagyuu

my only point, is that is was an 'opinion", of a "justice" court

---

It would be interesting to evaluate what the differences are in those terms like an opinion published in WestLaw and "statutory" court or whatever. I have defended the CRMD on many forums against the attorney mindset that I misinterpreted your post as the most polite attack on it yet. The Minnesota Supreme Court shredded the CRMD as nonsense but Jerome DALY lived in his home and you can still get the published opinion, even if it is by my arrangement.

I apologize for being defensive. In any forum, Mr. MORGAN was sworn in as a witness and testified as found. You can contact Audrey BROWN in the Clark County courthouse and order a transcript. That would be interesting. I feel quite strongly that the testimony of Mr. MORGAN was informed and truthful.

What is the penalty for a bank failing to comply with 12 usc411?
What is the exact step by step procedure for bringing enforcement?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inhisimage

What is the penalty for a bank failing to comply with 12 usc411?
What is the exact step by step procedure for bringing enforcement?

---

The way I figure it the charge is counterfeiting money. If the bank starts lending fractionally with your funds on account then that extra money created off your presumed signature is not bonded by your endorsement.

Possibly you could file a Criminal Complaint?

At this time with suitors in the brain trust and even here on the forums, I am promoting you keep your own demand and records in order without monitoring the bank. The objective is to get a full refund or keep your full income. If you want to get into enforcement though, please do it scientifically and methodically so that we can examine your process for useful items.


P.S. I did not include squalking about your demand in my post here. You can find many alternatives including a broad notice of your demand served by a process server etc. I do not consider that a compliance issue. The law says nothing about the bank being able to interfere with your demand. The bank cannot interfere with your demand. If you make your demand then your demand is made.

I have existing bank accounts with signature cards and direct deposits .

Please give me your opinion on this and help me word it exactly as it should be.
Would it be effective -if- I sent to the banks, registered mail, return receipt requested this:

NOTICE OF DEMAND

All transactions, both debits and credits, involving account numbers -XXXXX- must comply with 12 USC 411

Signed: Huey Campbell, dba, HUEY CAMPBELL


Notary______________

My Commission expires_______________

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inhisimage

I have existing bank accounts with signature cards and direct deposits .

Please give me your opinion on this and help me word it exactly as it should be.
Would it be effective -if- I sent to the banks, registered mail, return receipt requested this:

NOTICE OF DEMAND

All transactions, both debits and credits, involving account numbers -XXXXX- must comply with 12 USC 411

Signed: Huey Campbell, dba, HUEY CAMPBELL


Notary______________

My Commission expires_______________

---

You are missing a few steps, but doing quite well for somebody who has been here two or three days.

Your True Name (Christian or given names) is your first and middle only. So more like:

David Merrill dba David Merrill VAN PELT

My family or surname is like a title, not part of my name but following my name it composes a legal or full name. I prefer to spell surnames in all upper case like in international convention because I think of the Title as CODE. It is a genome or memory passed down generation to generation.

But for a real clue, I have not used a legal name at all in over twelve years.

Otherwise just make your demand clear. That is all the law demands of you is that you make your demand. For example it would be a mistake to change your Signature Card and leave the bank without a copy. - That sort of thing.

There is a lot of conditioning to overcome.